This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
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.
Notability of politicians - how far down do we go?
Just came across Robert Parkyn, a City of Calgary, Alberta alderman from 1926 to 1944. Someone is putting in the entire historical list of Calgary aldermen. Is this is a good thing or a bad thing? --John Nagle05:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why it is inherently a bad thing to have knowledge about people being put into Wikipedia. Of course, if we only rely on web references for checking purposes people may be a little surprised about how much just isn't there. These people are likely to have a lot of written information about them.
Also, in what sense are you using the word "notability". Ansell 05:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not paper. Notability is just there to make sure we can meet verifiability and NPOV without original research. An alderman likely has enough written about him to ensure that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is also not a junkyard. It's not just there for verifiability/NPOV - we don't want articles that are written about not-notable topics, even if they're verifiable and NPOV. Blocks of sidewalk in New York City, or for that matter, Bismarck North Dakota are not notable enough for an article. --Improv13:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John Nagle has not told you the whole story. Robert was a City of Calgary Alderman for 17 years on and off, he was also a member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta for 4 years while still serving as an Alderman, he was chairman of the Calgary Public Library and helped found a Federal Canadian political party. If that is not noteable then what is. --Cloveious16:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i should note that in my statement above, I wasn't meaning to comment in particular on Robert Parkyn -- i was talking in the abstract. --Improv17:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In general I'm uncomfortable with the idea that we should document every occupant of every relatively minor public office. There is verifiable information about many of these people but I think we should establish WP:NOT [www.lexisnexis.com Lexis Nexis]. In specific, I'd probably say delete him: he has done a number of relatively unimportant things. The Land19:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An alderman isn't minor if you live in his city; he influenced the lives of thousands of people in significant ways. Why does it bother you if someone else writes an article about him? It's not like we're running low on disk space. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go so far as to support "the idea that we should document every occupant of every relatively minor public office", if "should" in that context means that it's a problem if some aldermen remain undocumented. (When I started editing Wikipedia, there were some U.S. Congressmembers lacking articles. Now, that was a problem that had to be addressed.) On the other hand, I don't see the problem with retaining such an article if someone is willing to research and write it. JamesMLanetc15:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a shame that others do not take your attitude about articles that people will bother to research and build up. Wikipedia should not bite any editors, not just newcomers. By trashing an articles subject as unimportant in ones personal view, one may not be putting the entire picture in. It is not sensible to be making up classifications on top of the original policies just to get ones personal viewpoints accepted about having neat little categories of things instead of thing that someone has actually considered to be their contribution to the sum of human knowledge. Ansell 03:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Any user may only make x edits to an article* per 24 hours.
*in the article/template namespace and any others prone to dispute, but not talk pages
My first proposal for x would be 10. See, this does not harm normal people in any way, since 10 edits is quite a lot, and there is always a preview button. But, this would really slow down disputes, where two or more people keep editing against each other. -- infinity023:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't mean "If they make x+1 edits they get blocked", I mean "it is technically impossible to make more than x edits to the same article in one day." -- infinity023:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this idea does have its flaws, and thanks for pointing them out. However, the aim is to improve the idea and remove these flaws. Fanatical POV-pushers is certainly a problem on wikipedia. You may not have come across any, but for the people who have, it is hell. A few further thoughts:
For reverting vandalism, edits made directly after an IP edit don't make the counter go up. If someone happens to edit the article just before you revert (and this happens enough times in one day to make your counter run out), well, get someone else to do it.
For "Current Event" articles, an admin could have the option to mark the article as "open" so that these counters don't apply.
Yeah, yeah. Don't knock it 'til you've tried it. ;) I assure you, fanatical POV-pushers are a far worse problem than vandals. Vandalism is obvious. Fanatical-POV pushing isn't. -- infinity023:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What happens when someone just starts editing anon then? after the 10 edits. Ban them for sockpupptery? even if their edits are sensible? What about anon users? You can limit registered users to x edits per account, but an anon user who's ip keeps changing (as in they're not doing it, their internet connection is just that way) will be able to edit the article 20, 30...100 times? How can we enforce this rule? What if it's a relatively unknown article, but for some reason...on one day, a bunch of people start vandalising it. Every revert is one edit. And if the article is a relatively unknown/small article, not many regulars will have it on their watchlist. So when the 11th vandal attack happens, would we need a specific place for people to post revert-requests because they've already done their 10 edits per day? What about ip addresses that are shared (i.e. by a school)? So does that mean the whole school can only edit an article 10 times a day? Now you can say people at the school can just create their own accounts, so their 10 edits a day does not overlap with the school IP's 10 edits per day. But then how do you know when an account is a genuine new account, and when it's just someone needing more edits per day? Regardless of whether this proposal is good in philosophy, it's impossible in practice. Which makes it almost useless. --`/aksha00:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To expand a bit on the current articles issue. Even if we allow admins to mark an article as open (which is going to add unnecessary work and delay articles) what about new articles which aren't current events? Some users write the whole article somewhere e.g. in a subpage on their usepager (or in a text editor) but others prefer to slowly work on an article on wikipedia. With this proposal we will basically force users to use their userpage. Also, even non-new articles, a editor might find a stub or some other article in bad need of work. Again while some will use the subpage, many will edit the article directly. While editors should use the preview (and a subpage might be better), many forget and in many cases an editor may keep finding their is stuff they need to correct or improve. I'm sure you can come up with numerous proposals to try and work around this like more admin tagging, excluding new articles, excluding stubs, even making special editors who are excluded from the limit but all this is just creates more work and in the end some editors are going to be discouraged by all the complexity. The key problem with the proposal is that just because an editor is majorly changing an article doesn't mean their a POV-pusher. In many cases major edits should get consensus but in other cases an editor can majorly change an article well and it's not necessary to ask first (e.g. because it's a stub or is so bad anything is better then what's there). Therefore any attempt to limit edits to try and stop POV pushers is also going to stop legitimate editors who are drastically improving an article and removing POV! Nil Einne09:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod should focus on the article's content, not on the editor who wrote it or tagged it. Thus, you are encouraged not to sign your prods. >Radiant<08:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know whether it is appropriate for several wikipedians of the same nationality, involved in a content dispute with wikipedians of another nationality, to use their native tongue for communication on their talk pages. When I requested them to provide a translation, my request was dismissed as "insulting". Is there any policy on this? I recall that in the past, when most people on Romanian and Polish noticeboards spoke to each other in their native languages and ignored requests to translate their communications into English, their conduct was reprimanded as stimulating evolution of national cliques. --Ghirla-трёп-13:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says basically that, that it's a "good practice" to prefer English on talk pages, and to provide a translation if use of other languages is unavoidable. Though private non-logged conversations can and do happen, so I don't know how that squares with, say, use of IRC for Wikipedia:Spotlight. --Interiot14:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to know what meausures I can undertake against somebody who explicitely insulted me of being a conspirator. Let's say that a X user who has no idea about the FA criteria, gets involved in a FA review, gets exposed by me because of his ignorance and then desperately tries to get revenge on me. As a result, he explitely accuses me of being a "conspirator", without any evidence. I really want to know if I can file an official complaint against him for this humiliating and unbacked slanders. I also want to know what punishment this user may face.--Yannismarou14:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yannismarou, your accusations are both irrelevant and insulting. I'm not involved in any conflict with you. Please cool off. I have no idea what you are talking about and this is not the place to vent your anger. As best I know, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battleground and use of native languages in the English version of the project is discouraged. I just want to make it clear whether we have a certain guideline and whether adopting such a guideline would be reasonable. Happy edits, Ghirla-трёп-14:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your insult against me was totally inacceptable. We can clarify anything you want, but first I'll learn in detail how can take Wiki-legal actions against you. I don't allow to anybody to question my ethos. And those who do it face the consequences of their actions. These things are not under negotiation!--Yannismarou14:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the original comment, I could not initially find a policy or guide on the use of foreign languages on talk pages, certainly if it was used a lot it could be considered anti-social and is likely to reflect badly on the users involved, if users were using non-english to deliberately confuse another editor then this would more serious. Martin14:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say "legal". I said "Wiki-legal", meaning what procedures within Wikipedia I can follow. Were did you see the threats?--Yannismarou14:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yannismarou, we should all write in English. Consequently, you should either communicate directly in English or provide a translation of what you say (for instance, if quoting an author or something that you cannot translate well (a pun, a proverb and so on). Ignoring this rule is a basic incivility, since anyone should be able to read you and to reply you. As for attacks, either you have evidence, which you can bring to administrators, or you don't, but please don't make general statements like the one you did above. Thanks, Grafikm(AutoGRAF)14:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My accusations are specific. They are agaisnt Ghirla who called me a "conspirator". Ghirla can have the translations, if he wants them, but he'll be definitely reported by me for his unproven insults.