Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 33

< Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Freekee in topic did you mean...?
Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196

Archiving format

Latest comment: 16 years ago39 comments12 people in discussion

There are numerous archive boxes and formats. I'd like to standardize. Here's what I see so far:

I believe that "archive box" and "archive box collapsible" aren't very good, because they don't fit in the flow of a talk page. There is no logical place to put them. Typically, talk pages have a bunch of banners on top; thus, I favor "archive banner". Further, archive banner can be placed in the nested list of the much-used "wikiprojectbanner". And further still, "archive banner" requires no arguments in most circumstances, making it easier to use.

Please offer feedback. Timneu22 (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter is simply this: there is no reason for standardization. The respective editors involved in improving different articles should have various options available to them, and they should be able to choose freely from said options. Myself, I prefer the archive box, which sits at the bottom, off to the right of the other talk page banners. As I say, I see no reason for standardization to be imposed from outside. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If this is the case, then you have no reason to revert my edits when I switch to archive banner. Some of your edits made sense, others did not. Timneu22 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Usage seems to lean pretty strongly with the box, by a vast margin, so I disagree with this change. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, the banner has been around for 16 hours. That's why usage leans to the box. Your argument is invalid. Timneu22 (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Promote this idea by all means but please do not force it on people. It's not a policy, simply something you thought up. And certainly do not start altering users' talk pages without any discussion. andy (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the change, do not like this new banner, don't want another non-standard template cluttering the top of talk pages, prefer existing small boxes on side of page, please stop unilaterally altering talk pages. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, since you've now changed Talk:Tourette syndrome twice with no discussion or consensus, please stop installing archives and other templates with the WikiProject banner shell and altering banner shells against consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, Sandy, I do not care what you like or don't like. We're here to have a discussion to see what the people like. I added the new template to a number of pages to get a feel for the flexibility of it. Sorry you had to revert everything right away, also without a consensus. Timneu22 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
There was extensive and heated discussion about changes among WikiProjectBanners and WikiProjectBannerShell when the two templates were designed, with the conclusion being that whatever was installed first and enjoyed consensus should not be changed. Please stop. I have reverted your unilateral changes to the pages I watch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I will continue to make changes to talk pages where it makes sense, and skip pages where it does not make sense. In some instances, "archive box collapsible" and "archive banner" are absolutely identical, except that "archive banner" gives a more professional appearance. These changes should not be "unilaterally" reverted, thank you. Timneu22 (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If you do not care what SandyGeorgia thinks, what is the point of having a discussion to see what the people like? Archiving is something that is done across a lot of pages and hence getting consensus first would be best. You have been bold, you have been reverted, so now is the time to discuss - and please do, because continuing is disruptive. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
As stated, I'm only making changes now where it makes sense (where the boxes are pretty much identical. Waiting for this discussion to resolve. Timneu22 (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This user is now also unilaterally altering archiving naming, away from the standard used in featured article archives, from lowercase to uppercase. This is the third uniteral personal preference being imposed on talk pages without discussion (archive boxes, WikiProject banner shells, and archiving formatting). Perhaps this needs to be taken to WP:AN/I? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See user talk:timneu22. I'm trying to make things consistent and HELP WIKIPEDIA. Why are you taking this so personally?Timneu22 (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
We all have our own good intentions but not everyone thinks that way. If I thought WP:NPOV was stupid, and I sent it for speedy deletion, there is a good chance it would get reverted. Then it would be time to discuss. See WP:BRD. Please take SandyGeorgia's words to heart and not impose unilateral decisions upon something that appears to have no consensus at the moment.
Consider Wikipedia:Template standardisation, which standardised all the templates on articles. That was accomplished over several months of work by multiple users, and even then there were several outcries before, during and after standardisation. Please get consensus first. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not taking it personally, but I am trying to save a lot of Wiki resources and editor time since you are unilaterally changing items that have already been extensively discussed elsewhere, and doing so against consensus. There were already heated and extensive discussions about not changing between WikiProjectBannners and WikiProjectBannerShell. There have already been discussions about the use of lowercase a on archiving in the featured article process. And you have created and are cluttering talk pages with a non-standard banner, and adding items to the Project shell which aren't Projects. Please don't tie up other editors with this issue before you are aware of past discussions and without consensus. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is way too quick and without any discussion or consensus. Just because you think something looks better, does not mean you have the executive decision. I have also been attempting to create a new archive box, and I have been working on it for weeks. To come along with your own design that only you think is good and start editing pages to use it in less than a day is unacceptable. The archive box also should not be used with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} or {{WikiProjectBanners}} as it is not even a WikiProject. It might be acceptable in some circumstances to use {{BannerShell}}, but usually not. Depreciating the other templates is the worse idea, especially because there are so many user pages that use the existing templates. If there is a new template developed, it should incorporate all of the current templates' parameters, such as mine. I also would propose to speedily delete your new template, so it's usage does not get out of hand. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I support a deletion, as it's not standard. This editor continues to make this change in spite of opposition raised here; may be time for WP:AN/I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I have only placed it in the WPB or WPBShell when the previous template was located there. Supporting deletion is just nonsense. Timneu22 (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Archives do not belong hidden in banner shells, and are not WikiProjects. Timneu22, I am asking you now to stop making these unilateral changes until you have gained consensus. If you continue to alter talk pages against consensus, this should be taken to WP:AN/I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The template by MrKIA11 is very good, I just don't like the title bar as much. Change that, and I think you're on to something. Timneu22 (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you aware that you should not edit another editor's userspace? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the suggestions for my new archive box, but could you please put it on the template's talk page. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't see the need for this template - it's not broke so why fix it? Given this editor's insistence on railroading the change through without adequate discussion and the level of disruption this is causing we need WP:AN/I. At this rate he could change hundreds of talk pages while discussion is going on.
The alternative is to treat it as vandalism. That may not have been his original intention but it must be abundantly clear by now, with the number of reversions, the general tone of discussion on this page and the comments on his talk page that his activities are unwelcome. I've already given him a level 2 warning (which he has removed) for messing around with my talk page. andy (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I see no real reason to take it any further as the user appears to have stopped. That said, I never label good faith edits as vandalism, although they can be disruptive. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
That's why we have four levels of warning - first time, you assume good faith. but if it goes on and on after several warnings you can assume the editor knows it's disruptive and doesn't care. As I commented above: "That may not have been his original intention but it must be abundantly clear by now... that his activities are unwelcome". I'd give a newbie level 1, which is politely phrased, but for a clearly experienced editor level 2 is appropriate as he should have given more thought before making his edit. Level 2 is polite enough anyway. andy (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I've never heard that you don't alter other user's pages. So for that I apologize. None of my edits were vandalism, and you all know it. Get over yourselves. I'm trying to have a civil discussion about improving a template. (The template I provided is used by two wikis I administer; we voted the old ones out long ago.) Timneu22 (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
And having a discussion is fine, the problem is that you were implementing your new template before the discussion, during the discussion, and after people had asked you to stop as if a consensus had already been formed. Mr.Z-man 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The insinuation that I'm some type of problematic user is straight crap. Let's get back to the issue at hand and discuss the templates.
  • I guess standardization is out.
  • I think there is still a reason for "archive banner", as it does work better (and easier) than the other two in some situations.

