Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vegaswikian (talk | contribs) at 21:36, 24 May 2005 (→Major to minor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies.

Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).

Start a new discussion in the policy section

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

Policy archive

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Articles on compilations from other sources

The article FHM-US's 100 Sexiest Women 2005 has been stuck in a debate at Wikipedia:Copyright problems over whether or not it's a copyright violation. The article lists, in order, the 100 names that had been reported in FHM magazine as the results of an annual poll it conducts (here is the 2004 list to show what it looked like). Some people are arguing that FHM has the copyright on this list. Others (including myself) think that the list itself is not copyrightable because the magazine editors did not select and rank the results; they reported the results of a poll. The magazine also added editorial content by selecting pictures and text to accompany the list, but none of this was included in the Wikipedia article so it wasn't an issue.

The issue is still unresolved. Some people say it is a copyright violation and others disagree. Unfortunately the original discussion has died down with no agreement reached. So in order to seek a wider range of information and hopefully reach a consensus, I'd like to open a discussion here. MK2 15:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The list is certainly copyrightable, regardless of whether it is a poll or not. Since FHM conducted and compiled the poll, they own the copyright to the list. Reproducing the list on Wikipedia without permission would constitute a violation of FHM's copyright. Kaldari 01:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A counterexample that others have given are lists of Academy Award winning actors, Pulitzer Prize winners, or Nobel laureates. These are all lists of people that are basically copying the work of the organizations that gave out the awards. From a legal standpoint, what is the difference between FHM-US's 100 Sexiest Women 2004 and Academy Award for Best Actor? MK2 03:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
None of those other examples are analogous because none of those compiled a ranked list that was arranged in a particular order. That an individual has been given an award or honorific constitutes an isolated fact that cannot be copyrighted, and a list of such awards organized chronologically is no more creative than the alphabetical phone book in Feist v. Rural. What is copyrightable is the compilation of an ordered list of selected individuals. If FHM did the selecting and arranging in some meaningful way that was creative rather than purely functional, then it may be copyrightable as a whole, though not in isolated references to specific parts. How was this poll conducted and compiled? If it was conducted according to standard industry phone sampling, and the list was merely compiled from a numerical tally of those results, then it would likely fail the originality test. Postdlf 04:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Interesting point, but do you think the Oscars, Pulitzers, or Nobel Prizes are awarded based on phone sampling? FHM conducting a self-selected poll of its readers and awarding the highest vote getter the title "Sexiest Woman of 2005" is no different, from a copyright standpoint, than the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences conducting a self-selecting poll of its members and awarding the highest vote getter the title "Best Actor". MK2 06:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're continuing to labor this point, because I had just said mere reporting of any standard phone survey results would not be copyrightable, without some creative editing or intervention in the process. But regardless, you need selection and arrangement to have a copyrightable compilation. Determining a winner just gets you a selection of one fact—who your winner is—but no arrangement, and independent facts can't be copyrighted, only original arrangements or expressions of facts. Conducting a poll to get a ranked list gets you selection and arrangement, so the question is then only whether there is some creative editing control over the end result, or some creative step added to the process that isn't merely functional. Postdlf 06:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think you and I are actually in agreement on this issue. In this particular case, FHM conducted a poll and printed the results - the 100 women who got the most votes ranked in order from the one who got the most votes to the one who got the 100th highest total. So there was essentially no editorial input at this point other than the decision to conduct the poll. Then the magazine added editorial content by selecting pictures and writing short text articles to accompany the results - I think everyone is in agreement that the picture selections and text are copyrightable. So as long as the Wikipedia article only list the names and their ranking it's okay. MK2 02:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, we are in agreement on that, if the poll was conducted in that manner. Postdlf 05:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Simply compiling the information is not enough. There has to be some element of originality in the selection and arrangement (see Feist v. Rural). I'd have to know more about how the poll was conducted to really state a conclusion, but it's at best an issue on the outer edge of copyrightability. I have been unable to find a single court case that has involved an infringement claim based on survey results, btw. Postdlf 02:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It would be great if instead of having just the lists (which don't really add much; a user interested in this list may as well go to the FHM website and get the pictures too) we have some analysis of the FHM-US lists as they have existed for the past 5 years. Who has appeared every year? Who has highest average position? Some commentary on how the lists were created. Not sure if this would make the copyright problem go away, but it would be more interesting content. Pcb21| Pete 08:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You may want to read below. Providing factual comparisions might skate the line with original research, but may very well meet the needs of Feist v. Rural.--ghost 04:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Re original research: The "no original research" policy always used to be about preventing crackpot physics theories turning up as fact on Wikipedia and the recent extension of its intent is harmful. In practice we have to be able to do a modicum of synthesis else everything will be copied from elsewhere. Pcb21| Pete 08:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We appear to have reached another deadlock. Based on the comments posted here and at the original discussion, this is what we have (with my paraphrasing of people's opinions)

Believe the list is protected by copyright:

  • RickK
  • Korath - FHM selected the people on the list and made the order
  • Physchim62 - FHM had creative input into the list
  • Kaldari - copyrightable because FHM conducted the poll

Believe the list is not protected by copyright:

  • MK2
  • Quadell - is not certain
  • Burgundavia - doesn't think a simple list can be copyrighted
  • Postdlf - not copyrightable unless FHM added creative input to the results of the poll

Other

  • Pcb21|Pete - suggesting adding new editorial content
  • ghost - commented on original research policy

MK2 18:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote on what the law is! It's like voting on whether gravity keeps us on the planet - a majority vote against it won't make us all float away. Leave it to the experts (in this case, Postdlf). See also Kregos v. Associated Press, 937 F.2d 700 (2d Cir. 1991), holding that a particular selection of factors to gauge the performance of pitchers could not be copyrighted, nor could a mere arrangement of such factors, but a particular arrangement of those specific factors could (e.g. not "A" alone, nor "B" alone, but "A+B" together). Here, we are not copying the arrangement, just the results of applying the particular selection of factors. -- BDAbramson talk 23:17, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

It seems to me it's hard to argue it either way. See U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Basics: What Is Not Protected by Copyright? -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Naming convention?

Okay, so recently I suggested on British cuisine that we move the article to Cuisine of Great Britain. Now, aside from the political disagreement (what is GB vs. UK, other names for it) which was not what I was getting at, there was actually a lot of debate, so I thought I would put the question to you all here. It seems to me that the proper naming convention for all country subarticles is "X of Country". This is holds true for "economy of X", "religion of X", "demographics of X", "history of X", "military history of X", "culture of X", etc. So I thought that cuisine should be no different. The reason we always put the noun form first, I think, is to avoid irregular consructions. So, let's say I want Cote d'Ivoire's cuisine, would I know how to construct Ivorian? Or Congo --> Congolese, or Equatorial Guinea --> Equatoguineans, or Kiribati --> Gilbertese, or Myanmar --> Burmese, you get the idea. Putting "Cuisine of X" allows someone with minimal knowledge to search and find the article. While British is a common construction, it should be moved for consistency's sake. Can we have some discussion on the matter, what is proper? (btw, Jooler subsequently began to move two "Cuisine of X" to "Xian cuisine" in the middle of our debate, offering no discussion as I did. It strikes me as bad faith.) --Dmcdevit 02:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regularity is a concern, but overriding even that is the convention that we should use the most common unambiguous term for something (Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things). The number of Google hits on "British food" alone (>200K) shows that this is a very commonly used term, one I've used myself. I doubt someone would come up with your title in 10 guesses. On the other hand, you could argue that "British food" is a somewhat vaguer, more general term describing any dish associated with British culture. Deco 03:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I agree that Jooler would've done better to wait until there was consensus on the matter. Moves can only be undone by admins, after all. Deco 03:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Moves can be undone by non-admins; just move the page back (as long as the redirect automatically created when moving wasn't edited, it will work). --cesarb 03:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well the problem is, if someone is looking for Great Britain's food, then British food might not be their first guess. Let's assume they don't know the construction for British, then maybe they look for "Britanish" (like Spanish), or Great British, or Britainian or whatever. But they must already know how to search for "Great Britian". This may seem far-fetched, but it certainly isn't for Kiribati. After all, how many of you knew it was Gilbertese? --Dmcdevit 03:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects can be used for that. If you think a first guess might be "great britain food", just create a redirect from Great britain food to British food. --cesarb 03:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I guess what I really wanted was to see if we could reach a consensus as to the proper naming convention for this type of article, not just a quick fix. What do you all think the correct titles should be. This is the right place to post this, right? --Dmcdevit 03:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a distinction to be made between things that can only be characteristics of countries, such as Economy of X, and cultural things which might transcend country borders: Kurdish cuisine couldn't possibly be ported to Cuisine of Kurdistan without a major war. What about Appalachian cuisine? (Cuisine of Appalachia?) —Wahoofive (talk) 05:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And I almost forgot, Klingon cuisine—Wahoofive (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't expect to see my name pop up here. Excuse me, there was no "debate". Cuisine of the United Kingdom was just plain wrong, and as I pointed out on that page, if I can get an Indian take-away consisting of a meal that was invented in Scotland (Chicken Tikka Masala) in Brick Lane in East London, prepared by a Bangladeshi chef - then putting 'Indian cuisine' at 'Cusine of India' is similarly plain wrong. The same hold true for the articles that I moved. Food is not-geo-political, it is cultural. Jooler 00:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go tell the Germans. A few years ago I had a chat with the German owner of an Indian restaurant in Frankfurt. He told me that the German authorities would give Indians short term work visas to cook in his restaurant, but not Pakistanis because "The are not Indians". Philip Baird Shearer 09:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jooler could perhaps understand that the more we use neutral (eg. geographic) rather than political (eg. culture) criteria as designators for article naming and categorization, the less time wikipedia contributors may eventually waste on moronic debates about whether baked aubergines are Turkish, Bulgarian, Syrian, Ottoman or Byzantine cuisine. Also Jooler glues geographical to political and proposes culture as the alternative. This is wrong. Culture is political and these two are bedmates, while geography is the more neutral, at least for now. If you have any doubts consult any of the articles on nations, nationalism or ethnicities. Very complicated stuff and bound to spoil the meal! --Modi 11:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I had forgotten about this listing. I agree with both of you. And the offending articles include: Austrian cuisine, Dutch cuisine, Eastern European cuisine, Filipino cuisine, Irish cuisine, Korean vegetarian cuisine, Latin American cuisine, Lithuanian cuisine, Maltese cuisine, North African cuisine, North American cuisine, Persian cuisine, and Western cuisine, which can all be moved to Cuisne of X articles. There's actually fewer of those than "Cuisine of X" articles, so this is the easier move. There's also Anglo-Indian cuisine, Bengali cuisine, and Jewish cuisine that I am less sure about. Where does this go from here? Should someone list it on RM? --Dmcdevit 16:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signature limit