--Yannismarou14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His comments don't look insulting to me at all, your comments however are aggressive and confrontational, please calm down. Martin14:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify please: _IF_ you provide him with translations, _THEN_ you will report him for something? What does your providing the translations have to do with whether or not you report him? Is that a threat against him? I don't quite follow. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirla's comments are aggressive elsewhere. Yannismarou is an excellent new editor, who has managed in very little time create Wikiproject:History of Greece and three (four?) Featured articles. Accusations for conspiracy, however, are not an excuse for strong language. Indeed, it is considered good 'wikiquette' to write in English. Ghirla, it is considered good 'wikiquette' not to accuse anyone (of conspiracy or whatever) unless there are solid proofs (diffs) to support it. On the other hand, WP cannot and has not forced English in the talk-pages. Furthermore, if someone indeed wants to 'conspire', they can do it via the perfectly the untraceable e-mail feature (in any language they feel like). Please try to solve this between yourselves, and keep WP:AGF as well as WP:AAGF in mind. My talk is welcoming for your further comments (this is not the place). •NikoSilver•14:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, NicoSilver, could you provide a diff where my comments are "aggressive" or where I called your friend a conspirator? I just noted that interactions in native languages just below the comment of a person, with whom you are in a serious edit conflict, may be interpreted as conspirational activities against him. Once you and Yannismarou adopt English for your conversations, there will be no room for suspicion on the part of your opponents (of which I'm not one, because I totally ignore details of your dispute). As a general observation, I do not like the climate in the Balkanese section of Wikipedia and I urge wikipedians from that part of the world to keep the level of their discourse above that of a sandbox. --Ghirla-трёп-14:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yet another case where too short nerves lead to a havoc. Frankly, I blame Yannis for lightning the spark, and I fail to see the purpose of this ridiculous wikilawyering on his side. Ghirla's initial request for translation perhaps wasn't overly filled with AGF, but it was stated politely and quite in line with WP:CIVIL. Yannis's outburst of this magnitude was IMO not justified. As a remedy, I suggest that two of you stay away from each other for a while, and that Niko provides the translations. Duja15:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I assumed it was not your intention to use your talk page for hosting what looks like conspirational activities, but your defiant response seems to prove that I was wrong." When I'm accused of hosting "conspirational activities" without any proof, I'm not insulted? Ghirla does not have the right to assume facts. He has to prove them. Make as many translations as you wish. You' ll see no conspiracy. And I still think I deserve an apology from Ghirla for this unproven slander ("host of conspirational activities"} against me!--Yannismarou15:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If you see that your enemies are multiple and you are alone, it's not worth it. You can't fight a tsunami, can you? I'm sure there are many Romanian editors who would help, if the conflict was that fundamental (but it was not)." Enemies Ghirla?! Enemies!!! Tsunami!!! Do we have enemies in Wikipedia?I I only strive for historical truth nothing else. I'm really sorry for your comments! Really sorry!! See my last edit in Talk:Phanariotes to see if am an enemy of Dahn or not. You don't have a clue about the historical backgrounds of these debates in Talk:Phanariotes and, nevertheless, you make such comments. I always tried to be NPOV and I alway tried to serve truth, although I had sometimes to disagree with other Greek Wikipedians. I don't deserve this attitude and I donot deserve these insulting comments and these implicit ironies. I'm happy you assume good faith! (And this is irony, yes!)--Yannismarou17:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone just added a "history" of the city of Scappoose, Oregon on its talk page. I was about to commend the editor for his or her addition and point out that we would need better citation, etc., before the material was added to the main article. Then I read the whole thing and noticed this fine piece of creative writing moved from history to POV to patent nonsense. I am tempted to blank it, but I'd like some opinions first. Thanks! Katr6716:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking someones comments on talk generally only leads to escalation of conflict. Merely post a response saying that the above is nonsense, etc. Why deliberately provoke someone ? Wjhonson16:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just read it, and while some parts in the middle have a definate anti-environmental point of view, and some parts near the end desend into the relms of questionable notability, I don't think any of it is patent nonsense. I would not blank it. I would, if I were you, leave a comment about the first part being good and needing better citation, and then point out any specific concerns you have about the rest. Let them know that if good citation is provided and all the concerns are addressed this bit of history will be in the article. Try to work with them. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a temporary content fork just to work on it a bit, it might be more productive for everyone if it was worked on in userspace, or at least not on the talk page (though a link to it could be left on the talk page so people are aware of it). If it's a permanent content fork (eg. they don't intend to follow our core policies and don't intend to ever integrate it back in), then that's discouraged, and speedy archiving might be appropriate. --Interiot16:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, the bit about albino nutria saving the town of Scappose is nonsense. :) BTW, when searching on "albino nutria" I got a google hit on this talk page, so apparently this has come up before... Katr6716:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was the part you were refering to as nonsense ;). I did a quick search for nutria and came up with this redirect Nutria, so it apparently is a real animal which, while native to South America, has been introduced into Oregon and is considered a pest there, so there is at least a tid-bit of truth to that part of it. As for it saving the town from flooding... some people get some strange ideas into their heads. The person doing the writing may actually believe this. Insisting on a proper source should keep it out of the article as I doubt one can be found. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nutria are indeed real. Albino nutria are indeed real, but sentient albino nutria that worked to save a small town in Oregon...that's a bit of a stretch. :D I don't think the editor in question acutally believes this. I think this is in the fine tradition of an Oregon tall tale and s/he is pulling our legs. Katr6716:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, the material on the talk page was added by an anon. (Which isn't to say anons can't make valid contributions, just something to consider.) I chose to archive the silly thing. Thanks for the input and for being so trusting. :) Someone else put {{Talkheader}} on the page so that should take care of that. Katr6720:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endemic Wiki-foolishness
It seems to me that in most articles that give information on how to pronounce a particular word, a bizarre, esoteric code is given. What kind of people use such a code, dare I ask? And how high are their ivory towers? And more to the point, what proportion of the English-speaking population would understand such a code? One in a million might be generous.
Zeitgeist ((audio) (help·info)) is originally a German expression that means "the spirit (Geist) of the time (Zeit)". It denotes the intellectual and cultural climate of an era. The German pronunciation of the word is [ˈtsa͡ɪtga͡ɪst]
ˈtsa͡ɪtga͡ɪst??? Oh, now I understand!
Why not just use a simplier code? Perhaps 'zIt-gIst" -- or just say that it rhymes with, oh, I don't know, "mice fight".
It's the International Phonetic Alphabet. The problem with ad-hoc phonetic systems or "rhymes with" is that ad-hoc systems are just as cryptic as IPA but without the advantage of standardization, while "rhymes with" only works for one specific accent. --Carnildo20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there's no reliable system of conveying proper pronounciation, I feel that it is a hideous joke, a slap in the face, to choose a standard code that has a high degree of complexity (bars, curves, dots, bolding, fonts etc. that virtually no one understands). Better to provide no pronunciation, than one that's so esoteric that you get English-speakers like me confused and angry about it. Chris20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually, if you really want to know the pronunciation you can look up the details of the phonetic alphabet. You're making it sound like a horribly complex thing but it's actually pretty easy to pick up and has the advantage of universality. Moreover, a number of articles also give a more accessible "rhymes with" sort of guide or better yet a sound file. As for not enabling special characters, well... why exactly do you not enable them? :-) Pascal.Tesson20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well for me, it's a point of pride not to learn such things. Anyway, I give up. I certainly won't write any articles with IPA pronunciation, and I guess that's all I can say. Chris21:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I certainly don't believe that all people are obligated in any way to learn every technicality of every specialized field (that's impossible within a human lifetime), I also find it rather perverse that anybody would actually be proud of being, and remaining, ignorant of a particuar point. Ignore the stuff that you don't know and aren't interested enough to learn, fine... but why take pride in it? *Dan T.*22:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it perverse, but accept that a pride in not learning is a major strand in anglophone, er, culture. I've just finished reading a book about polar expeditions, in which many of the Brits and not a few of the Youessians come off like fools compared with, say, the Norwegians: they didn't want to learn (from lesser races [!], etc.) even lessons that would have increased their own chances of survival. ¶ But back to the initial outburst: what proportion of the English-speaking population would understand such a code [sc IPA]? One in a million might be generous. That's highly unlikely for at least three reasons. First, more than one in a million anglophones study linguistics to at least some degree (even as just one course in a liberal-arts year), and that most introductory linguistics books handle IPA. Secondly, more than one in a million anglophones are likely to use a dictionary that employs IPA, and to pay some attention to this. Thirdly, this page of WP (lacking a title or even a section heading that indicates that there's anything about linguistics or pronunication) is unlikely to attract a crowd particularly linguistics/pronunciation, yet several people have demonstrated that they're familiar with IPA. ¶ Yes, IPA is a good thing. Get over it.-- Hoary05:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support using IPA to illustrate pronunciation because ultimately, there are no better options. However, I think we should go for phonemic rather than phonetic transcription. This makes the learning curve much easier for those unfamiliar with IPA, illustrating the pronunciation while allowing for dialectical differences. There's no need to go into absolutely precise detail. For example, a transcription doesn't need to show that initial "t" is generally aspirated in English, or that vowels preceding nasal consonants (like m or n) take on a nasal quality. szyslak (t, c, e) 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This comes up fairly often. I recommend linking the IPA transcriptions to accurate sound files so that (at least online) people can hear what it sounds like, which is better than any system of transcription. Deco22:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm terribly sorry if this comes accross as incivil in any way, but the following discourse just made me pull a spit-take (with a partly chewed bagel, nontheless):
Chris: "Better to provide no pronunciation, than one that's so esoteric that you get English-speakers like me confused and angry about it."
Pascal: "you can look up the details of the phonetic alphabet."
Chris: "it's a point of pride not to learn such things."