Timneu22 (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

    • I personally like the old boxes better. The "archive box" and "archive box collapsible" templates, unless you use the "large=yes" parameter don't take up that much space and are right-aligned to fit on the opposite side of the page as the TOC. Archive banner doesn't seem to have a size option, is aligned in the center of the page, and is mostly just a bunch of whitespace. Also the "Archives for the {{PAGENAME}} talk page" sounds awkward on user talk pages and is incorrect on pages like this. The article templates needed standardization because they were all different sizes and colors, so pages that had more than one looked like crap. Talk pages are less visible and "archive banner" doesn't even match the templates around it. See Talk:Archaeology for an example of some of the drawbacks. Mr.Z-man 20:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I also think that this template is worse. Wikipedia:Talk page templates shows what the defaults for color, size, etc. should be. This page also shows that there is nothing wrong with the small box on the size, as all talk page templates are supposed to have the small=yes parameter. Adding a single parameter is not that big of a deal, and I don't see how the new template works "better". MrKIA11 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with sticking to the old boxes. We have enough banner crap (thats what sparked the {{WikiProjectBanners}} episode in the first place, and I feel that they fit talk pages well because of their ability to be stuck at the side. It may not "fit the flow" or whatever, but I don't see that it has to. -- Reaper X 00:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I also prefer the old archive box. Though I doubt it's nessessary for template:archive banner to be deleted, people can choose which ever they prefer as their box. That's my opinion on this.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 04:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
We should let all the archive templates stay and let the editors on each talkpage decide which one they want. I have spent a lot of time supporting the deletion of several hundred redundant and useless templates, so I am somewhat surprised to see perfectly good and useful templates are having the word "deletion" thrown at them. Personally I prefer {{archive box collapsible|auto=yes|large=yes}} and I think it should be used wherever possible but equally there are certain scenarios where a smaller version might be more appropriate. My quibbles with "Archive Banner" are purely cosmetic:
  • The blue(ish) colouring in the titlebox in Archive Box Collapsible looks nicer than the plain colour in Archive Banner.
  • The numbered archives are clearly separated in to columns in Archive Box Collapsible as opposed to the line of numbers on Archive Banner.
  • Why do we need a lengthy title ("Archives for the Articlename talk page") when it is fairly obvious to most readers and editors that the archives are for that page and only that page.
  • I am not opposed to images per se but the cabinet image in Archive Banner is more decorative than anything else.
That's my tuppence worth. Green Giant (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Which looks better?