I've seen some signatures starting to get rather large nowadays, using different colours for each letter of their username, for example. I saw one that took up four lines in the edit box (non-maximised window, admittedly). Should we force a signature length limit? 64 characters, for example, should be enough for most cases. violet/riga (t) 19:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you (somewhat ironically, as I have a feeling I may have been the above-mentioned user). My signature is now siginificantly cut down, and I really think that some users (Merovingian and Starblind come to mind) obstruct the editing process unnecessarily. I don't know how easy this would be. I certainly think there should also be a policy against using templates as signatures. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually Merovingian on this occasion. violet/riga (t) 20:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it certainly could have been me. ;) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I just counted. Merovingian has a 412 character sig. Of course, mine's kind of bloated, too--it's a solid 137 characters. Smoddy's comes in at 61 characters, and Violetriga's is a svelte 60. I consider myself somewhat hampered by my longer user name, however. :) Thryduulf has a point about the attention-grabbing large fonts used by a particular editor.... --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mine was 327 characters. Oops. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support this, although the signature thats annoying me at the moment is Sam Spade's and accordingly I'd add a note against using text significantly larger than normal. Thryduulf 20:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something wrong with large signatures? --User:Carnildo/sandbox
Yes. :) --TenOfAllTrades 22:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC) [reply]
LOL! —Wahoofive (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be a limit. I proposed it before. It is evil to include images and overly complex layout. When you sign your name on paper, you do it as effortlessly as possible. You do not write a 10,000-word autobiography with a 150-foot tall oil painting of your face as your signature. If you don't do it with your hands in the real world, don't do it here. -- Toytoy 12:56, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to proscribe a precise character limit, but yes, sigs that take more than a couple lines in the edit window I would agree are execessive, and should be avoided. I also agree that any enlargement (or emboldment, etc.) of the sig that implies it is more important than the surrounding text is in extremely poor taste, and should be avoided. Niteowlneils 17:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not have an absolute character limit. I especially think that 64 characters is too few. Those of us with longer user names (and I don't think that "Knowledge Seeker" is excessively long) would have difficulty squeezing if we want a link to our talk page. For instance, were I to use violet/riga's signature, but substitute my name, it bumps up the character limit to 80 or so. Even the generic [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|*]] ("Knowledge Seeker *"), which is the simplest signature I can think of that links to my talk page, uses 76 characters. I wouldn't mind a general recommendation about signature length (if a character count is specified, though, it has to be higher) and to limit excessive HTML markup. I use a single Unicode character in mine which I think it quite reasonable. I support a rule against using images and templates. I do think that using larger text for your signature is in extremely poor taste, although I don't know if I'd want a rule to say not to use it. Bold text is in rather poor taste too, I feel, unless it is to separate parts of your signature, like for user name and talk, especially if you are trying to avoid lengthy HTML markup. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, 64 is too little. One line in a standard edit box on 1024x768 is 100 characters. How about 150 or something (for the technophiles, 128 would do, I guess) and a ban on enlarging, on images, and on templates? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Wikipedia's servers seem to be severely strained these days, I'd suggest at least a temporary moratorium on images in signatures. Transclusion is also probably a bad idea for the same reason, though I admit it improves readability of the wiki markup. Should we have a semi-policy on this stuff? (Or do we already...?) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 18:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitated a long time before adding that talk page link to my signature... Somehow it disturbs the peaceful essence of my three-letter name. Of course, I care little about signature length. >:-) Incidentally, Knowledge Seeker, the signature "[[User:Knowledge Seeker|]] · [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|Talk]]" is exactly 64 characters... I'm assuming the raw signature field only counts characters, not substituted markup. JRM · Talk 18:19, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

You're correct, JRM. But that would expand to the full 76-character sig once I used it, right? So there'd really be no difference, unless I was using it to get by a software limit in the signature field. Let me see what happens to it: Knowledge Seeker · Talk. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the longer version is what appears in the edit window now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. I would assume the limit imposed was done in the signature field, because that's by far easiest to implement. Running the thing through the markup canonicalizer to count the result is more involved. (I'm making this name up, I don't know what the developers call it—anyway, it's the stage between submitting and database.) It depends on what sort of "limit" we're talking here—the generated HTML from even that simple signature above is a whopping 365 characters. Of course, if a field length limit were imposed, transclusion would have to be forbidden, otherwise there would be no point. OTOH, methods that go measure the generated HTML are a bit wobbly too, as this may easily vary. You'd have to implement something that checks the signature length every time you write it (just in case I change some transcluded template somewhere) and that's too much work. And honestly, what's the point? I can always substitute a template and add five twiddles behind it. Use peer pressure to discourage the really over-the-top signatures, but there's probably no point in trying to get the software to curb the madness reliably. The home page of the greatest man on earth! · He don't need no steenkin' signatures, ask him why not! 19:50, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
My sig is actually:
violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)
You don't need to count the rest of the markup, and that therefore makes it a tiny 40 characters. violet/riga (t) 16:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, because you chose to have a small signature you feel you have the right to impose yourself on others? Everyone would be limited to exactly the style signature you have? How untolerantly religious of you (Wikipedia really is a religion, isn't it?) - Tεxτurε 20:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see an anthropological analysis of these signatures. I'm not an anthropologist, but I'll make my observations anyway... My guess is that since the signature is about the only image we show to each other, it has become a form of plumage. I'll wager that most fancy signatures belong to young, males on the make. Also, the signatures send a message that the user is very technologically savvy. Most users don't know how to make those fancy sigs, so the message that they send is, "Don't mess with me, I'm smart, and I've been around here a long time, so you better not revert what I write!". Now, I don't think we should encourage either message, so I think we should limit signatures to ~~~~ . I'm serious! -- Samuel Wantman 07:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Wikipedians are not male peacocks. -- Toytoy 08:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
The breakdown of Wikipedian Community is directly related to the inability of the human mind to manage large numbers of reputations informally. While nothing can completely evade the m:Rule of 150, colorful signatures help delay the crisis. A sig does indeed reveal a little something about member personality; more important, it provides a mnemonic handle for readers to grab onto. Other forums have avatars to aid in informal reputation management; we have customized sigs.
I oppose any hard-and-fast rule limiting what one may put into one's sig. Members with absurd and offensive sigs self-identify as dicks; and this is very helpful to the rest of us.
Or, for example, take my sig -- (please!) — Xiong熊talk*. It links to four distinct pages: User:Xiong, Special:Emailuser/Xiong, User talk:Xiong, and User:Xiong/Metatalk -- all of which I hope may be actually useful to some readers. Additionally, it answers the perennial question: "What does Xiong mean?" and declares my pseudo-Chinese identity and my otherwise somewhat boring conventional methods. This is a resource for readers who may not be inclined to spend the time to go looking elsewhere -- and, best of all, ultra-ascetics who think it is too elaborate can label me as a self-indulgent old fool and move on.
(That said, templates and images in sigs really do identify users, and not in a good way.) -- User:11001001 08:42, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Most Wikipedia talk pages are participated by less than 150. Even in a group of inter-related pages (astronomy, modern European history, Star Wars universe, mammals, policy ...), active and frequent contributors seldom exceed this number (my well-educated guess).
If you visit w:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, you may find many if not most top 20 or 50 contributors are those whom you don't know about. Why? Because they do not contribute to your part of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a big bowl of primordial soup of one hundred zillion faceless unicellular organisms. Wikipedia is composed of hundreds of small bays each populated with as many as dozens of species. Fancy signatures, in my opinion, are usually not needed.
I know a talk page created by three could be visited by each man, woman or dog in China. But if you do not participate, the other billion people do not need to know about you anyway. If a discussion is participated by 20, you only need to know these 20 names. In my opinion, the only important part of my speech is the content. We shall not encourage people to judge the quality of a message based on the poster's identity. Reputation is somewhat useful in other Internet forums, but it is not the most important thing here in Wikipedia.
Most customized signature are:
  • poorly designed (without a standardized and intuitive interface);
  • annoying to most uninterested readers;
  • making the page difficult to work with.
I don't think signatures are really needed. You don't need a vanity plate to drive your car on the highways. If vanity plates are free (as in "free beer"), every driver on earth will ask for one. Since they are not free, few people bother to own one. How many of you are going to pay $5 a month for your beautiful and useful signatures? -- Toytoy 15:11, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Xiong's argument brings up another point. I would never have known that your sig linked to four different places if you hadn't said so (and I've seen your sig many times). Why do you need all those links? Has anyone ever emailed you? (No one's ever emailed me from WP.) Why would anyone even know you have a "Metatalk" page (whatever that is)? Even the many users who have "Talk" pages in their sigs (including me), I'm starting to think is kind of useless. It saves somebody ONE click if they want to post to your talk page. Is that worth it? Same with contributions list; ONE click. Whereas it's cluttering up talk pages in hundreds of places. Since the practical benefit of custom sigs is pretty much nil, and they're only for vanity, some limits would be reasonable. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most of us has at least a telephone with at least a speedy dial button. I guess most of you had already known my home phone number (555-1234, if you forget my number). Now, I urge you to enter my number into your telephone so you can dial my number in 1 second rather than in 5 seconds.
I don't think many of you have that unstoppable impulse to give me one call. Even if I advertise my toll-free telephone number during a football game, I will hardly get a phone call. That's why I am confortable with my unattractive signature. -- Toytoy 17:02, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
It saves only one click, yes, but it also saves a rather lengthy page load. Wikipedia usually runs slow for logged-in users. --Carnildo 19:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the above, I've knocked my signature down from 309 characters to 235... Guess I'll see if I can trim it some more. -- BDAbramson thimk 20:02, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
    • Gave up my thimk to get it down to 153, which is not unreasonable, I think. -- BDAbramson talk 20:13, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

I think we should all endeavor to be more like ! :) --Dmcdevit 01:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style changed with small amount of discussion

A long-standing part of the Manual of Style was recently neutered after less than a week's unpublicized discussion between less than a half-dozen Wikipedians. I strongly feel that any such changes should only be made after trying to solicit input from as many editors as possible. I don't like instruction creep, so I am reluctant to suggest a new policy, but I would think it should be common sense that any change to Wikipedia-wide policy should have the support of at least 20-30 editors, not 4 or 5. The specific instance I am referring to is here. Niteowlneils 00:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temp pages

The Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan includes complaints that he has created Temp pages for articles (such as Wee Kim Wee/temp), produced new versions of articles, and then simply replaced the existing articles with his own versions, that he has placed notices with links to the Temp pages on the articles, and that he has placed notices on his temp pages telling other editors not to edit them. Part of his defence is that another User – indeed, an admin – has done the same, and that user has confirmed that he does it. It seems to me that this is contrary to the Wikipedia in a number of ways.

  1. Details of Temp pages are for editors, not readers, so should be placed on Talk pages.
  2. Temp pages that involve developing new versions of articles, should be like ordinary articles in that they're edited collaboratively, not treated as one editor's property.
  3. Articles that are being actively edited by a number of editors should not be replaced wholesale with one editor's preferred new version.