Did it ever strike you being just ever so slightly absurd to willfully remain ignorant on a matter when you're attempting to co-author an encyclopedia? We should all be willing to learn new things here. --tjstrf22:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that this discussion comes up very frequently. It's easy for people unfamiliar with the issues involved to think that there are better ways to do this for everyone, and it's easy for more established users to find this question coming up frequently irritating. It's important to note that while IPA remains the best thing we have so far, we should try to be careful in how we treat each other on this (frustrating to everyone) topic. --Improv03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've seen it come up 2 or 3 times myself. If it's really that bad, we could put it as a perennial proposal, but I don't think anyone actually reads those before posting their complaint. Makes the whole idea of having a list of perennial proposals rather useless... --tjstrf05:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. The idea I intended to express was the following: Since the schwa sound is so widely used, why not make it into a proper letter? Similarly, the letter X is an alphabetic redundancy and could be eliminated to maintain the alphabet count at 26. Basically I was giving an example of a random idea for changing the writing system, with the intended connotation that Wikipedia really has no place to be determining some of these things. I really need to be more clear sometimes. --tjstrf06:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And 'c' is pointless because it can be replaced by 's' or 'k', which would be less ambiguous anyway. And there are lots of other reforms of English orthography that would make sense, but are unlikely to ever happen because people are too hideboundly traditional and even throw hissy fits over the few spelling differences between varieties of English (e.g., "color" vs. "colour"). *Dan T.*13:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a very simple solution to this be to make a bot to convert IPA into standard English dictionary-style pronunciation guidelines and add it into the article so that both are available? — Dark Shikaritalk/contribs13:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which "standard English dictionary-style pronunciation guidelines"? At least in the United States, each dictionary has their own standard. --Carnildo18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Oxford English Dictionary uses the IPA for pronunciation. If it's good enough for the OED then it's good enough for me! And, quite frankly, it should be good enough for Wikipedia too, since the OED is (to quote our article) "generally regarded as the most comprehensive and scholarly dictionary of the English language". Or do we want to appear dumbed down? The IPA is not confusing in the slightest. It's actually pretty straightforward. -- Necrothesp18:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would personnaly appreciate that bot-thing. It's true that I don't take pride in not knowing the IPA, but I know also that if I didn't learn it yet, there is very little chance for me to wake up one morning and just go learn it. The bot would be a pleasent exercise to learn a practical, useful language. If no bot, then maybe just linking the IPA words to the IPA article would be a start, so that intrigued people could click and get there. If it's made into a template, the template can evolve later to get people to the "translation" of their IPA word.--SidiLemine14:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be awesome if someone were to write an IPA-speech-synthesis module for mediawiki that would make ogg audiofiles on-the-fly.. --Improv19:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a link to IPA should be automatic (I though it was, but that shows what I know) Something else I don't know anything about is how complicated 'bot creation is - assuming that it might take a while to create a 'bot to add the second pronunciation guide, would a 'bot that simply added a link to IPA at the end of each proninciation guide be difficult to create? --Badger15105:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
spoilers
I think there should be a waiting period for adding spoilers to an article - maybe like a month after it's release/showing/etc. Pokemon Diamond and Pearl is rife with storyline spoilers. it's impossible to help edit the article without uncovering a spoiler. --172.163.213.4105:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pokemon games have plots? I never noticed. They certainly don't effect the (imo very good) gameplay... Anyway, if you don't want spoilers, don't read the article. There's a spoiler template right there on the page warning you about it. --tjstrf07:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem posed is that it's complicated to edit, not to read. But I think that if you didn't finish the game, you shouldn't try to edit the plot (or any spoilerising section) anyway.--SidiLemine10:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a problem. There are enough editors who really don't mind. For things where spoilers are more important - like movies, people who actually content edit rarely do so until they have actually watched it. For things like games, spoilers aren't that big a deal. And plenty of us really don't mind it and edit anyway. So if you want to edit but don't want to be spoiled, just wait until you finish the game.
Not to mention, it's really impossible to impliment such a rule. The purpose of such a policy would be to protect editors from spoilers. But in order to implement the rule, editors would have to remove spoilers when people add them during the waiting period, which involves editors reading the spoilers and then deciding they're spoilers, which defeats the purpose of the rule in the first place. --`/aksha10:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been falsely accused of personal attacks and threatened with account blocking by a user named Hkelkar. This user has taken control of the article above and removes any discussion he disagrees with. The lates case, a comment I entered in the Talk:Indian caste system with teh title "Inextricability from Hinduism", which has been removed twice in an arbitrary way. Please be aware that this sort of things are happening in Wikipedida.--tequendamia07:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plz ignore this user. He has made personal attacks against me and has made extremely hateful comments in the talk page.See WP:PAIN for report[2].He refuses to discuss and only revert-wars. I have tried to reason with him very politely and with WP:Civility but only get a cold silence.Hkelkar08:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of those edits linked to on the WP:PAIN board are personal attacks, nor would I describe them as hate-mongering. This a POV/content dispute. --tjstrf08:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He refuses to even discuss with me, only edit-war and disrupt.Can somebody at least get him to calm down and discuss civilly with other editors?Hkelkar08:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request for policy and structural modifications for transwiki to wikibooks
Wikibooks now has Special:Import enabled for transwikiing from wikipedia. We're not quite ready for the big show (we want our "Transwiki:" pseudonamespace turned into a true namespace first for smooth interwikilinking...material in that namespace will now be permanent redirects so wikipedians can find things they're looking for), but I have begun to transwiki recipes into the "Cookbook:" namespace (keep in mind there are very few wikibooks administrators, so clearing the wikipedia backlogs will take some time).
The most recent discussion about this is here, which was where we voted for it, but transwikis from wikibooks have long been a contentious issue for a lot of the wikibookians, because in the past things tended to just get dropped there willy-nilly (often without pagehistories, etc.), sand more often than not just ended up being deleted.
So we're hoping a few policies can be changed here on wikipedia to take full advantage of our shiny new tool. First, we'd like to call an end to copy-paste transwikis (the current mood is to ban copy-paste in lieu of import on the wikibooks side, so the policy here should probably reflect that). Any wikipedian wishing to have something transwikied to wikibooks can simply make the request at Wikibooks:Requests for Import. I personally will bee keeping an eye on Category:Copy to Wikibooks and Category:Articles containing how-to sections, but most of the other admins aren't particularly interested (with the exception of Uncle_G, who I believe is also an administrator on wikipedia).
Second, I'd like to have a few templates/categories we can use to inform both the authors of the articles and the "WP:NOT" patrollers that the transwiki has taken place, and the article can either be switched to a soft redirect, cleaned up to remove how-to/textbookish material, or just deleted. I had made some templates for this a month or so ago, but a bot came through and cleared them out (I never could figure out why), so I'd prefer to leave this part of the work to some more experienced wikipedians (also, the onus of the actual importing and cleaning up on the wikibooks side will most likely be squarely on my shoulders, so I'd rather just watch the policy than try to take part in it).
Templates of the following ilks would be useful:
1. A template for articles tagged with {{Copy to Wikibooks}}, along the lines of {{Copied to Wikibooks}} (which is the one cleared out by the bot... it affixes a new category to the page which I hope will be helpful for wikipedians on the cleanup detail).
2. A template for articles tagged with {{Howto}}, which would inform any interested party that the article has been safely copied, and the how-to material can be removed. Maybe a category for this too, as a subcategory of Category:Articles containing how-to sections.
3. A template for articles imported for forking purposes (i.e., to be used as source material for a book or a chapter of a book). This would be affixed to the talk page of the article in question. This should also be affixed to the talk pages of articles that are copied and then rewritten in an encyclopedic style, so that the contributors whose contributions were removed will (hopefully) find comfort in the fact that they are still being put to good use (and thus hopefully avoid some heated disputes).
4. A "no thanks" template for materials that would not have a place on wikibooks. Quite a few of the articles that are tagged for moving to wikibooks are either too stubby to be worth importing (wikibooks is rather unlike wikipedia in the sense that stubs are rarely adopted and developed), aren't appropriate (some stuff seems to actually be transliterations of PD texts, which should go to wikisource), or would clearly not survive our deletion process. Please note also that Jimbo has banned video game guides from wikibooks, so those should go to one of the wikimedia sites (the majority of the ones formerly on wikibooks have gone here).
I should point out that I'm a wikipedian also, and part of why I'm doing the importing is to help the cleanup process here, as well as preventing mess-making there. I'm also a follower of the ism that wikipedia is not doomed, but in some topic areas, wikipedia is more or less done: the only way to improve a lot of the articles is to actually make textbooks out of them, which definitely goes into realms well beyond the limits set by WP:NOT. Wikibooks can be nearly anything, as long as they're NPOV, instructional, and factual: hopefully wikipedians who've already written all they could on their areas of expertise might want to bring it a step further. (Yes, I am plugging a bit here, but after spending a bunch of time wikifying, there is a certain perverse pleasure in de-wikifying :-).) ----SB_Johnny|talk|books11:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
coprighted images
What is the policy on posting images that might allready be part of a copyrighted process? in addition, can individual copyrights be posted for various processess within the website?
User deleting inoffensive comments from own talk page
I know removing warnings and block templates from your own talk page is not allowed, but what should one do when a user blanks out their own talk page (including an archive link which had warnings on)? Should they still be warned about it? Should the talk page be reverted? Would be interesting to know what to do in this case... - |||antiuser (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on why they blanked their talk page. Is there a specific incident you are referring to? (Of course there is, or you wouldn't have posted this.) Some people archive their talk page, others don't. Some delete old comments thinking that the page history acts as an archive. I think it really comes down to intent. Why did they blank their talk page?~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 01:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring specifically to User_talk:Snowbound. I'm just used to hitting history any time I see a blank talk page, since usually people do that without archiving to get rid of warnings, but this user didn't seem to have anything particularly bad on there. I didn't know whether to warn them about it, revert it or just leave it alone. |||antiuser (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's their talk page and it's not disruptive. I'd say leave it to him. Oh and by the way, your statement that "removing warnings and block templates from your own talk page is not allowed" is incorrect (specifically, there is ongoing debate about this and consensus has not been reached to make it policy). However, removing a message means you've read it, so subsequent behavior may warrant sanctions. >Radiant<09:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want Wikipedia to attract users I suggest letting people do what they want with their talk page. On the other hand if you want to chase people away, then hassling people by interfering with their talk pages is a great idea. Wimstead13:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, WP:EL says that forums are heavily discouraged as external links because the external links section should only really be used for extra information and not things like social networking. There's a few exceptions to this of course.