Archive Banner:

Archive Box Collapsible

Sidenote

I have not been able to get a tenth of this attention regarding my new box, so I was wondering if I could get some comments/suggestions on it. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This kind of attention isn't the sort of thing you should want :-) RossPatterson (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

number of edits required for an account to become "established"

Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments11 people in discussion

the number of edits required for an account to become able to edit semiprotected articles appears to be down to three. Doesn't this defeat the entire purpose? I thought the number used to be forty or so? Consider Phil11021 (talk · contribs): this account's Wikipedia career consists of dumping the Encarta article at Tundra,[1] doing two minor edits, and then proceeding to ... remove one of the infamous images at semiprotected Muhammad.[2] I strongly recommend we up the number of required edits to at least 20, or semiprotection is rendered essentially ineffective. dab (𒁳) 12:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, as far as I know there is no lower threshold in terms of edits at all, it's purely in terms of time waited since account creation. Four days. Makes it quite easy to farm sleeper accounts without any edits at all. I agree that a minimum number of edits would be more helpful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You know, I could make a hundred innocuous edits over the span of a day, so I'm not sure that a lower limit would actually be that useful. superlusertc 2008 February 08, 12:25 (UTC)
Sure, but it would cost you considerably more time and energy than just to create three or four throwaway accounts a day and let them ripen quietly for four days each. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Check my contribs. In the last half hour, I made 8 edits, each a good, solid edit. I could make 384 edits per day at that rate, and I could probably double that if I lowered my standards to simply make it not look like obvious vandalism (phrasing changes, for example), or did multiple sequential edits of the same article. No one's going to make 384 edits per day, but if they're making multiple sock puppets, an hour or two each day will bring each account up to just about any minimum by the end of the fourth day. superlusertc 2008 February 08, 13:08 (UTC)

This needs adjustment. Take banned User:Grawp for example; on the order of a hundred of sock accounts; hundreds of IPs. There is nothing wrong with limiting a new account for the first hundred edits. It is probably in the long-term interest of true new users that they are a bit constrained while they figure out which way is up. However, goosing-up the limits will seriously impede the likes of Grawp. Something along the lines of no undo, no moves, no new articles for your first week, or until after a hundred edits would be a fine move. A version of a welcome template that also amounts to some user saying that the new user has passed a sniff-test would be worth discussing. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Even requiring a score of decent edits before autoconfirmed kicks in, in addition to the 4-day limit, would help deal with sleepers. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Alison found lots of Grawp sleeper accounts with no edits and blocked them (or listed 'em to be blocked). So, anyone know if this sort of thing is supported in the software currently (i.e. just a decision required to implement) or does it need coding by someone? --Jack Merridew 13:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This is supported in the software. The semi-protection limits can be set by a developer. I can't remember when this was introduced, but I experimented with this on my personal test wiki. Graham87 14:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