What is the general feeling about this? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that temp pages are only really acceptable with the copyvio stuff. Who is this rogue admin? Surely the user can create their own subpage to edit from? And I really don't see that a user can ever take ownership of an article. Articles belong to the wikipedia community, not individuals. I agree completely with your points. We should certainly not create /temp pages in the main namespace – apart from anything, that gives an article name, not a subpage. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that temp pages can be useful in various situations (though I feel in general that there are better ways of doing things), but my points are:

  1. A notice about them should appear on the Talk page, not the article.
  2. They should not contain a warning to other editors not to touch them.
  3. When an article is being actively edited by a number of editors, a temp page shouldn't be used to impose a new version wholesale.

1. and 2. have been done on Maharashtra, Wee Kim Wee, and Zanskar; 3. has been done on Zanskar. I've removed the offending notices, and I'll keep an eye on the relevant articles to make sure that they're not misused. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on point 2. If the goal fo creating a temp page is to work on reorganizing / rewriting a page to get beyond a POV or content dispute, then having an editor claim limited ownership over that rewrite can be a useful thing. Creating a well-written, balanced article is hard work, and that can be made a whole lot harder if each time one makes a change that someone disagrees with it gets trashed before one has a chance to finish presenting all sides. So I can respect someone that wants to be left alone while preparing a new version. Of course, once they are satisfied with what they have written, then it needs to be editted by other parties and consensus developed for whether the new version (or parts thereof) should replace the old one. Dragons flight 13:44, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
If you want to work on an article alone, I'd suggest the following procedure:
  1. Put the temp page in your user space: User:Joe/Foo instead of Foo/temp
  2. Announce that page on the talk page of the article, and pay attention to the reception of that announcement
  3. Put a notice at the top of your temp page, that asks people (nicely) not to edit the page, and to put any comments or criticism at the talk page of the temp page
  4. When you're satisfied, say so at the article talk page, and invite people to start editing the temp page
  5. Don't replace the article until there is a rough consensus that your version is better.
I think that following those rules would greatly enhance your chance of having the new version accepted. Eugene van der Pijll 15:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I do not understand how you define offending messages. If you think that's it, I think your behaviour depicts three times worse than what mine is.

Tan 22:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since my name has been brought here over my methodology, I would like to add my inputs.

  1. I 'only use temp pages to create Featured Articles. I have not used a temp page for any other purpose. I know that my temp version may be a POV. Hence I use the Peer Review and FAC, thus ensuring that the edited matter is far from a POV as it has undergone the rigours of the community review. An admin wishing to verify may see the following deleted temp pages: Mumbai/temp, Cricket/temp, Kalimpong/temp and Sikkim/temp. Tan's temp pages on the other hand does not aim to achieve the FA status so may be open to bias.
  2. I disagree with Mel that the temp page should be open to other editors. (I'll expand on this and more points later.... I'm currently pretty ill... and may not log on to 'pedia for sometime)  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
I should stress that, though I don't really like the use of temp pages in article space (I agree with the approach described by Eugene van der Pijll), I'm not suggesting that Nichalp is guilty of anything beyond adding editorial notices and links to the tops of articles,and asking other editors not to interfere (though I certainly don't accept the former, and I don't think that the latter is good practice). My concern was primarily with Mr Tan's use of temp pages to circumvent normal collaborative editing.
I'm sorry to hear that Nichalp is unwell; I hope that he recovers soon, and is able to present his arguments for his position. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming after where I left off...

  1. Wikipedia provides some sort of limited singular editing viz. the {{inuse}} template.
  2. As for the notice on top of the page... I had seen it on another article long before I used this method. If its bad practice or un-wiki-like, I won't use it again.
  3. Many editors use a dialup connection or access the net during fixed hours. By using a temp page they can edit offline and dump the day's work on the temp page, previewing and self-copyediting. If the temp page is open to edits, its very difficult to keep track of the changes and modify the offline document. In this regard I support the use of the "Please don't edit sign; User Talk instead" to allow the user the freedom to edit, as well as receive feedback on the ongoing work on the temp article. I also feel that work on the temp page should be advertised somewhere, so that other wikipedians are kept in cognizance of the work in progress. No, it does not circumvent collaborative editing, it compliments it; provided the temp page is not a gross POV or contains worse English.
  4. If policy on the temp page says that it should be kept in my namespace not the article namespace, I'm more than willing to comply.

 =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 20:04, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I was involved in the process that User:Nichalp describes for Cricket / Cricket/temp and it worked extremely well. The page had become an unintegrated mess of individual comments. Rather than rewrite in situ, there was agreement to take the rewrite offline to a /temp page, and for User:Nichalp to take primary authorship of the rewrite. Once User:Nichalp was finished, the interested parties amended, copyedited, etc, until all were happy with the result, and the /temp page was copied to main article space. While the rewrite was in progress, a message was added at the top of Cricket pointing to Cricket/temp, so new readers would be aware that a new version was under way (intended to prevent new information being added that would inevitably be deleted when the /temp version went live), and asking for editors to refrain from editing Cricket/temp until User:Nichalp. Throughout, there was substantial on-going discussion on Talk:Cricket (see the first couple of archives) and Talk:Cricket/temp, and the result was a well-polished, NPOV, featured-standard article that sailed through WP:FAC.
I'm not aware of the issues in this case, but I think this kind of process does need all of the interested parties to be content. I've used a similar method (although without quite the same excellence of result) to clean up Pharaoh / Pharaoh/Temp. Perhaps the /temp articles should be in user-space not article-space, but does it really matter? For example, {{copyvio}} asks you to rewrite the article in a /temp temporary subpage. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Designating a representative...

I am an alumnus of Alpha Phi Omega, National Service Fraternity. After publicizing the previously existing Wikipedia page for the fraternity, various members of our National Board have expressed concern over the contents of the Wikipedia entry not being under their control. I'm trying to balance the desires of our National Board (specifically the Marketing Director) with the standards of Wikipedia. I'm *not* including the disclaimer that the Fraternity wants on all chapter and region websites, but have provided a great deal of contact information for those wishing further (and thus official) information. (its not on the current page, it was modified, go back to the page prior to 1500 on 15May (two revisions ago at this point)).

The marketing director would like for proposed changes to at least be checked with a representative of the National Office (likely to be me, unless I violently flee from it.)

Suggestions on balancing here? I *know* there will be a Wikipedia page for my Fraternity no matter what happens because even if I erase it all, someone will add to the information on the page. Would it be proper to place a note stating that I would prefer to be checked with before changes are made?

Thank You Randolph Finder (Naraht)

Member (because I didn't run fast enough) Alpha Phi Omega National Marketing Committee.

Naraht 20:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Members of Alpha Phi Omega are welcome to contribute to the article—just like everybody else. If you add the article to your watchlist, then you will be notified when changes are made. (Click the "watch" button at the top of the article page.) If you are concerned about the factual accuracy of any contributions, feel free to edit them. I would recommend describing your reasoning on the article's talk page if you make any really major revisions. You can also include a note on the article Talk page indicating that you're available as a resource for article editors. Although you can certainly encourage people to consult with you, Wikipedia policy discourages article ownership or control by individual editors. You will likely meet signficant resistance if you try to compel editors to permit you to review all article updates prior to posting, and there is no mechanism in Wikipedia for instituting such a system. Hope that helps. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 21:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am watching the page already. I do try to keep track of all changes. I'll implement the other suggestions here. All information about being a resource will be moved there, with a note (as I've seen on some other pages) to check out the discussion page.
Keep in mind that no organization can totally control what is written about them here. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 03:07, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, but the organization discussed can in some cases be the most useful source of information about it. And some of that information is not necessarily POV, it may simply be that they have the most complete archives.

New poll on whether or not Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point should become policy

Please vote. Intrigue 21:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Talk pages should never be policy. RickK 19:26, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Street addresses

It has been brought to my attention that street addresses are not encylopedic. When is it acceptable to include an address? Apparently it is not OK for a building but is OK for Amtrak stations based on changes being made. Vegaswikian 02:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not addressed the subject, so I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Street addresses. I agree with the edit to the policy, to the effect that an article on a city wouldn't normally include street addresses of particular establishments. A more specific article can, however, appropriately include its subject's street address. JamesMLane 15:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm sure context is everything. SchmuckyTheCat 15:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I generally take a dim view of including street addresses in articles, as that's what the external link to the subject's site is for. In most cases, it's TMI in terms of explaining the entity. Exceptions would include entities that reside on famous streets, such as Rodeo Drive. This, of course, is wholly my opinion. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 03:10, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
You've made the assumptions that there is an external site for every subject, and that external sites will maintain content according to your desire. I don't think we can count on either.
Street addresses are a locational reference that enhances the reliability of the articles that include them. Some see them as trivia, but I consider them vital data. The obvious hypothetical example (only because I don't know any real ones off hand) would be an article about a historic building in a neighborhood of similar brownstones. (This would typically occur if a famous person or event was associated with a particular building.) An article like that should never be without the street address, even if it exists on an external "official" site. I'm not sure there is such thing as "TMI", if the information is organized, indexed and presented properly. --Unfocused 03:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the role of an encyclopedia to give exact addresses for places. It's about describing the place and its general vicinity. That should be enough. Most places have websites for them where specific location and directions are provided. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 04:24, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Web sites and the map sites don't always have the address. I ran into this a few days ago. I spent the better part of an hour trying to find an address for a place. The offical site did not include the address nor did the map sites. Also in some cities, the address will tell you where in town the building is located. So far, no one has stated that this is in fact a policy so, while some may not like it, apparently there is nothing that prevents it from being done. Right? Vegaswikian 05:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Frequently the most accurate way to describe a place is to give an exact address. I believe the limit you set for Wikipedia is arbitrary ("should be enough") and not relevant when terabytes of data storage space can be bought for a few thousand dollars. An address is a clear and verifiable fact. I see no reason to ever exclude it.--Unfocused 06:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL on Talk pages

There is an editor who wishes to contribute to Wikipedia, but who does not wish to license his Talk page contributions under the GFDL. (He has no problem with the normal licensing of his contributions throughout the remainder of Wikipedia.) I am not an intellectual property lawyer and not qualified to address the correctness of his legal claims, nor am I familiar with any Wikipedia policy which allows individual editors to exempt specific contributions from the GFDL.