So, another editor and I have a disagreement on whether or not the Blasian article should link to the forum "blasian forums" (it's in the article itself right now). He believes having a link is valuable and points to other articles (which haven't had this challenged yet) Eurasian (which has a yahoogroup), Asian fetish (which has another forum), and Oriental (which has a link to a forum debating the term).
I don't strongly believe on precedent in Wikipedia (being that almost everything is on a case-by-case basis because of diverse subject material and sources, and moreover the articles themselves currently have their POV challenged), and I believe that the forums in all those places should probably be moved. But again, we disagree, so I'm taking it here to get more opinions.
Even though a forum may be primarily a social place - if the article is about a social phenomonen, then a forum may well be relevant - especially if the internet plays a role in the said social phenomonen. Forums can also be useful on articles about internet culture, or fiction that is popular mostly on the internet. This is especially true if you're linking to a specific thread (as oppossed to a forum in general). In the oriental article for example, the link it to a specific thread which discusses whether the word "oriental" may be pejorative or insulting, which i think complements the article nicely.
That being said, i'm not saying forums are generally good to link to. Just that they're not all bad. In this particular case of the Blasian article, i'll say don't link. I think the question that needs to be asked is "would someone who follows the link, and browses the forum find any useful information in addition to what is on wikipedia?". If the link was to a individual thread that contained useful discussion which does provide additional information, then it would be a different story. But it seems to me the link is promotional - the forum is, for a start, tiny (40 members and 3300 posts is tiny for a forum).--`/aksha06:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links are primarily for sources, and forums are generally not reliable sources. Also, as Yaksha says, this is a tiny forum and shouldn't promote itself on Wikipedia. >Radiant<09:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented on the Blasian article talk page...(and have made changes on those articles which I have questioned--which is true, forums should not be linked to...even if it is a thread as those are just random people giving their opinions in a social setting). As I mentioned in my reply on the 'talk' page of the Blasian article, we all have the best interests in mind for the article; and, I believe getting various pov's will help this article in particular, balance out.--Joel Lindley19:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Images of living children
Today, I found an image of a young boy that had been uploaded and referenced on an article page. The identity of the boy was not relevant to the article, and the quality of the image was such that he would have been clearly identifiable to any family member or anyone else who knows him. Do we have an official policy on this kind of thing, because in my view, it amounts to child abuse and could land Wikipedia in hot legal water. In a way, it's similar to the issues around biographies of living people. --Portnadler17:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't, no. I do not see how a recognizable image amounts to abuse; is the child's address mentioned anywhere? If not, nobody not already familiar with him could locate him anyway. >Radiant<14:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a clearly identifiable image of your son or daughter was uploaded and used in a Wikipedia article without your consent, would you not object? --Portnadler14:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were talking about child abuse or legal prohibitions; personal objection is a completely separate matter—the difference between concrete harm that may be prosecutable, and simply being considerate of others' feelings. Could you elaborate, and lay out your points a little more clearly, maybe point out the article and image for context? Postdlf14:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, a photo taken in a public place is not considered to be a concern (no expectation of privacy), as long as the context is positive or neutral (as opposed to the bedwetting example). Unless it was accompanied by personal details, such an image is unlikely to pose a hazard to the child anyway. Dragons flight15:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about articles like child or infant? Isn't it important to have appropriate illustrations in those? What if it's the child's parents doing the uploading (I imagine some of the images in child were uploaded by the parents of the children in question)? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is the child's parents doing the uploading, I don't see what the problem is, given the fact that they have the legal clearance to do such a thing (parents sign contracts for their children, can dictate certain decisions for them, etc.). EVula15:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The UK Information Commissioner considers a photograph of a person, unless (eg) a crowd scene, to be Personal Data, capable of uniquely identifying a living individual (assuming they are alive). This is all rather formal and under the (UK) Data Protection Act 1998. Now, this does not legally affect Wikipedia since it is not a UK organisation and has no offices in the UK, but it should be considered to be a useful guideline. Wikipedia would, if subject to this law, be a "Data Controller", and, as such, would have the duty to inform the person in the picture that they were "processing" this picture, and would have the duty to remove it (under section 10 of that act) if the individual objected.
This means that any photograph, not a child's photograph, is a debatable asset if of a living individual.
Even by this guideline, it would still be fair if the parents uploaded the pics, since, as the legal guardians, they would be the ones to be contacted about "processing" the picture. EVula16:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, yes. However, if the child is old enough to understand the implications of giving or witholding consent (there is no statutory age in the UK for this) the child may require the picture to be removed, and the child may release the picture for publication.
The challenge faced is the GFDL licence - "once uploaded the world owns it" (I know it has different implications). I think this means a formal policy for pictures of living people is essential, and stated on the upload page. Fiddle Faddle16:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to predict every possible usage under every possible law. GFDL allows for-profit uses, yet for example, photographs of living people used on commercial products may violate rights of publicity, or give rise to a cause of action for false endorsement. What other people do with it outside of Wikipedia pursuant to the GFDL license is their own concern. Postdlf16:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a possible example. Wicked Uncle Ernie takes a picture of his pretty 12-year old niece wearing high-heeled shoes. Unbeknown to said niece and her parents, Ernie then uploads the picture to Wikipedia and uses it in an encyclopedic article about shoe fetishism. There is no copyright issue: Ernie took the picture himself. But how would you react if you were the girl's parents? --Portnadler16:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine that we'd keep an image of a child in an article about a sexual topic, even though the image in itself did not qualify as child porn; it just wouldn't be a relevant or appropriate illustration. But I thought you had an actual example, not just a hypothetical. Postdlf16:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's like saying we have no way of verifying the provenance of any picture that the uploader claims as his/her own (unless the real photographer makes a complaint). --Portnadler16:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because applicable U.S. laws require us to observe copyright, but not to get permission for taking/using someone's picture, child or not. Postdlf16:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issues need to be focused, instead of shifting every time someone asks a question (this is unfortunately typical for every time an issue with possible moral implications is discussed here). There are three separate issues, all assuming there are no copyright issues and they are taken in a location at which the photographer had a right to be present:
What are the legal consequences, if any, under relevant U.S. and Florida law for posting photographs of minors that were taken without the permission of the parents or minor?
Is there any potential concrete harm to minors from the use of their photographs on Wikipedia without permission that we should adopt policy to prevent?
Should Wikipedia adopt policy to address the personal objections of parents to the use of photographs of their children?
That's a helpful analysis. I am not qualified to answer the first question, but my responses to 2 and 3 are both "yes". We have to obey the laws of the relevant jurisdiction, but we can go beyond them when establishing Wikipedia policy. It is possible to argue a case for using something based on the UK Data Protection laws for pictures of any living person, as has been mentioned above. However, I started this discussion primarily because I think there is an issue of protection of minors from having identifiable pictures of them posted without permission and possibly in inappropriate places. --Portnadler17:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so now that you're focusing on issue #2, could you explain what harm you believe minors need to be protected from that results from the photographs, and what should we do about it? Once again, please use your actual example you referred to when you started this topic with—identify the article and image so we have some context. Postdlf17:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your questions:
None that I know of.
No. A picture is just a picture. If there is personal information (an extreme example: an eight-year-old girl holding up a sign with her address on it), it should be speedily deleted, no questions asked.
If there is a way to verify the parental status, yes (similar to how celebrities have to submit a picture of themselves to verify with Wikipedia who they are, same thing with the parents, perhaps).
Any rewrite is certainly something someone can propose, but there is nothing like any sort of consensus that the guideline needs to be or should be discussed broadly like this, rather than discussing each section separately. 200521:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to 2005's stated opinion, mutiple people have already worked on this rewrite as a consensus effort. As should be readly apparent by the editing history, and discussion. Further involvement from the wikipedia comunity is invited and encouraged. --Barberio22:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus that the guideline should be rewritten in this way, period. Please refrain from making blatantly false statements. 200523:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the extra agression? If you bother to read the proposed rewrite you'll see that this is not a radical change but rather a welcome simplification of the existing guideline that does not in any way alter its core principles. Pascal.Tesson23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please compare the document to what it is intended to replace, and I'd suggest you also review the discussions that have been underway for months. The proposed rewrite is radically different, and aims to drastically alter core principles. The author believes the current guideline is full of cruft and creeping bureaucracy. It is always fine to propose radical changes, but that is all this is, the very beginning of a proposal for radical changes that is not the result of any consensus of need. 200509:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you're pretty incensed about the rewrite but frankly I have had nothing to do with it and my assessment above was an honest one. I know the current WP:EL pretty well and I truly feel that the rewrite is not a substantial change of orientation and a welcome simplification and clarification. You might need to take a step back and make sure that your anger over the way these changes were proposed has not clouded your judgment on their value. Pascal.Tesson17:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making these strange comments. Pointing out an inaccuracy and that there is no consensus about something is not being "angry". Please consider your comments more carefully next time. 200501:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure of where to ask this, so I figured this would be a good place. I'm curious as to what level of enforcement we're supposed to take on suckpuppet warnings. For example, DreamGuy (talk·contribs) and Victrix (talk·contribs) have been tagged as "Likely" sockpuppets (the Request for checkuser). DreamGuy, however, has been removing the tag repeatedly from his user page (insulting everyone who restores it [3][4][5][6][7]).
Now, personally, I think DreamGuy is a dick. Because of my (rather impassioned) interest in the matter, though, I don't want to wade in and start enforcing its existence if he's not breaking a policy by removing it. I did some poking around, but didn't find anything.
Where are these cases coming from all of a sudden? There's a similar incident over on WP:AN/I right now, too.