there is a reason articles are semi-protected: the point is to make trolling more time-intensive for the trolls, and the cleanup less time-intensive for the RCP people or admins. Requiring 20-40 edits of a new account before they can edit problem articles is perfectly reasonable. Of course you can still farm sleeper accounts, or even set up a bot to do the required edits, but the cost for our average disgruntled trolls interested in leaving their mark will be ever so much higher. I would not support something which puts a severe burden on bona fide newbies: I wouldn't recommend setting the threshold to several hundred edits, but the benefit of asking for 20-40 will certainly pay off. I remember that when I was a bona fide newbie, I did neither dare nor wish to touch problem articles until I had accumulated several hundreds of edits, and watched how other editors handle disputes first. In the light of the "remove the Muhammad images" campaign, I certainly think it would be a Good Idea to set such a threshold at this point. dab (𒁳) 16:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unless we also raise the time threshold, the editcount restriction shouldn't take longer to reach by an average editor than the time restriction. Most new editors would take around a month to get 250 edits unless they really hit the ground running. If we could do an editcount by namespace it would be better, but 20-40 edits seems reasonable. It won't stop determined trolls, but it will still make it harder to create a lot of sleeper accounts and should deter lazier vandals. Mr.Z-man 16:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
By my count, there are fewer than 2,500 mainspace semi-protected articles. While any reduction in the openness of our editing is regrettable, it doesn't seem to me that stronger restrictions on 0.1% of articles is unreasonable. I'd support having a modest edit count (e.g. 25) and a slightly larger period (e.g. 7 days) for auto-confirmation. Is there any way to find accounts that have never edited, sorted by creation date? Bovlb (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Zero-edit accounts aren't interesting, I could show you lots that have made five-to-fifteen edits. Non-red the user and talk, two minors, and sock-1 fixes sock-2's edit, bob's yer uncle. 40 edits and 7 days is a good obstacle, it won't stop the determined wrongdoers but it's enough to dissuade the spur-of-the-moment actors. Franamax (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone aware of any examples of pages that semi-protected due to vandalism only to have vandalism continue unabated after semi-protection? Unless that's something that happens often, I think this is a solution in search of a problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That happened many times with User:Grawp; he would return as anons after a crop of socks was blocked and would create new socks after semi-protection. He often made pairs of edits from different account/IPs with the intent of faking-out ClueBot into reverting to his preferred version. --Jack Merridew 07:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about the specific number of edits required; a hundred does not seem like too much to me, but 20-40 would be a nice improvment, too. Some kind of tool to find created but sleeping accounts would be interesting. I would expect some to be just lost souls, but suspect that a lot of such accounts are the reserves. --Jack Merridew 07:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that just about any limit can easily be surpassed by a group of editors seeking to make a POINT. I think the balance should be, "are we limiting good-faith edits by non-registered editors?" Setting the bar up to 100 edits would restrict a few editors from making good-faith edits, but it would not do a darned thing to the dedicated vandals.
It's my understanding that the policy was put in place so that we don't have to expend too much energy on frivolous trolls, but only on those bent on disruption which would find a way around the rules, anyway. To this end, if we *do* add an edit minimum, I'd recommend that it be less than 50. That should be enough that the graffito taggers are sent away. After all, I highly doubt that anyone says, "I'd like to write Bongo is somewhat nifty here, and I'll spend eight hours to make myself look presentable in order to do that." superlusertc 2008 February 09, 08:08 (UTC)
As the scale of Wikipedia grows, the more attractive the articles become as targets, and the more potential vandals and POV-pushers there will be. What I see as necessary to meet the challenge, ultimately, is efficient distribution of intelligence; this means giving out certain privileges to users validated by some process which is itself efficient. As an example, any established user could, on request, provisionally validate another account, giving it permission to edit semi-protected articles. (If it is possible for an admin to give permission to a new account, this could be done by any user through a process used by admins who wanted to do it, without requiring software changes and, in fact, if this is the case, no central structure is necessary for implementing what I'm suggesting, but I won't describe how this would be done. The very idea of "special privileges" can arouse vigorous protests from a large segment of Wikipedia users, witness the huge debate over rollback, a very minor increase in privilege for users who are given that button ... but specialization and hierarchy is how evolution dealt with the problem of intelligent response to the environment. In primitive multicellular organisms, cells cooperate (through chemical messaging), but all cells are equal. As organisms became more complex and could meet more complex challenges from the environment, the cells specialized, but messaging was still through diffusion. To progress beyond that point, specialized rapid messaging cells developed that used charge polarization signalling, i.e., nerve impulses. The information processing hierarchies in our brain are built from the bottom up, as individual cells make connections and respond to signals. There is no master at the top saying "connect here." In think that our prediliction for libertarian-anarchist solutions to management may be an instinctual recognition that this will be, if we can work out how to do it efficiently, more intelligent and more effective -- as well as far more free -- than the classic social solution for rapid response, that is, top-down hierarchy and central control. The avoidance of hierarchy, which many of us immediately think of as bureaucracy, out of common experience, is based on expectations resulting from the behavior of top-down hierarchies, which have some kind of coherence (that is why they arise), but which don't encourage distributed intelligence, which is far more able to perceive and respond effectively than oligarchies limited by the perception and capacities of a few.
While this may seem totally abstract and theoretical, it is actually an analysis of the possible implications and impact of Free Associational technologies that may arise on Wikipedia in very short order, if certain existing initiatives play out, that is, if they are not crushed before they can develop, which would essentially mean continuing with the trends established with Esperanza and WP:AMA: the salted prohibition of voluntary association and, through that, coherent cooperation of Wikipedia editors. And that prohibition, if continued and successful (it might fail), will, I predict, be the true beginning of the end for this project, for it will keep Wikipedia at the equivalent in collective intelligence of a dinosaur. Dinosaurs were quite successful. At first.
--Abd (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no question that any threshold can be surmounted by a determined vandal. But no one is arguing (I hope) to eliminate semi-protection of articles, as it is, even though semi-protection is pretty worthless now against a determined vandal. The real question is whether negative aspects of increasing the autoconfirm point outweigh positive ones. I personally don't see many negative aspects of requiring 25 edits; if a vandal does do that, it will make these acounts easier to spot as sock puppets. We already prevent IP editors from editing semi-protected accounts; I doubt we lose very much by preventing brand-new editors (that is, those without any edits at all, but with four days since registration) from editing such articles.
In any case, we can debate this here all day, but the community isn't going to indicate there is consensus to change this unless someone initiates a proposal where there can be discussion and, if need be, a showing of support and opposition. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about redirects