Extensive discussion on his user talk page has failed to reach a conclusion, so I would invite discussion and commment from a wider audience. Are there are any historical cases/discussions on Wikipedia of editors who wished to restrict the distribution and licensing of their contributions? Since this is a general question, it might make sense to move the discussion here: out of user space. Assistance appreciated. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the whole discussion, I think I can find these two points:
  1. Pioneer-12 is allowed to copyright and license his writing in any way he wants.
  2. Wikimedia is not bound to accept any contribution. As it is WikiMedia policy to only accept GFDL contributions, there is no reason that WikiMedia should allow contributions under any other license.
Thus, I would say, Pioneer-12 should either accept the GFDL, which he has already done by submitting his writing, or not use the Talk: namespace. He cannot pick and choose the GFDL: it is obligatory, even if other licences are appended. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Smoddy, and point out that it is impossible to do what Pioneer-12 describes, as:
  1. The edit page always specifies that "All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License"
  2. All contributions are immediately served over a banner releasing them under the GFDL.
Demi T/C 17:26, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
Pioneer-12 added his copyright statement to his user page on 23:06, 11 May 2005. The license of the contributions to talk pages and singned contributions anywhere, that were added after that point in time, is uncertain. If Pioneer-12 really thought he was allowed to submit non-GFDL'ed texts, the license may indeed not be GFDL, now that wikipedia has been notified of that fact. It's for the judges to decide, if it would ever come that far, but his intent is now known, and could be decisive. His later contributions should probably be removed, if nothing changes.
His contributions before that date are probably still GFDL'ed, as the GFDL cannot be revoked, I believe. And his unsigned contribution to pages other than talk pages are still OK. (Note: IANAL) Eugene van der Pijll 17:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though laws on the Internet are still relatively new, I have heard that any form on a web page is treated just like a normal contract, and that hitting the submit button is essentially signing your name on that contract. Thus, everytime this user submits a new edit, he agrees to the disclaimers on the edit page: "All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License". 10qwerty 23:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 10qwerty and have posted my reasoning more fully on Pioneer-12's talk page. I'll add, in response to Eugene van der Pijll's comment, that Pioneer-12 is free to make a counteroffer to Wikipedia, in which he offers to make his posts to talk pages available without charge but doesn't agree to license them under the GFDL. Wikipedia hasn't accepted that counteroffer, though. The failure to go around after him and remove each of his posts couldn't reasonably be construed as acceptance. JamesMLane 11:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reluctantly suggest that this editor should be blocked from editing as he disputes the terms of use of Wikipedia. I will do so and raise the matter on the mailing list Wikien-L. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was rather hoping noone would say that... Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 15:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I find the idea of blocking someone over this to be downright offensive. Pioneer-12 has done nothing harmful to Wikipedia - he has merely asserted a legal right of uncertain application. -- BDAbramson talk 20:22, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
Actually, what Pioneer-12 has done is possibly the single most damaging thing an ordinary user can. Simple vandalism can be undone with the revert button, and incorrect facts will be found sooner or later, but adding material with an un-free license can only be undone by either getting the license changed, or by deleting his edits and every newer edit. It doesn't matter that it's on talk pages rather than article pages: the law treats them all the same. --Carnildo 22:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it offensive to block a user who has stated a firm intention not to comply with Wikipedia's clearly stated terms of use, while politely offering to continue further discussion in another forum? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pioneer-12 explicitly stated that he accepts the GDFL for his edits to articles. His effort to maintain the copyright on his talk page comments is only an issue if someone either a) alters his words to make it appear that he has said something that he didn't, or b) copies them without attribution in a degree that exceeds fair use. Either of these actions would be against Wikipedia policy anyway, and Pioneer-12 would only have a cause of action against the individual responsible, not against Wikipedia. I doubt very much that Pioneer-12 is actually going to file a lawsuit in federal court to recover nominal damages for such a violation. Even if he is correct in asserting his copyright, you can still delete his posts, or quote from them, or parody them. In any event, the GFDL may not even be enforceable, we do not know. Any one of us could turn around and claim a copyright in work that we've contributed anywhere, so there is no prophylactic value in blocking the one person who has only attempted to clearly delineate ownership of certain contributions, which none of us has any business infringing anyway. -- BDAbramson talk 14:56, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

So much cross-pollination occurs between talk pages and the articles themselves that I don't see any other options. Tracking just one user's submission under non-compliant licensing would be an administrative nightmare; if everyone were permitted to choose different licenses for their talk pages, we'd have to completely separate the talk from the rest of the project, destroying the community nature of the project. I support an immediate block, only because it is necessary to protect the project. --Unfocused 15:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him indefinitely (which is of course reversible) and, assuring him that he has not done anything wrong, politely invited him to subscribe to Wikien-L. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

blocked or not, he accepts to publish his edits under GFDL whenever he clicks submit. In this case, he just seems to have GFDL'd the exclamation "my contributions to talk pages are my own!". I agree with the block though. dab (ᛏ) 15:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, from one point of view, whether he wants to or not, by virtue of his making his comments, he is submitting them using the GFDL (phew, a main verb...). I do, however, agree with the block, as it avoids unnecessary legal wrangling. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 15:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, this is a legal dispute. Whatever you or I say, it's just an opinion, and he has his opinions which differ. That's why I blocked him, because while we're in dispute on licensing any part of his contributions he shouldn't be allowed to contribute to Wikipedia. We all submit to the terms and conditions, it's something we do so that Wikipedia can work. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read the most interesting article on a related topic - Jason B. Wacha , Taking the Case: Is the GPL Enforceable?, 21 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 451 (2005) if anyone is interested. The author debunks many arguments against the enforceability of GNU General Public License, and some (but not all) of his arguments would apply to the GFDL. However, I still maintain the opinion that the GFDL would not be enforceable in the face of an explicit placement of a copyright notice. Copyright is a very strong presumption in the U.S., and I doubt a court would give any credence to a the GFDL unless there was a fairly unequivocal acceptance of the terms. Furthermore, there is such a thing as "termination rights" which cause copyrights to "snap back" to the original author after a set period (I believe 28 years) even if they originally licensed them away. Wikipedians ought to be lobbying Congress to make the enforceability fo the GFDL (or the equivalent) the law of the land - that is the only way to achieve a sure resolution of this problem absent a legal battle that ends in the Supreme Court. -- BDAbramson thimkact 04:39, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

NPOV requires us to use BCE/CE rather than BC/AD

I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I don't get is, if someone (as I guess I do) accepts the inherent POV in BC/AD, isn't using the Common Era naming only only slightly less POV at best? I mean, why would someone say that the Common Era happens to begin with Jesus? The implication of calling it "Common era" is that you're trying to say it's everyone's Common era, and not just Christians. But if we were to hypothetically assume that Jesus had never existed, would we have the same Gregorian (from Pope Gregory) concept of "common"? Would Jews, and Hindus, and Chinese, and atheists, and whoever else? Probably not. It strikes me as a lot like substituting "intelligent design" for creationism. So the choices seem to be these: turn the entire Wikipedia upside down coming up with some sort of new dating system that is inherently NPOV (even non-religious), if that's even possible, or go with the overwhelmingly common convention of BC/AD. And I don't think the "common era" is even a really valid option, being neither NPOV or a common convention. --Dmcdevit 23:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The English wikipedia will use that convention which is most common to English speakers. Welcome to anno domini. And really, if you use "CE/BCE", that doesn't make it any less POV at all - the numbers are still based on Christ. If we renamed Showa 41 to, say, Bozo 41, does that mean the numbering system still isn't based on the reign of Hirohito? They are two letters. Get over it. --Golbez 23:33, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't know that I necessarily agree -- it doesn't make a huge different but the truth of the matter is that the BCE/CE vs BC/AD thing is a dispute based on the fact that our calendar has a religious origin. That said, I prefer BCE/CE and consider BC/AD to be a bit of an archaism at this point, but it's only just becoming so in the last twenty years or so. I would suggest that it's a nonissue, and let individual editors do as they wish. Both conventions are well understood in the English language. Haikupoet 23:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Golbez—it should be based entirely on established convention, rather than whether that convention may further a sectarian agenda. If AD and BC are still the most commonly used date references in academia, media, etc., then they still should be used. Maybe it should be context specific; say, if anthropologists are shown to chiefly use BCE/CE, then articles on anthropological subjects should use those too. Or maybe we should just leave it in a state of nature and all promise never to edit war over this? Postdlf 23:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, but of course where this comes up is in articles like Jesus, where the terms have an additional connotation. Jesus skeptics (such as the Jesus Seminar, Karen Armstrong, etc.) almost uniformly use the CE/BCE notation, whereas Christians universally use the AD/BC system, so whichever one is chosen itself colors the content of the article. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of like Postdlf's idea. Maybe it should be like our American vs. British spellings: totally up to the discretion of the editor as long as it's internally consistent. PS, has there ever been a debate about this in the WP community at large? I can tell Slrubenstein put a lot of work into this, but did anyone else besides him ever express serious concern for making a policy for this? --Dmcdevit 03:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You kidding us right? This is at least the fifth debate on this issue in the last two years, and the current policy, which looks set to be retained in view of the current vote, is the result of those debates. Pcb21| Pete 07:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that I've always read BCE/CE as "Before Christian Era"/"Christian Era", I don't think it makes any difference whether we use BC/AD or BCE/CE. --Carnildo 04:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fun and games

Category:Wikipedia games has grown to include not only a Wikipedia-based trivia contest, but also story writing pages, and now, an international chess championship. Is this OK? -- Beland 06:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have a hangman tournament, too. I've added a few of these pages to WP:VFD; I guess we'll see what people think there. -- Beland 03:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Contributers editing vandalism in progress

I notice that vandals sometimes remove their IPs from Vandalism in progress. Although many anonymous contributers help the project greatly before deciding that WikiPedia is for real and creating a login, most people reporting vandalism in V.i.p have accounts (by the time people discover V.i.p., they already have accounts). Most anonymous IPs editing V.i.p. are vandals. They remove their IPs and steal themselves a few more hours before being blocked. We should require an account for editing V.i.p.

--

— Ŭalabio 07:15, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

  • That's an impossible proscription. It would require a change in the Wikipedia code, as of now there are no limitations as to who can or cannot edit any articles, except for non-admins editing protected pages. We could protect the Vip page, but that would mean only admins would be able to edit it, and that's not tenable. RickK 19:31, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


Massive lists

I went a head and broke up a massive List of biomedical terms into smaller sections. Some are still long but it is better than the ultra massive page we had before. Lists of biomedical topics: | # | 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

My real question is do massive lists such as this one serve a sensible role?

Many of the topics are not linking since they are not articles or stubs and never will be. Unless someone is willing to manually fix the links to the appropriate pages these lists will never be a useful indexing aid. For example, the topic antisense nucleic acid in the biomedical list should be linked to Morpholino or Antisense mRNA or Antisense therapy. The fact it does not link to any of these highlights the problems with unedited lists. We certainly do not want another antisense page yet these lists are almost invitations to start a new article. In contrast, I think we need to be consolidating pages such as the three antisense articles since they could easily be merged together.

Also note that despite this list being huge it is not up to date since none of Morpholino or Antisense mRNA or Antisense therapy are in the list. Yet 75% of the lists content does not link to an article. This seems like a terrible way to index material.