No, we don't use the sockpuppet or sockpuppeteer warnings as big scarlet As on editors in good standing. ('Good standing' is broadly defined here, basically anyone who is not blocked.) I note that the Victrix account hasn't made any edits since June, so this seems to be a rather stale issue. If Victrix resumes editing – and does so in a manner which is not beneficial to Wikipedia – then it would be appropriate to ban him as a disruptive sock and apply the proper template. (A non-indef block for the puppeteer would be appropriate too, in such a case.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, thanks. Given the fact that there's no solid policy about it, I'll just stay out of it (not going to restore the warning, but won't help DreamGuy remove it, either, as it just feels to me that it should be there). I think I'm too emotionally invested to really edit with a clear head; I can very easily see myself saying "take that, jerk!" with each reversion. :-) EVula04:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a clearer policy regarding linking to fansites
there's a long-running debate regarding the inclusion of notable fansite links on the LOST article; it specifically concerns the inclusion of a link to lostpedia (a wiki concerning the television series LOST), but it broadly impacts fansites in general.
it is this editors belief that a clique of editors are resisting the inclusion of a link to (an)other notable fansite(s) (for what reason, i do not know) in the article - the main reason cited being the theories section present in many articles on lostpedia, which in a way constitutes original research - the nature of the show essentially encourages theories.
the purpose of this addition to the discussion on policy is not to garner votes in a straw poll, or anything like that; it is to suggest that a greater degree of clarity is desirable in the policies that determine whether or not fansites deserve inclusion in an article. comments on this are most welcome.
As a general rule, fansites are inappropriate. See WP:EL. Also, WP:RS though that really just provides a bit of background, nothing directly relevant. However, WP:EL is a guideline, not an official policy, and even if it were official policy, it is sometimes appropriate to add a single particularly notable fansite. I am concerned that generally (though not necessarily in this case) people seem to use the fact that other articles violate policies or guidelines as an excuse to violate the policies or guidelines on another article. Yes, these should be applied consistently, but that's grounds for enforcing the policies or guidelines, not ignoring them in yet another place. When it comes to external links in general, we need far fewer of them on the Wikipedia. And when we allow one fansite, it is much harder to say no to the second. Or the third. Or the tenth, and plenty of articles have links to ten fansites (well, until I find them anyway). We are fast becoming a link farm. That said, I have not looked at this particular site specifically and I strongly suspect a compelling case could be made for its inclusion. If it is in fact an official site (this is not at all clear to me), the case is made right there. --Yamla04:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lostpedia is not an official site - and i completely agree with you on the issue of one external link being equivalent to 'the boy who took his finger out of the dam'; however, the site has notability (see the more detailed discussion linked above for this), and is also widely used by many forums (which, granted, are certainly not notable sources in themselves) as reference material - as an aside, on past evidence the regular editors of the article in question are vigilant enough to remove any spam added very quickly. what troubles me the most, however, are the facts that;
"lostpedia is a wiki" seems to me to be an integral part of many of the arguments against its inclusion; surely the fact that lostpedia is a resource that anyone can edit should not be an obstruction to the addition to one line in one article on the encyclopaedia anyone can edit?
the fact many other comparable articles include similar, external links - granted, you have addressed this above, but the point still stands. --Kaini04:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, let me state that I hate Lost. Secondly, let me state that I believe linking to Lostpedia would be warranted, as the site seems to meet the criteria for being a notable fansite, and that its being a wiki should promote its inclusion, not discourage it. --tjstrf05:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the Lost wiki is accurate enough that the only mistakes are minor at best, there is no reason not to include it. Furthermore, I don't see any problem with linking one (and I stress that) fansite so long as it's a well-designed site with some sort of resource beyond what this wiki could provide without violating any major copyright. For example, sites that distribute the episodes would readily fail. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think fansites are fine as long as they fit the categories of "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" and "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.". Fansites for fictional works sometimes include detailed information that would be considered fancruft on wikipedia, so linking to a fansite which does provide accurate information on the topic which is not in the wikipedia article should be fine.
That being said, the majority of fansites don't. But in the case of a fansite which is informative, and contains information beyond what we should include in an encyclopedia article, and is relatively notable within the fandom for that fictional work, should be appropriate.
I don't think saying a fansite contains original research theories if a decent reason not to include it. If it includes only theories, then it probably shouldn't be included because it contains no additional information not already on the article. But if it does have additional information, as long as it's not passing theories off as facts, i think it's fine. --`/aksha07:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are several problems, for example: if you allow Lostpedia then you have to allow LostWikia.. if you allow them two then you have to allow Lost-TV and so forth the ball begins rolling until the article is entirely a link farm, there is a fair solution though, have no fan links. thanks/Fenton, MatthewLexic Dark52278 Alpha 77107:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that line or argument, it would be best and most easy for everyone if we didn't allow any External Links at all. After all, once we start allowing one type of external links, we'll start allowing another type, and the group of allowed external links will expand, and soon we'll have a link farm. Allowing one fansite doesn't nessasarily mean allowing both.
If there are many fansites which offer additional information on the topic which isn't already in the article, then people will have to consider how many external links should be on the article, and just how much additional information the fansite needs to have before it should be listed. And things like which of the two Lost Wikis are bigger, have more articles, have more content...etc.
No fanlinks at all is not a 'fair' solution. But it is a easy solution, a very good excuse to avoid the problem altoghther, and a lazy way out of actually making an attempt to differentiate between different fansites.
If you start excluding links to fansites, then you have to exclude links to any sites, and then you have to exclude the nearly-crufty facts, and then you have to exclude all the facts, and then there's nothing left to cull but the wiki software code. (joke) I agree that saying "no links" is easier than saying "only the best links", but I also agree that it's lazy. Editorial judgment applies to links as well as to prose. --Loqi T.09:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No-one's asking to cite a fan site as a source. What's being asked for is mention of the existence of a particular site. --Loqi T.10:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing inappropriate about fansites in general, and they are often by far the best links on a topic, going into far more detail than an article here could ever get into. But fan sites should not be added just because they exist. If they meet "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" and/or "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article" then they could be linked to. There is considerable ongoing discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:External links, with some people thinking the negative phrase "fan sites" is not useful to talk about at all, while others go the opposite way and just want to prohibit linking to any non-commercial fan site. Several attempts to amend the external links guideline regarding fansites (particularly by emphasizing that they need to be high quality to be linked to) have all failed in the past couple months, so if you do want to be a part of a broader discussion on this topic, one is already going on at Wikipedia_talk:External links. 200510:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do they not just take a vote, list all the fan sites and see which sites get the most votes in a poll of editors who have been editing the article for at least a month or have over X edits, leave the poll open forever and as votes change change the links. Make it a cap of two or three links to fan sites and the votes contribute, if anything it will turn the article into a better one as people who want to come from their favorite fansite to vote will need to help the article before they can have theirs counted. I am sure this idea can use tweaking like simply not allowing single purpose accoutns to vote or something. --NuclearZer012:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that linking to some fansites is good; but Wikipedia is not a web directory, so e.g. linking to a fan forum with 50 members is not necessary except as promotion for that forum. >Radiant<14:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to fansites is essential because they are nearly always the best resources on pop culture topics. They are also a lot less commercial than official sites. Wimstead13:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Separating Article Links
There just is something annoying to me when you go to click on a link for something, and it turns out that in reality, each word is its own link.
Such as, United States Navy Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, in which case "United States Navy", "Admiral" and "Hyman G. Rickover" are all separate links.
I think that there could be something to delineate that there are different links therein before you have the cursor over or have clicked.