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I wrote an article Uvs Nuur basin which was redirected to Uvs Nuur Lake with no discussion or merge proposal or any warning. The contents were merged in a hapazard way with Uvs Nuur Lake that made the meaning incorrect. Another article I had written Ubsunur Hollow was redirected out of existence and its contents also added to Uvs Nuur Lake, as the old article was no longer in the history. (Uvs Nuur Lake meanwhile had been renamed Uvs Nuur. When I complained, suddenly it was redirected to Uvs Nuur with a disambig page (which I cannot find now) with all red links. I tried to fix the disambig page to follow the Disambiguation Page guideline. Fortunately I had saved a copy of Ubsunur Hollow {which has been redirected out of existence to another page). Now it is renamed to Ubsunur Hollow Biosphere Reserve. How can I prevent this sort of thing from happening without any warning or discussion? I was lucky this time to be able to find one of the articles at least. When I complained on the article talk pages, my concerns were ignored. Mattisse 21:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment "redirected out of existence". A redirect doesn't delete prior versions of a page; they still exist and can be copied (or the redirect reverted).
In any case, this isn't a policy question, it's a disagreement about content. You might ask for specific assistance at WP:EA. Or follow the guidelines for content disputes - third opinion, for example.
Further, there is absolutely no requirement to notify authors when redirects are put in place, or when an article is renamed. It's a courtesy to authors to let them know, but there is no violation of any rule if this isn't done. Watchlists exist for the purpose of letting you monitor changes to articles in which you have a major interest. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to CSD criterion A7

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Please comment at Wikipedia Talk:CSD#Proposed change to criterion A7.

The proposal is to change criterion A7 from:

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.

to:

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content which is patently non-notable. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead. If the article fails to assert notability but the subject is not patently non-notable, the Proposed deletion procedure should be used.

Reason:

Articles on perfectly notable subjects have been subjected to CSD under this criterion because the author didn't realize that the subject's notability had to be asserted and explained. If the article doesn't violate any other criterion (advertising, BLP violation, copyright, etc.), there is simply no reason not to give the author a few days to assert the subject's notability. This change would avoid damage to the project from newbies who find their articles deleted in a manner they consider unfair, without any real downside from keeping questionable articles around a few extra days. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If their article is deleted because they weren't aware they needed to assert its notability, they are forced to read policy pages and gain knowledge.