Another point that others have mentioned is that some of the categories in this list are completely off topic. i realise that this list was compiled by NIH, nevertheless it is clear that many categories in these lists do not belong. David D. 21:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is relevant to the topic, I would like to add, what about massive list dumps to Requested articles? (e.g. pharmacology terms, AIDS terms, biology terms, anatomy terms, legal terms) Dragons flight 23:40, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Yes these list dumps seem to be a similar problem. One of the first biology terms I saw was for Drooling plants??? The main problem with these lists is that many of these terms are already covered extensively in other pages. Many of those red links should be redirects in my opinion, not new articles. David D. 23:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Death Penalty

Please overview this new policy proposal and give your opinions on it. LevelCheck 01:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I have been adding links to my site [Law-Ref.org] where I am gradually indexing and crosslinking important international documents (UN conventions and other treaties, EU and US constitutions, ...). Today I have received a talk message naming this a link spam: [[1]] While I have also a private motivation as links from Wikipedia are obviously very useful, I do not consider my links to be a spam as I am convinced they are useful because:

  • I am always asking a question before adding the link: would I consider the link useful in case I was not the author?
  • while official documents are available on the Web I am not aware of any resource which would offer indexes to these documents and crosslink them together

Examples of my links in Wikipedia:

and just at this moment, when I was writting this message and was looking for a second example I discovered that the author of the talk message started to remove my links without ending the disscussion with me


I am planning to add other links to my crosslinked documents when available and remove the last edits by User:Rhobite which removed my links, but I will do it only if I am confirmed that my contributions so far are not to be considered as spam. --nicmila 07:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rhobite even removed my link to:
    *TREATY ESTABLISHING A CONSTITUTION FOR EUROPE

According to my opinion indexes to 100+ pages of text are of some value. 

             --nicmila 09:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nicmila, on my talk page you said "Marketing is a necessary part of any serious webmaster or programmer work (especially open source one) and there is nothing to be shameful about this as long as your work is of a high quality." You're right, and I hope your web site succeeds - but you need to market it somewhere else. Please don't continue using Wikipedia for marketing purposes. If your site becomes popular, there is a chance Wikipedia users will add links to the proper articles. Unfortunately you added several links to a wide range of articles, and many of them had little to do with the actual text of the laws you host. Rhobite 14:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
can you please corroborate your claim
  • """ you added several links to a wide range of articles, and many of them had little to do with the actual text of the laws you host"""

with an example of such a case?

You have removed some links from pages where relevance must be obvious to everyone, and from others where relevance is obvious to me. In some cases I can see opposite points in some not. I have asked you to point to other resources which are better suitable for addition - your single criterion "it must be spam because it points to your site" is rather strange. I have an expertize in some fields and have produced quite a lot of usable public source materials, some of them in the field of XML were translated to many languages and they are widely used around the world, see Zvon.org - Miloslav Nic. Being rather busy I would not even argue about these deletions although I consider them senseless and based on a very strange criteria. But as I am trying to understand how the wikipedia process works it is a useful exercise. External links are the things I am using from Wikipedia most often and consider them extremely useful as they are quite often of high quality. At this moment I am convinced that if you want to find hidden connections in international treaties, you should use Law-Ref.org. Because I am the author of the engine it is not a modest claim, but I still argue it is true. I would like to know if Rhobite really tried the links before deleting them and btw. also if this discussion is of interest to anyone than me. As I am thinking about Wikipedia quite a lot in recent weeks, I may be reached at address [email protected] if somebody is interested in informal disscussion. I consider preparation of a very short research paper about pros and cons of wikipedia and opinion of people who are not anonymous would be valuable. --nicmila 05:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP-worthiness of professors

Votes for deletion/Nicholas J. Hopper appears to have turned into an argument over whether (or which) professors are automatically worthy of their own entries. That strikes me as an odd place for such a discussion. I think a much better place would be the talk page of whichever page it is that talks about the "average professor test" (or similar) -- but unfortunately I forget where that was. Perhaps somebody who remembers can post a link below, and encourage the participants in the relevant (lower) chunk of Votes for deletion/Nicholas J. Hopper to discuss it there. But if I'm wrong and Votes for deletion/Nicholas J. Hopper is a good place for this discussion, well, this is a heads-up for interested parties to head over there and discuss.

(If anybody's interested, my own opinions on this matter are confused; and as I can't be bothered to sort them out, I'm keeping mum for the most part.) -- Hoary 08:40, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

I think the discussion should be moved to a page ot its own. The issue comes up often enough and needs to be sorted out. Tupsharru 08:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are universities inherently encyclopedic – or not?

I naïvely thought there was a consensus that institutions of tertiary education were considered "inherently notable" or "encyclopedic" or whatever term you want to use. This would be useful, as it would keep a lot of potentially contentious articles away from VfD and thus waste less contributor time on deletion discussions.

In the last few weeks there have however been two cases of institutions of higher education being nominated for deletion, first the Claremont School of Theology, and currently the Avans Hogescholen (Avans University) in the Netherlands. Although they were both listed partly because the state of the stubs, my suspicion is that a contributing factor was the presence of the word "school" in the names of both articles. In both cases I have seen voters vote "Delete. Non-notable" or similar even after the article has been cleaned up and it has been explained that this is in fact not a secondary school, but an institution of tertiary education.

Although I am tempted, I would prefer not to believe that some people are so dense that they vote "delete" without as much as looking at the previous discussion. The conclusion must be that there a significant number of people who think that we should weigh notability in the case of universities and colleges as well. Am I right? I have asked for explanations at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Avans Hogescholen, but have so far not received any reply.

If there is a consensus for keeping all articles on universities and colleges and comparable institutions, I think that ought to be made clear. Then these discussions can be avoided, or closed and the articles sent to cleanup as soon as the character of an institution has been made clear. If there is not such a consensus, there are a lot of articles on U.S. community colleges, many of which are two-line stubs, which could be purged. I don't think anybody could claim that a community college is notable. Generally speaking, I think most tertiary-level institutions with only undergraduate studies and no or very little research are to be regarded as of dubious notability, unless they are particularly prestigious or important in some way. But do we really want to go down that road? Tupsharru 08:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that a glance at the majority of VfD votes will confirm that yes, many people are so dense (or bigoted) that they'll vote without reading the discussion. The trouble is, though, that decideing policy (or general consensus) is useless here, because even when there is one, people will still vote the way that they do anyway. If policy overrode VfD votes, that would be another matter. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The behaviour that really gets on my wick - person A) will say "I think X". B) will say "No X is incorrect, because of W,Y and Z" and then person C comes along and says "Oh yes A I agree with you!", and completely ignore the cogent argument of B that is staring them in the face. Pcb21| Pete 12:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In these situations the best thing to do is rewrite/expand the article so that the point becomes moot. Pcb21| Pete 12:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is frequently near impossible. I know that I am incapable of writing >20 articles a day. This is the volume that a single user is feeding into VfD. Further, it appears that many users will vote delete, simply because it is a school that they have no first hand knowledge of, even after the articles are cleaned.--Unfocused 13:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard for me to imagine an accredited institution of higher learning that is not encyclopedia-worthy. A given article might be lousy, but the topic would still be legitimate. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Jmabel, but the mention of accreditation rings a warning bell. I believe that in some nations there's accreditation and accreditation: some of the degree mills that The Economist persists in allowing to advertise boast of accreditation (in ways that are clearly meaningless) while of course keeping mum about lack of meaningful accreditation. I vaguely remember that one username that's active at WP was insisting on the inclusion of degree mills, the last time I looked, avoiding or even deleting any mention of "degree mill" or similar (terms that he claimed were PoV). The "university" should, for starters, have a physical location that's more than a mere mailing address (which would not exclude genuine "universities of the air") and should identify its teachers. -- Hoary 06:21, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
There are so many Bible colleges that do correspondance course degrees often only needing a letter describing the clients 'life experience' to buy a degree even Ph.D. I note Patriot Bible University is in wikipedia. No doubt they will use the fact they are in the wikipedia to bolster their credibility despite their lack of real accreditation. I don't mind there being articles about the existance of these diploma mill universities but it seems a bit silly that they have their own page. Wikipedia will end up like the yellow pages at that rate. David D. 07:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would say that a school with no physical location and "odd" accreditation would typically not be notable. BTW, I notice the remark above about community colleges: I'm not sure I'd want to assert that all community colleges are notable, but in my experience, most of the ones I know anything about are. There's usually at least an interesting story as to how each one came to be. Many of them have been quite catalytic to the communities in which they are located. Many have had very interesting evolutions of their mission. Quite a few are first-rate teaching institutions. No small number have been interesting in terms of political organizing. If the articles are currently stubs, that doesn't mean that there is no story to be told. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Semi-policy

User:Radiant! has taken it upon himself to delete the content of Wikipedia:Semi-policy and redirect it to Category:Wikipedia guidelines based, as far as I can tell, on the contents of four CFD votes against Category:Wikipedia semi-policy, and his dislike for the recent vote at Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

This strikes me as grossly out of process, since it appears no general discussion of the virtues of semi-policy has occurred and there has not been any general notice of this proposed change or a VfD posted for the page Wikipedia:Semi-policy.

Perhaps consensus will support Radiant!'s position, but I believe it at least needs to be discussed before such actions are taken. Dragons flight 14:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ammendment: There is also some discussion of this change at Wikipedia talk:Semi-policy. Dragons flight 14:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Fair enough, but this has been extensively discussed in such places as WP:POINT (talk page) and WP:AN/I. Nobody has been able to give a sensible definition of the word 'semi-policy', nor has the existence of semi-policy ever been policy (and yes, I realize the paradox therein). Thus, I have been WP:BOLD in clearing up the confusion, and I stand by my action. Radiant_* 14:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This shouldn't be too big of a deal; this is just substituting the word "guideline" for the term "semi-policy". They mean, as far as anyone can tell, the same thing, and the former is older. The renaming process shouldn't promote anything to official policy or demote anything to rejected or thinktank status, unless it's been labelled improperly. Has that been happening? Other than that minor concern, I say hurray for streamlining. -- Beland 02:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is a big deal because I believe that there have been some Wikipedia namespace articles that have been "upgrade" when they have been labeled at "Guidlines" although I don't think that they have the consensus support for that label. Wikipedia:Google test is one example that I don't think should be labeled as a Guideline. BlankVerse ∅ 15:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with Radiant's agenda, even I'll admit that his aggressiveness is unwelcome. There is such a thing as going to fast. -- Netoholic @ 14:52, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

This was a major change in the labeling of many of the Wikipedia namespace articles. Because many of these articles were previously unlabeled, it is a task that needed to be done, but not in the manner that it has been done. There are a number of the articles that I don't agree with how they have been labeled, and I doubt would receive consensus support for their current labels from Wikipedia editors. This should have been announced at Wikipedia:Current Surveys and Wikipedia:Requests for comment at a minimum before any of these major changes were made. BlankVerse ∅ 14:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • sofixit. You are mixing up two issues - what I've boldly done is renaming 'semipol' to 'guideline'. That's all. Reclassifying rules has been going on for a while, ever since the Template:policy and such were created. It's just that it hasn't been quite obvious until now.
  • I find it interesting that you consider 'semi-policy' to 'guideline' an upgrade - personally I thought it were a downgrade. Anyway, I have asked on WP:AN if some experienced users would look over the categories and see if anything is misplaced. Feel free to join in. And note that if they are, it is quite possible that they already were misplaced before this matter was brought to everyone's attention. For instance, see recent debate on WP:CSD on whether or not that is policy. Radiant_* 15:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Seems that failed proposals, formerly known as semi-policy, have been renamed ambiguous. I suggest we stop the charade. They should be

  • Rewritten as guidelines, if they're gudieline material, or
  • Moved to meta, if they're meta-encyclopaedic, or
  • Archived in the userspace of the proposer, if they're not useful.