I usually hover over a multi-word link to see what gets underlined. It would be nice not to have to do that though. When I write, I try to construct my sentences to avoid just this problem. I'd rather have the freedom to write the best sentence for the job. A subtle visual cue would fix both annoyances. It'd probably be best to write some kind of adjustment into the wiki rendering software than to adopt a textual writing convention among editors. Maybe consecutive links could be given extra spaces between them, or be given slightly different colors? --Loqi T.09:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not policy to link to the first usage of a word with a Wiki article? Whilst this may cause a glut of wikilinks in the article introduction it can help the reader navigate quickly to the required place.LessHeard vanU22:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have your preferences set to not underline links, you can try setting it to always underline links, that should make a visible gap like Radiant was talking about. --Interiot14:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usage of images in signature
There is an ongoing discussion regarding use of images in signatures on the WP:ANI page. Please click here. If you want to discuss about the issue edit the page there, and if you want to tell me how tactless I have been, you can come to my talk page. :) — Nearly Headless Nick{L}16:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question regarding WP:NPA's scope - I was informed recently that only attacks on editors constitute a violation. But what if a demeaning reference to women as "virgins" and senior citizens as "old-age pensioners" is posted on a user talk page[8]? There are many women and old people who contribute to Wikipedia and (will) find those "general" statements quite insulting. While an administrator informed me that such statements are not violative of WP:NPA[9], I'd like to have more opinions. Rama's arrow18:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the reference to "virgins" was referring to women per say. I think it was more referring to children and people young enough that adults want to protect them from profanity and nudity (and presumably, the adults that are doing the protecting). At any rate, looking at that specific comment I don't think it was ment to be an attack on anyone or group of people so much as it was meant to convey impatience with people who don't approve of certian language and images. I think you have to take things in context, and not cry "attack" or "Racist" or "Sexist" at every possible opportunity. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the user's block record, you'll know there is a reason to discount WP:AGF. I have never heard of the use of the term "virgin" for "children" or "young people." Rama's arrow20:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Virgin" means someone who has never had sex. It does not matter if that person is male or female, young or old. Though most of the time children have never had sex (i.e., are virgins), and it is children people seem to want to protect from any reference to sex. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 13:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that it was not specifically aimed at women. Also, taken in the context of a discussion on censorship it seemed to be referring to children and those who seek to protect them by censoring sexual content. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, an administrator has advised me that its not a violation of NPA. I was looking for more feedback, but I guess this settles the point. Thanks, Rama's arrow15:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: the relevant policy here would be WP:CIVIL. This was not intended as a personnal attack. I believe it is indeed improper but it is not targeted at anyone in particular. Pascal.Tesson15:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so too. The only thing that made me feel that it was a "personal attack" was the explicit sexual insinuation - that is a subject which is generally deeply personal. Rama's arrow15:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Pensioners" is not demeaning in the slightest. It was the official term used in Britain until fairly recently (and the editor whose talk page it was on is apparently from London), it is accurate (since they are indeed drawing a pension), and it is still the most common term (along with OAPs) used for elderly people in everyday speech, including by most pensioners themselves. "Senior citizens" still sounds patronising to me, both to the people themselves and to those of us who are younger (since "senior" actually means "more important than", not "older than"), and is rarely used in everyday speech in Britain. "Virgins" is quite obviously being used in a lighthearted way to mean people who are naive and innocent; why on earth it should be taken as referring specifically to women is beyond me. This was in no way a personal attack or uncivil in my opinion and I'm puzzled why anyone would take it to be. -- Necrothesp00:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you would kindly refer to the contributions and block record of this user, you'll know why I'm anxious to determine that no policy is being broken here. The point of concern is not his use of the terms "virgins" or "pensioners," but his attitude and reason for doing so. More in the avenue of WP:CIVIL than [{WP:NPA]]. Rama's arrow00:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Are you commenting on his use of a banner on his talk page or his wider edits? You appeared to be asking for comment on the former, not the latter. You also did seem concerned by his use of those two words (refer to your first post at the top of this section). -- Necrothesp00:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
English language policy
Can anyone direct me to a policy that says content in the English Wikipedia should actually be in English? I know this sounds rediculous, but the parameters for Template:French commune are in French, i.e. instead of "mayor" they have "maire" and instead of "population" they have "sans". I brought this issue up on the template talk page and was informed that this was on purpose so that it would be easier to copy content from the French Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I can't find any policy to refute this argument. Kaldari22:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er... wow. The closest thing I can find is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which isn't terribly applicable. I agree with you, but just can't find anything to back you up... in lieu of an actual policy on it, I'd suggest implementing the "if" method that ThePromenader mentioned. EVula22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the template, it might be better to leave it or to at least continue to allow French parameters. We tend to get this info directly from French Wikipedia, and it is much easier to simply copy the table (which is translated for readers) than to translate each time. Many foreign Wikipedias have tables in English for exactly the same reasons. A bot and judicious use of parser functions could fix it if there were are serious problem. Physchim62(talk)13:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So long as the template also accepts english parameters and always displays in English, there probably shouldn't be a major issue -- there is the concern that English-speakers who would want to edit template text may find it difficult to do so though. I wonder if use of a double template, the first substed to reparameterise the second, would work. --Improv14:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I've been canvassing some support recently, as some of you may have seen, for a program/project to harmonise all of the user page templates and warnings. I'm looking for an admin, not necessarily to carry out much work, but who will be able to point me in the right direction, on certain issues. I'm willing to do all the leg work, but could just do with someone sitting on my shoulder to achieve this goal. If you're interested, or would like to know more please see here .Have a glance through all the different types of warnings and if you have any ideas please list them.
This doesn't necessarily apply just to admins hence the reason copied here, but anyone with suggestions or willing to contribute to create a standard for users page warnings and messages. Regards Khukri(talk . contribs)12:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed guideline has been extensively used and referred to for its intended purpose, to simplify Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion, during the past five months, an average of more than every other day. It has simplified discussion, and made it less contentious. It has grown and reacted to discussion and the results of those AfDs; it reflects community practice, and is the sum of many points of view. It has been five months as a proposal. It is not perfect, but it is a lot better than nothing. I believe it is now time to mark it as a full fledged notability guideline, and subset of WP:BIO.
I have noticed that some administrators are deleting individual revisions in the straightforward way (delete and then undelete the revisions not to be deleted), while others employ a cleaver trick to make these revisions not in the way if the page is to be purged of some other revisions in the future. While I never performed this operation myself, I have outlined it at Wikipedia:Selective deletion. If what I wrote makes sense, this page could be linked from or merged with other "practical deletion" guidelines. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio15:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am monitoring a biographical article in which one editor is using "personal communication" with the subject as a citation. Has there been any discussion in WP:V or WP:RS regarding whether this is acceptable or not. Thanks! -AED20:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed demotion of Wikipedia:Reliable sources to essay status
I'm not sure how many people are aware that there is an ongoing discussion on the status of WP:RS. I personnally think this is a very very bad idea but more than anything I want to make sure that the community at large gets involved in that debate. Pascal.Tesson21:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
American systematic bias in Wikipedia
I realise the greater many of readers and contributors to the Wikipedia are American, and I do not wish to denigrate the efforts of so many fine editors but can it be made clear when making policy regarding style that not everybody knows all the States (and particulary the abbreviations), or will assume that a reference to a Governmental department is peculiar to the USA (most particulary when referred to as an acronym). Many contributors and readers are from outside of the US, and some may not have English as a first language, and may need reference points. It also helps Search Engines find the relevent article!
I have just edited an wikilink which was [[United States Secretary of War|Secretary of War]] by removing the second conditional text. Since the article was specifically about a US policy think tank it made it less understandable, especially as the term United States was therefore omitted from the introductory paragraph. This may not have mattered too much but the United Kingdom also had a Secretary of War in the timeframe referred to by the article.
For the US student or reader familiarity often obscures this deficit, but nearly all geopolitical articles outside of the USA include mention of the nation. To maintain a standard in Wikipedia this should be policy for all geopolitical articles.
Actually, I'm not sure there is a specific guideline written about this but it's at least implicit in Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. Keep in mind that although editors might indeed fail to be specific enough, there are very few instances where a more precise description (such as yours) will be reverted. Even if a guideline existed, you can be certain that articles will still be written without conforming to it and it is up to you and I and everyone else to make it better one article at a time. Pascal.Tesson22:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could it at least be made very implicit? ;) I frequently edit wiki by seeing what the random article brings up, and I usually edit every other US based article just to include the nation in the intro/piece. Articles referring to other countries need editing far less frequently. "Lummee, and there are so many articles..." Ah, well, it keeps me out of mischief! Thanks. LessHeard vanU22:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of this is just about writing better articles, that's very true. We should always try to give a reasonable ammount of context when writing articles, assuming other people will know what we're talking about is an innocent way to introduce bias... unfortunately just writing a policy that says we should be careful and add plenty of context hardly means people actually will. This just takes a lot of diligence and awareness to make happen, I think. --W.marsh23:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses. I am aware of WP:CSB, but believe it isn't promoted as much in wiki policy as it could be. A matter of simply making an example of poor article writing owing to bias (such as abbreviating Illinois to Il) might be useful - although not everybody reads the guide and stuff - to bring it home early on to new editors. It should also be noted that the demographic for Wiki contributors indicate a high level of education and grammatical skills, so it may be that I am arguing against a cultural viewpoint rather than one of insularity.LessHeard vanU00:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think in a lot of cases, it is insularity. And thank you for fixing such cases. That's the only way a lot of us will learn. Also, I think one reason people tend not to state what country they're talking about, is that it makes their sentences long and awkward. The author in the first example you cited, could have made the link to read United States Secretary of War|US Secretary of War. -Freekee15:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed policy regarding younger users of Wikipedia
It is written differently. It does not depend on COPPA or any other legal authority. The end result is not significantly different from WP:CHILD. But what difference does it make? If people agree with this proposed policy, why should it matter that there is another proposed policy on the same subject. Same if you disagree with it. Why not comment on this policy? As for the comment below that this is something of a fork, there is no policy against a fork of a policy page. It is not encyclopedia content. I wrote it precisely because the other one had become so bogged down. Once again, I am hoping that people will be more able to focus on the substance of this version than the other other one.
Indeed, seems to be something of a fork from WP:CHILD. On the other hand I'm happy you posted this since I was unaware of the WP:CHILD debate. And it's a pretty sad debate, with shadow straw polls, canvassing, bickering, etc. There is no evidence presented that this policy is needed and I really feel this is "think of the children" paranoia. Pascal.Tesson22:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above.
I'm sorry but I still don't know why you would advertise an alternate solution to a problem which has not occurred in practice, especially given that there is clearly disagreement on the talk page of WP:CHILD on whether or not we should have any policy on the subject and given that the whole issue is going to the arbitration committee. And I think the key point made during the first debate is that either we are required by law to adopt such a policy (in which case, let the office take care of it) or we are not and then why are we wasting our time trying to fix something that ain't broke. Pascal.Tesson04:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously I do not agree with what you say regarding whether the problem exists or whether anything is "broke" or whether legal requirements have anything to do with it. I have to agree that there has been disagreement on the talk page of WP:CHILD. However, having participated in that discussion, I believe there was a great deal of confusion about whether some people were disagreeing with having any policy, or just with the way the thing was presented. Obviously some people do not think there should be any policy, but I am not convinced that they are numerous enough to prevent there from being a "consensus." That's why I started the new page, to try to clarify the situation. 6SJ704:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern and find your effort to be laudable, but this is a legal minefield. The legal department should handle this, in part because should an event occur, it might unlimately involve the corporation. --Badger15106:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Books in Wikipedia
There are ongoing disputes about what is the criteria for including a certain book in WP, and what is allowed in these articles to conform with WP:NPOV.