If CsD is revised to account for their ignorance, they remain ignorant and continue to upload one non-notable article after another. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain that it is revising for their ignorance as it is to make clear A7's original intent, which was to keep articles that read "Bob goes to my school, he rocks!!!", from having to go to AfD, which used to happen. This seems to me to aimed at people tagging articles for A7 more than it does new people writing articles. Dsmdgold (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That's my intent. People are tagging articles for CSD immediately on creation that turn out to be perfectly notable once the author has a chance to add a few sentences. The idea is to separate the "Bob goes to my school" articles from articles like this, on the former head of the French navy, where the notability claim was simply a little unclear. a Bob can remain in CSD, but a Jacques Lanxade doesn't belong in CSD and should be in WP:PROD. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting idea. Your phrasing is a little confusing as being "patently non-notable" ought to qualify as a question of notability. A better way to deal with plausible good faith articles that fail to assert notability is to tag them with {{prod-nn}} and then delete after 5 days. That gives the original author time to remedy it, and it pressures the tagger to exercise due dilligence. Bovlb (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That's what's being proposed. The current language, requiring the article to assert itis importance or signficance, is being regularly interpreted as requiring the article to assert notability to the CSD editor's satisfaction. The purpose of the change is to clarify that this isn't the case and to move more of these cases to WP:PROD. Note: If non-notability isn't "patent", that means notability is questionable. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: If you think even "patently" non-notable articles might be questionable, then an alternative would be to get rid of A7 entirely, not to keep it as is. The proposal is to continue to use CSD to get rid of the "Bob goes to my school" type articles. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Modified proposal

Propose changing criterion A7 from:

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.

to:

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that indicates, based on the facts stated in the article, that its subject is not important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead. Note: this criterion should be used only for articles that make it clear from the facts stated in the article that an Articles for deletion discussion would be closed under WP:SNOW. If the article fails to assert assert importance or significance, but the article does not actually indicate that the subject is not important or significant so clearly to make the outcome of an articles for deletion discussion obvious, the Proposed deletion procedure should be used.

The phrase "patent non-notability" seems to have confused people. Perhaps this wording may explain more clearly why "Bob goes to my school. Bob rocks!!!" could still get deleted under CSD, but this would not. --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a modified A7 wording because someone slapped a very bad db-bio tag on that article? Even if you change the wording of the policy, editors aren't going to change what they slap the tag on, imo. The problem isn't with the wording, but with people who aren't taking the time to properly understand that A7 refers to articles that make no claim of notability at all, rather than those that the tagger feels is non-notable. Resolute 23:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

List of nude models, death metal musicians, hockey players and other random people from Sweden (and similar lists)

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I tried prodding the List of Swedes but User:DGG removed the prod with the motivation that "these are always contested, so they need AfD". My original prod motivation was this:

"Completely arbitrary selection of Swedish people divided into arbitrary groups (including more "models" than Swedish monarchs, and more sports persons than politicians and writers combined). This kind of list can never be complete and any selection will be arbitrary, contestable and most likely silly, as it currently is. Swedish Wikipedia has had a corresponding list, which was recently deleted."

The Swedish list was here and was deleted throgh a discussion here.

There are many similar lists in the Category:Lists of people by nationality. Before taking this to an AFD debate I would like to start a discussion. I am pretty pessimistic about the chance for any list such as this to be made non-arbitrary. How are these nineteen models more representative and significant examples of Swedish people than all the monarchs except the nineteen included? Or more important than all the scientists other than the (pathetic) fifteen deemed worthy of inclusion. Why not have a list of Swedish meteorologists? The list of musicians is dominated by pop singers and members of obscure black metal bands, while a composer such as Franz Berwald has been included in an earlier revision but was removed at some point for some subjective reason. It isn't even a representative selection of pop and rock musicians, as it only represents the current crop of musicians in those genres, not those popular in the 50s, 60s or 70s. The list of artists includes Anna Maria Ehrenstrahl, but not her father David Klöcker Ehrenstrahl, who is probably the best known painter of the Swedish baroque.

Adding or removing a name or two doesn't really help; as long as the inclusion or exclusion of a name is based merely on the opinion of the editor, the list remains arbitrary.