Zocky 16:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, this "ambiguous" template doesn't seem very helpful at all. Let's only tag pages which have some real status in the "policy life cycle". -- Netoholic @ 16:58, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

I agree that the "ambiguous" template is a bad idea. If there's a dispute, punt the page back to the policy thinktank, call for votes, and give an explanation at the top of the page until the dispute is resolved. I will list it on WP:TFD. Since Wikipedia:Google test is disputed by BlankVerse on Wikipedia talk:Semi-policy, I will follow this procedure for that page. I agree that if any other pages are misclassified, they can and should be handled on an individual basis. But they need to be classified into other existing categories, such as "proposed", "guideline", "offical", "rejected", or "historical", not returned to "semi-policy". -- Beland 02:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed except for the vote. m:don't vote on everything. Also, I think the description of Cat:Guideline may need rewording; the cat is supposed to be pretty broad, and per WP:NOT a democracy I don't think we need any other 'levels' of policy. Radiant_* 07:28, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Basically {{guideline}} should say "many wikipedians" not "most". Kappa 07:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Guidelines should be open to rewriting (as they are) and rewritten so that they reflect how we normally do things on wikipedia. If there are issues where we disagree, the guidelines should say so. We should be able to agree on their contents then. Zocky 07:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a longish chunk of text about these things at the Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines, which looked like an appropriate place. Zocky 12:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you've written is interesting, but should be moved to is own Wikipedia namespace page, tagged with {{proposed}}, and then advertized at WP:RFC, and Wikipedia:Current Surveys (and probably on some of the effected policy pages as well). BlankVerse ∅ 14:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because WP:NOT a bureaucracy. This is not a proposal; it is an explanation of what already happens. And what already was happening even before my renaming actions. Radiant_* 14:43, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's neither a proposal nor accurate description of the current state of affairs, it's more of an attempt to define terms through discussion so that we're at least fairly sure what we're talking about. I hope nobody's changing any pages based on it - hardly half a dozen people have commented on it yet. That said, I'm rather puzzled by the implied statement that there's something wrong with talking about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines. Zocky 20:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merging policy?

These three article appear to be very related Morpholino, Antisense mRNA and Antisense therapy. They could easily be merged into the same article. Is there a policy for merging such articles with redirects or is it encouraged to keep them as separte articles with links? David D. 18:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, there is a policy for merging, it's called being bold! Basically, if you find a number of (usually short) articles and believe they are better organized if combined to a single article, you can go ahead and do so - we trust you! Radiant_* 21:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Policy on hard to verify information and tibbits

Take for example this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald#Opposing_forces

The line regarding the Soviet era joke is very difficult to verify. If it is true, then it adds to the depth of the article. However, it is nearly impossible to verify. I can easily think of many instances where little tibbits like this are found in articles. Should they be removed? It is quite easy to introduce minor misinformation using these tibbits. To err on the side of safety, I propose that we remove any such little tibbits because: 1. They're not essential to the article. 2. They're impossible or very difficult to verify.

Please advise. Comatose51 04:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline for editing guidelines

A discussion is taking place at Template talk:Guideline about whether the {{guideline}} template should explicitly permit/encourage users to edit the guideline page on which it is placed. Kappa 08:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel Castro

His supporters clear mentions about human rights violations in Cuba, with links to Amnesty International report. They also call Batista a dictator, but when I call Castro a dictator, they erase this without any reason. One of them called me a sockpuppet. What to do against an agressive POV bashing in this and other political pages? Frankly, my opinion about political articles in english wikipedia is law, most of them are far away from NPOV.

(perhaps the anonymous editor meant to say "opinion about political articles in english wikipedia is low" ?) FreplySpang (talk)
Yes, of course. Sorry for the typo. --62.219.175.34 16:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dict-defs, orig research, and Gunning down

Do we intend the dict-def and orig-research policies to preclude an article Gunning down? "To gun down" is ambiguous (between resulting in death vs. at least temporarily disabling injury) and IMO a discussion of the ambiguity of this belovedly "punchy" broadcast-news second-string cliche would be both valuable and encyclopedic, in the same way that our discussions of the words f***, ye, and thou are.

The question is not merely academic, bcz there is an information gap here:

  • The expression "to gun down" is not acknowledged at all in the three standard (Collegiate and larger) dicts i have at hand.
  • On line, the first ten Google hits on
"gun down" dictionary
produce a range from the inconclusive "shoot: to shoot and kill or severely injure somebody ( informal )" to a ridiculous, pseudo-AI, result. (And note that trying to fix the ridiculous one with quotes destroys everything but the ads!)

Restating the good (but accurately inconclusive) one in WP would be merely a dict-def. Supplementing that with some examples of ambiguous use, is an unjustified non-sequitur, without a statement involving the word "ambiguity" or "ambiguous". Thus:

  • Do we need to come up with evidence that such a needed statement (and the ambiguity's problematic nature) constitutes "established knowledge", or
  • is making that uncontroversial, common sense observation outside the intended range of our original-research prohibition?

--Jerzy~t 17:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why would any of this be Wikipedia rather than Wiktionary? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Survey: style of disambiguation pages

Wikipedia:Disambiguation/Style is a proposed supplement to the Manual of Style. Please register your votes and comments on the article's talk page. Survey closes May 25, 2005. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: namespace policy proposal/question (no games) and VfD listing

User:Beland has listed Wikipedia:Chess championship, Wikipedia:Mornington Crescent Championship and Wikipedia:WikiHangman Tournament for deletion: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chess championship, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mornington Crescent Championship and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiHangman Tournament. It appears the user attempted to generate discussion on the subject of appropriateness of games in the Wikipedia: namespace on the village pump, but didn't get a response, and so has listed the pages on VfD in an attempt to gather other people's opinions. Demi T/C 04:07, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Wikipedia:Sock puppet/Proposal is a proposed guideline to hold people responsible if they create a secondary account with the sole purpose of disruption or harrassment. Wording is agreed upon, are there any objections? If so please join the discussion.

Radiant_* 12:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Reviews?

I'm not sure if there's a policy on this, and before bringing it up with the user in question, I wanted to ask. An anon (contribs) added a few video game reviews to pages. I reverted one I saw because I didn't think we should link to reviews unless absolutely mindblowingly special, and even then I'm not sure. If we link to one, should we link to a dissenting opinion? How about 3 of each type? Eight? Twenty? Why should one or only two reviews get top billing? He says we have FAQs and comics, but FAQs are objective (and frankly I wouldn't question removing that either) and the comic is just that, a piece of art inspired by the game, not a review of it. (Well, some of PA's comics are reviewish, but not this one). I would think we wouldn't want to endorse any specific review. Am I right or wrong? --Golbez 07:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

A review of a game, by the mere nature of it, is POV. It would be immensively difficult to present a NPOV review of a game, since a person's preferences of a like or dislike of the game is the point of view that one is attempting to establish about the game. However... it may be useful to include two very well known gaming magazine reviews which have almost polar opposites of what they think of the game. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Golbez is talking about linking to reviews, not writing them, so the POVness or otherwise of the reviews doesn't really matter. Having said that, the linked-to reviews should be representative of the general consensus about the game.
As for whether to link for one or two instead of eight or twenty, I doubt whether lots of reviews add much to the article, just link to the best ones. Pcb21| Pete 10:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I wrote that way too late, he was LINKING reviews, not WRITING them. And Pete, okay, define "best review". One that agrees with you? Should someone else then come in and change that to one that agrees with them? Add another? That's a can of worms, man. The best solution seemed to be linking to Gamerankings.com, which someone did. --Golbez 17:41, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. Linking them is fine... but I think we should be linking to highly well known sites or magazines with very high Alexa rankings. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki Bot Policy Proposal

Recently, there has been several requests from various people to run interwiki bots. While such use is praised and accepted without comment, apparently one bot has caused disasterous results... removing several pages' interwiki links when it should not have. My proposal does not change the fact that anyone who wishs to run such a bot must request permission to do so at Wikipedia talk:Bots, but that a person who runs an interwiki bot should have a grasp of the language in which they are linking to and from. The reason behind this is that a person who runs an interwiki bot should be responsible enough to understand whether or not the interwiki linking that is being performed is done correctly and that if they are running it automatically (without user intervention) that the person who is running it should review the edits of the bot periodically. For example, if I wanted to run an interwiki linking bot between the Chinese (zh) Wikipedia and the English (en) Wikipedia, I should be able to read and understand Chinese to a reasonable degree. Likewise for English.

I'm sorry, but if you don't understand English enough to understand that your bot is breaking pages and people are complaining about it on your user talk page, then you shouldn't be running a bot. Same goes for the other languages you're running the bot on. The only exception that I'd give this rule is if your bot is merely going to all the other Wikipedias using the interwiki links and making certain that the interwiki linking is the same on all the pages. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific in what I mean, I will explain by an example:

Your bot visits en:Star Trek. It looks at the interwiki links, then visits:

Then on each one of those pages, makes certain that they have all the interwiki links found on en:Star Trek. Furthermore, your bot attempts to find interwiki links on these pages not found on en:Star Trek. It then creates a "master list" and makes certain that all the interwiki links are the same on all the language Wikipedias it has visited.