My view is that Wikipedia is not Amazon.com. If a reader wants to know just what a book contains, when it was published, reviews canvassed by the publisher, etc. the user is better served going to Amazon or a similar site. If a book is prominent enough to have an article in WP, we need to then provide some context, present the controversy the book raised if any, and provide counterpoints to the author's views, if held by notable authors. Otherwise these type of articles are just advertisement.
What are the policies/guidelines available for creating articles about books in WP, if any?
I understand what Wikipedia's stand on "original research" is. I understand why it is important, and what it does for Wikipedia. However, I strongly think Wikipedia should allow some level of interpretation of novels. I do not think a book discussion on Wikipedia proposes unpublished ideas or arguments.
I do not think that Wikipedia should have extremely long topics on book discussions. I also think that we should clearly state that it is speculation. The Brothers Karamazov, a featured article, has a whole section on Analysis/Themes. There is no source listed for these conclusions: just the text itself. I do not think this is harmful. I think it is productive and helps Wikipedia. -- ¢² Connor K. 16:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between mentioning well-known themes/analyses and conducting original research - we should be very vigilant on the later (probably requiring sources for it in the Brothers Karamazov or its removal), but permit the former. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place to house new content. For scientific topics, there is less danger of this -- for literary and especially pop culture topics, we're in great danger of losing project focus, and should be much more strict. --Improv14:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Names in disambiguation pages
My understanding from WP:MOSDP is that for Title (disambiguation), names that consist only partly of Title (e.g. John Title) should not be added to dab pages, yet should not be removed, and once more than a few exist they should be moved to a separate page. Intelligent people will disagree on application, of course. Is there prior discussion to refer to, a prior RfC, or should I start an RfC? ENeville23:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSDP says "People who happen to have the same surname or given name should not be mixed in with the other links unless they are very frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Elvis, Shakespeare). For short lists of such people, new sections of People with the surname Title and People with the given name Title can be added below the main disambiguation list. For longer lists, create a new Title (name), Title (surname) and/or Title (given name) page, or a List of people named Title." -- JHunterJ23:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TV program schedules
I have nominated Template:TV3 (New Zealand) Primetime Schedule for deletion, on the grounds that it's a copyvio (the TV station explicitly forbids publishing of its listings without purchasing the right to do so), that Wikipedia is not a TV guide, and that it's a recreation of a speedy-deleted predecessor. Since the deletion on the ground of Wikipedia not being a TV guide would set a precedent affecting many other articles on television networks, I'm drawing wider attention to the deletion debate. Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 22, not here.-gadfium04:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability
Just ran across Centrist Party (United States). Neither the article not the party's web site indicates that it is anything more than one guy, or a handful, claiming to be a political party. Besides just making a remark on its talk page, is there something short of nominating it for deletion that I can do to press for demonstration of notability? I see we have a template {{notability}}, but it appears to be specific to articles in about half a dozen areas (biographies, bands, etc.) and doesn't seem to cover political parties. - Jmabel | Talk07:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said "is there something short of nominating it for deletion that I can do". Yes, I'm aware that I could suggest deletion, but usually when I fire a warning shot I don't aim at the head. - Jmabel | Talk09:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? That shows you're serious. A prod threat might get them to establish notability. If they clear it without cause or don't bother editting the page again, take it to AfD. It reads like an advertisement to me, and you could probably speedy it under G11 easily. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 09:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added {{notability}} and {{importance}} tags to the article. I normally leave them for a couple of weeks, re-adding them if they get removed without any work being done on the page. If after that period nothing happens - then I would prod the article. Megapixie09:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Table of contents of books in article about non-fiction books
I hear diverging opinions about the question whether it is okay, fair use or copyright violation, informative or uninformative, ugly, lazy to include a table of contents of the non-fiction book in an article about book. See e.g. here The Making of a Moonie, Bounded Choice. It is a re-curring dispute. Any thoughts? Andries12:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking purely about the asthetics of an article, i think it does look sort of ugly. And wouldn't it fall under the category of "lists of indiscriminate information"? since it's just copied right out of a book's TOC, with no added commentary or information. I'd say it would look out of place in the middle of an encyclopedic article. But looking at the Bounded Choice article, it does seem okay (although i think naming the section "table of contents" is a bit confusing, especially when you have an actual Table of contents right above it), although that could just be because there's really nothing else on the Bonded Choice article. No idea what copyright/fair use laws say about this though. --`/aksha14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Bounded Choice article gives a review, word for word. Aside from sounding like spam or vanity, isn't that a copyvio? -Freekee15:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can terms invented by Wikipedia articles become notable if others start using them?
Sure, they can... while it's not proper to use Wikipedia as a place to introduce or promote something new, it's still true that once something becomes popular and notable it deserves inclusion, even if some of that popularity began via improper Wikipedia use in the past. *Dan T.*20:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:NEO requires reliable secondary sources about the neologism before we can have an article. Remember that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so none of its mirrors are either. GRBerry02:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to the title question, of course. In this specific instance, I'm not sure the term merits an article, but there's no reason that a Wikipedia term couldn't become an actual word. As an example, I've encountered the real-life verbing of the word Wikipedia itself (by non-editors) to mean looking something up on Wikipedia, similar to the use of Google to mean an internet search. --tjstrfNow on editor review!06:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, about a month ago, the line which said random usernames aren't allowed was removed because it was causing problems (people were getting blocked erratically. like how User:Asdfghjkl:; was blocked on sight, where as User:Lkjhgfdsa and User:Asdfg12345 were not blocked, and have gone on to be decent contributers).
Now User:pschemp wants to add the line in. Because he things it should be kept. And he insists it should be kept on the policy page because there was never consensus to remove it (although there was never consensus to add it in the very first place.)
Can some people go take a look and give some third opinions? Both regarding whether the line saying "no random usernames" should or shouldn't be kept on the policy page when there is no consensus to keep it; and regarding whether we should keep it in the long term.
There was never consensus to remove that part of the policy in the first place, thus its stays until consensus to remove it reached.pschemp | talk06:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prove that please. While your opinion is nice, until consensus is reached, we don't remove things. That's the whole point. Your addition of an opinion does not consensus make. pschemp | talk06:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended, but people are given a better impression when it doesn't look like a user picked their name by randomly pounding the keyboard or dragging a finger across the center line. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i agree. Usernames that look well thought-out do give a better impression. But it doesn't mean usernames which don't look well thought-out should become a bannable offense. --`/aksha06:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it should be discouraged. It could be done in a nicer fashion, of course. Slap together a quick substable template saying "pick a coherent username" or something like that and stick it on the talk page when banning them. User gets a name we can understand and it's all good. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 07:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with discouraging it. I don't think many people would. I do, however, have a problem with the "ban on sight" approach some people seem to be taking. Whether they look good or not, there are people with very random names who seem to be contributing fine. --`/aksha07:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is human error to consider. It's highly unlikely that they'd catch every randomly named account in existence. Those that slip through the cracks with good edits will inevitably survive, but only by a stroke of luck. Plus, a change in username can be forced on those editors if it was really deemed necessary. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the human error in this case is exceptionally high when compared to the other username guildlines. Throughout all the discussions, no one's even bothered to try and provide some definitions/boundaries for what is meant by "random". Simply because it's almost impossible. For policies like "usernames should personally attack other groups of people", it's (in most cases) glaringly obvious whether a username falls into the category or not. The blurry grey area in between is small. For randomness, i'm afraid the blurry grey area is huge. The most obvious example i can think of is admins who don't read leet doing "block on sights" for usernames written in leet codes. As a matter of fact, leet often looks very "random" to people not familiar with it. Maybe we should disallow usernames written entirely in leet too then? See my point? --`/aksha13:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"the human error in this case is exceptionally high when compared to the other username guildlines" another statement you cannot prove Yaksha. Again, where is your proof? Where are the legions of wronged users who have complained?pschemp | talk13:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fine, let me rephrase it into "the human errer in this case would be exceptionally high".
or actually, i don't even need to. I think the example i pointed out on the username talk page of how when one username was blocked, and another almost identical one was not proves the point. I don't suppose you could dish up any example of such inconsistency when it comes to enforcing the other accpetable username rules?
the legions of wronged users...well, i hardly except newbie who gets banned within two mins of registering to make any public complaints.
you demand proof for a lot of things pschemp, but i don't see you ever supplying any proofs for your claims. (explaining how each of the other examples of random usernames that i found (on the username talk page) were in fact 'not random' or 'leet' would be a very good place to start. Since you dismissed all the examples on the basis of them all actually being not random.) --`/aksha14:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who's to say what is and isn't random? What seems random to you may be a deeply meaningful screename that a person has used on all sorts of websites throughout their internet life. Lets say, for example that someone comes along with the username "SACGWDGSRG18" That seems a little random, doesn't it? I've never used that screen name, and probably never will as I always use ONUnicorn, but I could see myself having picked it at one time. To me that would be a meaningful name as it consists of the first, middle, maiden, and married initials of my mother's name, followed by the first, middle, and last initials of my father's name, followed by the first, middle, and last initials of my (maiden) name, and ending with my age when I first went on the internet (all caps because they are all proper nouns). On the other hand, if we block "random usernames" that seems to me like a very blockable name. Why bite new contributors before they've done anything wrong (or right for that matter)? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who's to say what is and isn't offensive? Yet, we make that decision all the time and its the same thing. Nothing here is 100% as it is run by human beings and the two cases are the same. At some point, a line needs to be drawn. An example, from last night User:Plmoknijbuhvygctfrdxezswaq blocked on sight, had already vandalised the moment he created his account. Check the contribs. This happens all the time. The other point here is that this is a long standing policy and until there is consensus to change it, we don't. That's how wikipedia works. And blocks are not biting newbies, especially when done early so as to save them the aggravations of having to change later. A perfectly polite message is left for them. pschemp | talk16:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think there is anyone anywhere who would argue that a username like "F_U_U_(insert group of people here)_FREAKS" is not offensive. For the most part it is patently obvious when things are offensive. On the other hand, "aslgore fjoenroe", while it seems like randomness (in this case it was), may not be to the person who contributed it. As for it being a long-standing policy changed without consensus, we are encourgaed to be bold in making changes, and that includes policy. If someone disputes it after the change, then a discussion is entered into (as now). Maybe it was rude for whoever changed it not to discuss it first, but they were just being bold. As for the length of time that it was there representing consensus, I'd be willing to bet that WP:Username is not one of our highest-traffic policy pages; I know I've only looked at it once (before today) and never referenced it in discussion. Most Wikipedians have probably never paid it any attention at all. (After edit conflict) As for User:Plmoknijbuhvygctfrdxezswaq, they had already vandalised, thereby demonstrating their bad intentions. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I went to block before it was known they had vandalised 'cause they did it so fast after creation but decided to check because people around here are claiming innocents are getting bitten and they aren't. The other point, is that most ramdom names *are* vandals, as with this one too User:1524gf86d3sf546 which is the exact same story. (Whereas I would normally just block, I check first and lo and behold, it was vandalising). pschemp | talk19:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do i have to say this. Just because most random names *are* vandals is NOT an excuse to block on sight. Most anon edits are ALSO vandals, should we start reverting on sight too? Actually, most vandals are anons, maybe we should just block off all the anons? --`/aksha04:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are taking this the the absurd, and no one has suggested doing that. You seem to be suggesting we should ignore obvious vandal usernames until they vandalise which is silly. I'm still waiting for the proof of the legions of innocent users who were harmed. pschemp | talk04:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best "policy" on acceptable usernames is that any username is acceptable unless somebody reasonably finds it unacceptable. Lets avoid instruction creep and very harmful blocks against new editors whose only mistake is picking an esoteric username. Let common sense prevail. Thanks/wangi05:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The dividing line between original research and source-based research becomes quite blurred when it comes to modern history and in particular the availability of increasing numbers of primary documents on the internet. In particular, the work of the [10]National Security Archive is a great boon to historians and teachers in the line of their work. However, they are also open to egregious abuse by people with particular hobby horses. I cannot see how the use of primary source materials in a historical article does not count as original research - it is certainly verifiable, but if it cannot be found in a published work on the topic, then it is also original. Documents are the historical equivilant of a scientist's data, and unless dealt with carefully by a professional can be abused. Personally, I would like to see citations from primary documents banned in historical articles, on the basis that they are original research. If the point being made cannot be found in a published work by an authority on the subject, it should not be up to editors of this site to make it through the use of google. Cripipper15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This can be a slippery slope but I do agree in the most part. I have seen too many people present documents that were released by the government as proof of XyZ, however were unaware that those documents were later proven forgeries, or that information alone would not be considered significant, the document didn't reach person X even though it was addressed to them etc. These are issues a real historian examines that Wikipedia should not draw their own conclusions for. --NuclearZer015:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion on Talk:Sviatoslav I of Kiev, in which an editor objects to citing the Primary Chronicle in the article on the ground that the chronicle is a primary source, while WP:RS guides us to prefer secondary sources. I don't see why speculations of a modern researcher should be preferred to the first-hand account. --Ghirla-трёп-16:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because your average Wikipedian is not a historian and just because they think an item states XYZ or is proof of ABC, doesn't mean it is. If you are using it to cite that it exists, or that person X was mentioned in the Primary Chronicle, I guess that is fine, though I would argue not to say person X but a person named X. --NuclearZer016:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because, at least in theory, a historian has an expert grasp of the pitfalls and inadequecies of primary sources and knows how to handle them appropriately. I cannot comment on the advisability or otherwise of using the Primary Chronicle as a source, because it is now within my field, and so for the same reason I wouldn't use it. Cripipper16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally, encyclopedic subjects are well established and have a number of secondary sources. Wikipedia editors are creating articles which are much more current than paper encyclopedias can create. The WP:RS guideline follows WP:V which is based, but not constrained to, traditional encyclopedias. Therefore, I view Ghirla's statement to present a weakness in the WP:RS guideline which might be restated, thus preventing the confusion that editor had. Terryeo16:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vehemently opposed This proposal supposes that because some Wikipedians don't understand the difference between a literal and an interpretive citation, no one should be allowed to use primary sources at all. That's unworkable. Below is one example of much damage would result:
The photostat of Abraham Lincoln's handwriting would have to go. That shows part of an original draft, so we'd have to disallow the image if we started to classify all primary sources as original research.
The third paragraph in the introduction would have to be rewritten. It begins, Beginning with the now-iconic phrase "Four score and seven years ago," and ends with ""government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Those are quotes from a primary source.
The photograph of Lincoln would have to be removed also. That's another primary source.
Since excerpts from the text are disallowed as original research, the entire text itself has to go.
In a letter to Lincoln, Helen Nicolay stated, "Mr. Hay told me shortly after the transfer was made that your father gave my father the original ms. of the Gettysburg Address." Contemporary correspondence is also an original source, so editors would have to replace this with a paraphrase from some secondary source.
The photostat of the complete Hay Copy would have to be removed for the same reason as the other handwritten excerpt: these are original sources.
Likewise, the link to the Cornell University virtual library for the Bancroft copy would have to be removed from the article.
The photostat of The New York Times article would also have to go. File:Gettys.nyt.jpg
The citation to a 1938 audio recording by William R. Rathvon, a surviving witness to the speech, would have to go.
Not only would the proposal gut this particular featured article, but Joan of Arc, also a featured article, would suffer. The page would lose more than half of its images: photographs of places she visited and a photostat of her signature. The four quote boxes, which highlight excerpts from her correspondence that I translated myself, would all be lost. Citations to her trials, which comprise a substantial percentage of the article's footnotes, would all have to be replaced with secondary source references. Since that would require more time than I have to spare right now, we might have to roll back to this version.[11] Also at Geoffrey Chaucer the line translation I created for the article would have to be removed. Same for the line translation at Beowulf, which served as a model for the Chaucer page. Durova18:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose when the primary source is unambiguous in meaning. However, when there can be a reasonable level of contention over the meaning of a primary source, I believe we must be careful not to make interpetations based on it. For example, I do not believe you should interpet complicated legal documents (especially when the law is new) in their primary form. --tjstrfNow on editor review!22:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References header
Isn't it about time that it becomes policy to use correct headers for the References sections. A lot of different forms are currently used, with most of them not really making sense. A lot of people use:
==Notes==
when they are references and not footnotes. Footnotes are rarely used on wikipedia since it would be just as easy to go to the article which the note refers to (if there is one, there often is). I have seen one, maybe two pages which actually had a footnote in the Notes section, although the majority were still references.
So shouldn't something be added to the MoS to say that inline citations should be placed under the References header with a subheader below that for General references:
Then all the references will be under one header, and they will just be references. I suppose another way could be to call References, Notes and references.
Ideally another <ref> style thing will happen for <note> (there is already {{note}} or something but it isnt built into Wikipedia) so that a seperate header above
==References==
would have the notes and that would be just for notes. No crossing over.
I haven't found a real preference yet for Notes or References, they are about even, but Notes doesn't make sense. Can't something be done? chris_huh16:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always simply use references and the div setup. I do not think general references is useful, if you pulled information from it cite it, if not then leave it off. If they need general shark info they can goto the library. I think notes and references is the way to go, though I normally do not see notes sections and have yet to need one in an article I have started. --NuclearZer016:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That may be fine for articles that don't need a section of notes per se; but there are certainly some that make extensive use of footnotes (like this one), where having a "Notes" section and a separate bibliography-style "References" section makes perfect sense. Kirill Lokshin21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I was wondering what people think about the notability of academic journals. Some of them lead their fields, and a publication in them can make a career at a stroke. Others are hugely significant. Others still are very good for their papers' authors, but not top-flight journals. My particular context is the very many journals published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Most of these journals are definitive in their fields. In the UK, for instance, publications in many of them are (eventually) worth real money from the Government's research-funding bodies.
So my question is this. To what extent should we have seperate articles on them; to what extent should we aggregate them somwhere, and at what granularity (by discipline, by publisher, by ... )? For example, we already have (from my field) IEEE Transactions on Communications and IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. These are both seminal journals, and each has published papers of massive significance to the research community (and, in due course, to the lay public and their information-carrying devices). But what of IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology? You, generally speaking, would try publishing there if your paper didn't make into the others. Should it, and others like it, get an article? -Splash - tk19:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are two questions here: should we keep the article IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology if it's created and should we bother creating it. I'd say yes for the first and no to the second. I see no point in deleting neutral articles about well-established journals even if they're less prestigious but I don't see their absence as a problem. In many cases, a list would be appropriate for "lesser" journals. Pascal.Tesson22:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excessive Use of Unnecessary Images on User Pages/Galleries
I began to notice how some people upload unnecessary amount of images on their user pages and "galleries". And then they legitimize the pictures' presence in Wikipedia by offering them to be displayed in other user pages or articles. An example is [12].
I myself have one pic of myself on my user page, but I think that should be it. Wikipedia should not serve as personal home pages for people. (Wikimachine04:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The example that I think you have in mind is not the link you give above but rather this. However, I'm not so concerned by it. I think I've seen larger collections of grossly inferior photographs, but I didn't make a mental (let alone other) note of them. Perhaps you could come up with more salient (more obviously objectionable) examples. -- Hoary05:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![[12]](/wiki/Image:NYCityscene-May292005.jpg){kind=link}