Basically, an interwiki linking bot shouldn't be removing interwiki links period. Modifying yes, but perferably under manual control by a person who understands both languages from which he or she is modifying. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. -- Beland 19:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. Thryduulf 00:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. Surely we can have a rogue bot blocked until things have been straigthened out with the user who runs it? 131.211.210.13 08:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar format convention

Given the substantial divisions thrown up by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, which with 80 opposers is most unlikely to reach the necessary level of consensus, I would like to see a policy proposal that can find some consensus in this area. I do not, however, wish to spark divisive argument; I seek constructive discussion with a view to consensus. Is it feasible to start a policy debate with a set of proposed tenets before developing a proposal. In other words, would posting a page that postulated a number of points about which there might be no argument be a viable starting point? I would expect the process to be: propose the tenets; modify these until agreement is reached that they are tenets; propose a policy draft that conforms to the tenets; modify this until it is stable; vote on the agreed version; hoop la! --Theo (Talk) 11:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current approach on the MoS is not to change an article that consistently uses BC/AD to BCE/CE or one that consistently uses BCE/CE to BC/AD. I reckon that's as good as we're going to get. Kind regards, jguk 16:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that tenet and that opinion. Is it feasible to start a policy debate with a set of proposed tenets before developing a proposal? --Theo (Talk) 15:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to use talk if almost all passages of an article are disputed?

Currently I have trouble with a guy who sticks to his own discussion style (see Talk:Tsushima Island). I think my effort for reconciliation was in vain, and I ask for help here: How to use talk in the case that almost all passages of an article are disputed?

That guy treats talk as sequential memory. He always adds his comments to the bottom of talk and expects others to do so. He behaves as if he was privileged to ignore other users' comments that had been placed elsewhere. I think this method works only if there is few issues. We can only discuss a limited number of problems at once; otherwise we will miss our points. And all-in-one reply is the besy way to dodge unfavorable questions.

My discussion method is to create sections per problem and to make point-by-point discussions. This means that we add comments to the bottom of each section instead of that of the whole page. I think the one-to-one mapping enables us to treat multiple problems simultaneously without missing our points. That guy complained about difficulty in finding comments in the large page. So I put quick references to ongoing discussions at the bottom of talk. But he ignored them (without any comment) and archived discussions in progress. I have no way to cooperate with him anymore. So I call for your help. --Nanshu 05:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the "guy" involved, I should try to reply I suppose.
  1. Editing is a collaborative process; making large-scale edits on an article, with many different and substantial changes in different parts all at once, makes life very difficult for other editors. They might agree with some of the edits and not with others, but what in effect you're saying to them is: "Accept it all or remove it all." It shouldn't be too surprising if they remove it all. If edits are made gradually, one at a time, then other editors can discuss them one at a time, and the process becomes more collaborative and a lot more affable.
    NO NO NO, that's what diffs are for. Don't edit in steps! It clutters the article history, and gives lead to edit conflicts. Goodness knows we all sometimes edit in increments because we forget to use preview, but like, use preview, edit as much as you can in one go. Solve any edit conflicts *once*. Kim Bruning
    Perhaps I didn't make myself clear (though reading what I wrote here and below, I can't see any unclarity). Nanshu did exactly what you're complaining about, in fact (a string of edits rather than one big one). I'm not asking for a string of edits in quick succession (how would that solve my problem?); I'm saying that, when there are a lot of controversial edits, it's more considerate to other editors to introduce them gradually, discussing each one. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Your position is a shade of grey. Hmm, I'm still not entirely sure if I agree, but that's ok, I suppose. As long as you don't actually revert someone with different ideas about courtesy, that's fine! Kim Bruning
  2. When the edits are made all at once, it makes matters worse that the arguments for them are scattered through the Talk page, perhaps sometimes in archived sections, and editors are told: "It's all there somewhere — go and find it for yourselves."
    One word: diff. Might be nice to have pointers to where you've been responding at the bottom of the page if you feel people might get confused though. Kim Bruning
    One word: "courtesy". I'm not talking about policy or rules or whtever, I'm talking about simple, everyday, consideration for other editors. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should be safe to assume that people know how to use diffs. Especially admins :-) Kim Bruning
    But that's not the point. If a student reads an essay, and I ask where a quotation came from, i don't expect to be tossed a book and told to use the index. Of course I can use the index, but it's courteous to give the reference. It's the same here; of course other editors can track down earlier conversations using the diffs, but it's more courteous to explain again (especially as diffs rarely give the full picture, being limited to a snapshot of what can often be a long debate). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little confused here. The original query seemed to be about where on the talk page an editor would place explanations of article edits, but many of the responses seem to address the article edits themselves. For the talk page, I have three words: table of contents. I agree with Nanshu that a sprawling discussion is more manageable if it's segmented into different topic headings. It's true that, as a result, one edit to the article might be explained in several different sections of the talk page, but that makes it much easier to follow a particular issue. JamesMLane 05:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In this particular case, I archived the Talk page because it was very large and unwieldy, and archiving is the recommended action. I didn't ignore the references, but too many of them were in fact not explanatory at all, and the problem still lay in all the edits being done in a lump, making it very difficult to disentangle those that were justified from those that weren't.
    Don't archive ongoing discussions. If you're not sure, don't archive. Kim Bruning
    I was sure; I'm just not infallible. I hadn't noticed that a recent comment had been added to an old discussion. Once it had been pointed out, I apologised. It's always possible for the live discussion to be retrieved, though, rather than an issue made of the mistake. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Roger that! Kim Bruning
  4. The problem rose from the fact that Nanshu had had problems with another editor over a period of time, and had a backlog of edits that he'd wanted to make, but had been unable to. When I cam along, with a couple of others, and weighed in against the rogue editor, Nanshu saw his chance to make all his backlog of edits at once. It doesn't work like that, as I've explained above. This page isn't in fact his last option; he could come back to the article and make the edits one at a time, spaced out, giving other editors a chance to assess and discuss each one. Much of what he wants to do will be done, and the article will doubtless be improved by the process. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    "That might be your way, but that's not the wiki way, editor!" (see above) Kim Bruning 11:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't one "wiki way" — much depends upon context. On a page that's been racked by controversy, and when the edits have themselves all been controversial, my suggestion still seems to me to be at least sensible. Do you have any real objection, or helpful suggestions, rather than just slogans? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to people point-by-point where they make their statements, make all the edits you want to make all at once, use preview, make thorough use of history and diffs to discover what's going on and who's editing what and who's talking to who (and especially to find folks talking to you ;-) ). Kim Bruning 14:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan for background on this supporter. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I had to clean up after him too. ^^;; Kim Bruning 14:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    A third point of view on someone making lots of edits all at once. Being BOLD in making lots of edits all at once is not being disrespectful to others, it is simply one way of doing it. Reverting the edits and saying hey guy add them one at a time as some are ok and others we need to discuss is EQUALLY BOLD and equally not disrespectful to others. Each from his point of view sees the other as making things "harder for them". tough. having other people with other goals and opinions DOES make things harder, but that's the process. No one has the right to demand everyone else do it their way. 4.250.168.145 18:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can see in his attitude about the RfC.This is a place not meant for advertisements. This is however, personal attack, and violating the proper usage of a particular discussion/project page (discussion/project pages should be used for discussions of that particular topic. I wonder how is this related to Nanshu's arguement.

Tan 22:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted out one dispute between User:Nanshu and User:Mel Etitis before (concerning Nanyang). Their attitude towards each other stems in part from the former's desire to be heard and have his edits left untouched and from the latter's "stubbornness" in refusing to answer the former's points and in reverting the former's edits. He does this, however, based on Wikipedia policies which he presumes other people know of. Nanshu does not know of them (sometimes), however, and is only trying to save his own reputation in the easiest and most effective way possible: pinning the blame on the other editor. In this way they have managed to collaborate very unproductively and have produced numerous reverts so far. In the previous dispute, I eventually managed to find a compromise, a combination of the wishes of the two editors, though I must say that both of them (initially) refused to find and adopt a golden mean. As for Tan, I do not think his words can be trusted as he is growing increasingly paranoid with each passing day, with his refusal to accept that his grammar is of a level below that of other editors. JMBell° 15:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did not accept my own mistakes? What a mysterious reply. I have acknoledged that my English is sometimes poor, as evidenced in the Talk:Nakhi. However, the problem lies wit all of you is that you all are not very coperative, and sometimes hostile, especially in the case of Mel. If you all can be more polite and do not make life difficult for people, naturally I will be in a very pleasant mood, which will improve my ability to type better english (I do make revisions of my own written pages and copyedited my written pages, however.)

Tan 23:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, he did accept his mistakes. However, he will not let another editor judge or edit his work (which consists of the most appalling form of English grammar known to Man). He has thrown all our observations back at us in the form of vehement accusations. I really think he's getting to be paranoid. Or manipulative. JMBell° 16:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's the issue here? I didn't think that the "English grammar" of Mr Tan was part of it; but if people here correct me and say that it is, I can say something about it. -- Hoary 03:04, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
It isn't really relevant, but Mr Tan's problem is largely that he insists on correcting (and criticising) other people's English, despite (as his comments here amply demonstrate) being in no position to do so. His grievances then spill into discussions like this, and people respond to him. It's a diversion, and would be better ignored. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just cannot make sense what are you trying to utter about. Not letting another editor edit my work? There is nothing in wikipedia that should be called as "my work". Wikipedia is a free and open content area.

I think that Mel, and to some extent, you, is vehement. You have either shown strange and funny behaviour in your edits (I will state it in my RfC response tommorow or the day after).

Tan 14:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your usage of the word "vehement" implies that you do not know what it means. Anyway, do not advertise your own mistakes here. As you just said, talk pages are not places for advertisements. May I instead refer you to your RfC or your own user and talk pages. JMBell° 13:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mel advised: It's a diversion, and would be better ignored. Well said. But so far as Mr Tan's grammar is an issue for you here, may I point out that his work (which consists of the most appalling form of English grammar known to Man) is (if one attempts to take it seriously) plain wrong, and that such remarks are insulting and unhelpful. -- Hoary 14:08, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
I believe there is a lot of explaining to be done. May we discuss this in a private talk page.... JMBell° 16:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Come to User Talk:Mr Tan for my reply and debate from there--the debate is getting too out of the main topic itself.

Tan 19:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timetables and addresses

I've been concerned with a couple of articles (though there may be others) which consist of little more than stubs about bus companies, plus extensive details of bus-routes (see Trent Barton and Stagecoach in Chesterfield). One of them also included the address, 'phone number, and fax number of the company. Neither the lists of routes nor the contact details seem encyclopædic to me (aside from being of very local interest at best, they're ephemeral), but I can't find anything in policy either way. I'd prefer a link to the on-line timetables of the companies involved. Any views? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the windy descriptions of bus routes; wikipedia is not a bus guide.

Tan 22:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not quite sure. Wpedia should give information about these buses. Are bus routes considered relevant information? JMBell° 14:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bus-route details are probably the most important pieces of information about a bus company, so it is essential to include them in an article about a bus company. Ted Ted 14:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that degree of specificity is far too detailed for Wikipedia. Someone started a similar exercise with Arriva by putting one route on the page. After several months without expansion, I took it off - Arriva has thousands of bus routes in many countries, and there's no way we're likely to have an encyclopaedically complete list. -- Arwel 17:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ted Ted's right in one sense, of course; the routes (and timetables, and fare structures) are most important to potential users — but not to potential shareholders, for example. Different sorts of information are relevant to different sources. I get a timetable for the routes, etc., and I look in a reference work for information about the company's history, what's interesting about it, etc. I'm still not convinced (and Arwel makes a good point too), but for once I agree with Mr Tan (except for the bit about windiness). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no way timetables should be in wikipedia, they change too often for one thing. I don't see a problem with having a link to the online timetable fot that particular bus company. David D. 18:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just discovered that both articles are at least partial copyvios. Could those involved in editing them proceed in an orderly fashion to the relevant Talk pages (let the passengers off first, please)? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Removal Candidate

I would like to propose a new policy before nominating an article as a FARC. I've noticed that there is a certain person who likes to nominate a particular category of articles for demotion. I want to illustrate the ridiculous ease that anybody can pull down a featured article, notwithstanding the hours put in to feature it. Here's what I propose:

  1. Mention, on the talk page of the article, which all FA criteria the page lacks, or if the text is a gross POV.
  2. A time period of a minimum of seven days should be given so that those who handle/watch the page can respond to the reviewer's comments.
  3. A mention that if comments are not satisfactorily entertained, the page may be nominated as a FARC in a week's time.
  4. Only objective points, which can be taken care of should be raised. Subjective statements such as "I feel that its not brilliant prose".
  5. If his/her grouses are still unaddressed, only then may the reviewer move to the FARC. He also has to cite why this does not deserve to be a FA, and how his queries were not dealt with.

I say this because I've spent hours trying to get articles up to FA standards. Seeing some of my articles pulled down on ludicrous and whimsical grounds is really annoying, especially since the contents of a page change over a period of time and may not reflect the matter when it was nominated.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:23, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Major to minor

More and more editors seem to have "minor" set as the default, which results in all sorts of major edits slipping in as minor (I've just seen a VfD nomination marked as minor, as well as a number of VfD votes, substantial changes to articles, etc.). I suppose that there are people who make nothing by minor edits, and for whom this default possibility is useful, but is there any way to discourage its use more generally? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is always the possibility of banning the offending user. RickK 23:57, May 22, 2005 (UTC) Created by now-hard-banned vandal masquerading as me. RickK 04:33, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
This isn't RickK. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:27, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's always social pressure. Editors tagging articles with VfD, and marking that edit as minor with no edit summary bugs the heck out of me, too. I'll drop a polite note to editors who do that, and it usually corrects the behaviour.
It might not hurt to add a note to the VfD page footer template; it contains the intructions for adding VfD to pages. You could bring that up on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion to sound out the experts.
With respect to the more general problem of overuse of the 'minor edit' check box, maybe someone with an appropriately diplomatic writing style could put together a boilerplate Wikiquette notice.... --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll confess to being guilty of this to some extent. I don't have minor edits on by default but am so used to clicking "This is a minor edit" check box as a lot of my edits are minor that I sometimes do it on edits that aren't minor. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:21, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
And I disagree about votes at VFD. I feel individual votes are minor, only listing for VFD and final consensus are major. (And I admit I have occasionally checked minor, clicked saved and then thought...I didn't mean to make this minor). RJFJR 02:06, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
But that's to use "minor" in a different sense from the Wikipedia usage: "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a "minor edit". A major edit is basically something that makes the entry worth relooking at for somebody who wants to watch the article rather closely, so any "real" change, even if it is a single word, is a major edit." Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, maybe an interesting feature request would be the ability to disallow certain users from marking their edits as minor, iff the admins find they 'abuse' that feature. Radiant_* 09:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  1. Anons have already had the ability to use "m" removed, of course (actually, I haven't checked this, but that's what I've seen explained in various places). If abusers of the feature were to risk being blocked from susing it, there'd presumably have to be a reasonably clear and formal procedure of warnings. Still, that wouldn't be too hard, I'd have thought.
  2. I can see the point of "m" (though, because of its frequent abuse, I always include minor edits in my watch list, and I always check them), but what would be the rationale for distinguishing between "n" and "M"? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I get it either. It may be useful, but please elaborate? Radiant_* 07:45, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have been told I was using minor too often. If you read the section on what a minor edit is, there are very few things that are considered minor edits. This could be a case where beliefs and policy don't always match. I have been using the tag less, but still do on some small changes that may not be according to policy and I suspect that most editors do the same. Vegaswikian 21:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for deletion policy begs for revamping

Shit happened finally. I have no time to write much right now. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion#Moved from main page (Fooish battles --> Battles in Fooland). I am not good at writing policies, so please someone do it. Otherwise ardent democrats may do much harm, because unlike deleted articles, deleted categories are very difficult (and sometimes almost impossible) to undelete. Mikkalai 16:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor football players

I have listed Ross Flitney for deletion in the hope that this result in some form of policy decision regarding reserve team footballers. At this time of year football teams will be releasing players, many of whom are youngsters who have not quite made the grade. However, we seem to have articles on some of these players, who have no premier league experience, simply because they have been assigned a squad number.

I can live with these articles while the players concerned are still attached to a top team, although I far from consider them to be encyclopedic. But I would like to encourage some form of policy debate regarding articles about players who have been on the books of Premier League sides but never actually appeared in the league for them. If we could come to some form of catch-all decision it would save a lot of repetitious discussion on VfD about these sub-stubs. Rje 21:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Name and shame vandals?

I've read Wiki's procedure on dealing with vandalism, but I was just wondering, are we able to add the wherabouts of anonymous users on their talk pages. I realise that this isn't quite 'naming and shaming' and it's a little harsh, but is it ok to do so for persistent vandals? File:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 21:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

What would the point be? "PS this guy lives at 402 Main Street in Joliet IL, if you want to go rough him up a bit"? And if that's not the point, then what is? --Golbez 22:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I see your point (although IP searches match-up to towns and not as far as streets). I just thought saying "We know where you are [though we're not going to come and see you]" might deter them a little. Anyhoo, just an idea. Thanks File:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 22:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

And anyway - this would only work if it's a single IP, right? ... And if a single IP is being a persistent vandal... THEN WHY NOT BLOCK THE VANDAL? Permanently, even? I swear, there's way too much coddling of the lower elements of society here. Some people can't be rehabilitated. --Golbez 22:53, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
If vandals were shameable, then they wouldn't bother with their idiocy in the first place. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can we name and shame people who soak up bandwidth by putting images in their sigs? *cough* Craigy *cough* ? :) TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, looks like you already have. I was thinking about dropping the royal arms anyhoo, but pwease can I keep my fwag? :-) Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 01:50, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Don't bold foreign scripts

In my travels in wikipedia, I see some articles about foreign subjects with the English name in bold, of course - but then people make the foreign script bold too. This can make it very difficult to read, especially with Japanese or Arabic articles which have very busy characters or scripts which bold can muddy together. An example: Compare 東條 英機 with 東條 英機 (courtesy General Tojo), or أسامة بن محمد بن عود بن لاد with أسامة بن محمد بن عود بن لاد (courtesy Osama bin Laden). The Arabic makes a valiant attempt to remain legible but at the standard font size, it looks like a difficult battle, but I don't read Arabic so I don't know. However, I do read Japanese, and the bold kanji are more difficult to read than the regular kanji. Some of them are just too busy to handle the extra pixels required by bold. Can we make it a policy never to bold stuff in a non-Latin script unless absolutely necessary, and this includes not enbolding it in the lead? (Having the English be bold is sufficient, isn't it?) I'd like to hear the opinions of people who know Arabic on this. --Golbez 08:19, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree non bold foreign characters are better rendered. Since this is the English wikipedia, and a huge majority cannot read foreign scripts, I don't see why it has to be displayed in bold, which are clearly less legible.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 09:07, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
I thought only the title of the article should be bold (plus some of the redirects when they are alternate titles). Since these are neither, they shouldn't be bold. --cesarb 17:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The justification being, I guess, that we bold the name of General Tojo so why not bold his name in Japanese as well? --Golbez 18:19, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

A massive organized attack by tireless vandals

How would Wikipedia handle such a scenario?

My imagination didn't prompt me - rather I stumbled across this thread [2] The thread is located on a forum of a coarse humor website populated with large numbers of young males with a lot of time. Members had a grievance with Wikipedia, which they felt was insensitive to so they declared an open season on the controversial entry. If you browse through the pages and pages of "reports", you can appreciate the headache for some admins that day. At one point a forum member caught on to more sophisticated tactics and suggested creating edits that appeared in summary boxes as anti-vandal work. Fortunately for Wikipedia, the little war stopped owing in part to previous positive experiences some vandals had using the site. In this case, only obvious vandalism was unleashed upon the site. What about in the future? What if don't have the benefit of self restrained vandals? Or even worse imaginative vandals? There are plenty of online associations of young males that would gleefully relish working together to cause a gigantic shit storm. A LA Times commentary discussed one such incident, although that fizzled out more quickly. The iniator was merely prompted by a perceived left bias at Wikipedia. If such a tireless group prompted by whatever were to go on a subtle false edit campaign (e.g. date alterations, plausible expansion, etc.) what could Wikipedia do?

I don't have an idea - although I have a minor suggestion. If you browse through the pages, you will find some Wikipedians joining the forum and entering the fray. I think editors who engage in self-indulgent troll feeding should themselves be punished for prolonging a miserable task upon other editors.

lots of issues | leave me a message 16:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think this sort of thing will become more and more common. The best we can do is keep reverting and blocking. As a few forum posters have noted, blocking a dynamic IP does diddly-squat. And taking screenshots of what they do("Oh look what I did on Wikipedia! hee hee hee!") is also getting very common. --Deathphoenix 17:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this very clearly because I was up until 05:00 am negotiating with the co-owner of the site, who had initiated the attack. In that case there was a single point of contact and I found that I was able to understand the group's motives and contribute to the cessation of the attack. The belligerent contributions of some wikipedians were not helpful to this process. In cases where we do not have access to a ringleader I think that calm repeated reversions with neutral edit summaries are the key. Threats to block and declarations of the power of Wikipedia are counter-productive in such circumstances. --Theo (Talk) 17:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you were the one who "isn't such a prick" (or words to that effect) who was negotiating with John. Reading those two threads in that forum was quite informative (not to mention somewhat entertaining-I guess my sense of humour's pretty crude), especially when one thread started with talking about actually writing the article, and the other thread was talking about bringing it down. I agree, talking about any sort of war between Wikipedia and $WEBSITENAME is counterproductive, but it's a real pity there's not much else we can do. I can see why people were sorely tempted to vote Keep out of spite (I would have had to fight that urge myself), but that only added fuel to the f/ire. --Deathphoenix 18:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, just like Theo, I remember this incident quite well. I was so busy blocking and reverting that day, I wasn't very effective in my other projects. I'm afraid we can't do much else besides blocking, negotiating and reverting. (User:MacGyverMagic) 82.172.23.66 20:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=14181367"