The only way to make a list such as this one non-arbitrary would be to rely on one or a few authoritative outside sources with a scope as broad as the list itself. In this case, one could decide to include every Swede who is included in some major Swedish encyclopaedia or dictionary of biography. The problem is that such an inclusion guideline would push the list far beyond manageable size for a single page. That is the case here and would probably be the case for most countries except possibly places like Andorra or San Marino. (To give a rough idea, Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, a national dictionary of biography for Sweden, has so far about 8000 articles[3], and is still a work in progress. As a comparison, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, representing a nation with a larger population, has 56000 articles.[4])

Of course, relying on a single authoritative outside source with a broad scope would almost certainly remove all but two or three of the two dozen or so hockey players currently included. Most of these are extremely unlikely to ever get included in a more general reference work. I'm not saying that hockey goalie Henrik Lundqvist or nude model Elin Grindemyr (voted "the sexiest woman in Sweden" in 2005, apparently) should be excluded from Wikipedia, which is "not paper", but let's not pretend that they are more important than David Klöcker Ehrenstrahl or Franz Berwald or King Charles IX, or Hjalmar Branting or Per Albin Hansson who are all arbitrarily excluded. Henrik Lundqvist and Elin Grindemyr have more fans, that's all.

Maybe deletion of the list is not the right answer. But what about moving this list to a subpage of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden? It already has other, similar, subpages with lists of articles that should be written or improved. Some of the old revisions could be dug up. I am sure there are some names there more worthy of inclusion than what is currently in there. What about all the other lists of people by nationality? Do they suffer from the same problem?

Please note that I am not suggesting that every list of people should be deleted. A list of Swedish heavy metal musicians or models or hockey players all on its own may be fine, as an outside source with such a scope can probably be found. The problem is just when one needs to make a selection of people by a certain nationality from every conceivable category of people by occupation or field of activity. Olaus (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The way to look on it as meaning a List of notable Swedish people with articles in WP. Why a list as well as a category> Because a list facilitates and encourages browsing, and can give a little more information, like key specific accomplishment and dates of activity. If such a list gets too large, it can be divided, into several articles if necessary.
I wouldn't think that someone with a WP article can be considered unnotable for purposes of such a list. if you think someone is, go to AfD and ask for deletion altogether of that article. And there can be a few redlinks, of people who clearly need articles. Beyond that, though there may be semi- notable people to put on such a list who do not however deserve articles, we have no good way of deciding this so we should, and generally do, leave them off of such lists. For the people who arent there, just add them they should be. Even a list of 56,000 is manageable, see [5]
I think this meets your objections--these lists are not really primary articles, but navigational. DGG (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The worthiness of the individual biographies was never part of the issue. (If people want nude-Swedish-girl-of-the-year articles, let them.) My problem was with the list. Expanding the list to contain many thousands of names - more probably 20,000, or even more, than 8,000, considering all the people in Wikipedia who would not be included in a traditional encyclopaedia - would not be a good idea, as it will be difficult for many people to even load such a page. Subdividing the list and making it into a "list of lists" is probably the solution. Once concluded and archived, I will copy this discussion to Talk:List of Swedes as a suggestion for the future. Olaus (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why there are individual names on List of Swedes under headings where a main article link is given. In those cases, the link is all that is needed. List of Swedish Musicians and List of Swedish models need to be created. Tyrenius (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lists are hideous. You've elegantly described the problems of lists for too broad a catagory. But even lists of tightly defined, small sets have problems. List of fictional ducks? Lists of bus stops on a route, or bus routes in a town? Dan Beale-Cocks 11:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is a user-taken picture of a ghost "original research"?

Latest comment: 16 years ago21 comments14 people in discussion

A year and a half ago, I went over the article on Moonville, Ohio and converted it from a ghost story to an article on the town with an addendum on the ghost rumors. I stopped watching it after a while, and of course it is gradually being overrun by the paranormal claims. I personally don't feel like fighting this, as every time I turn my back on the article, it is just going to go bad again. Moonville is a ghost town (in the more conventional sense) and there's not much to be said on it.

File:Ghost of moonville tunnel 8-5-07.jpg
someone claims to have taken a picture of a ghost
An editor has nominated the above file for discussion of its purpose and/or potential deletion. You are welcome to participate in the discussion and help reach a consensus.

However, there is now an image added to the article whose caption is "Ectoplasmic photographic phenomenon", and whose description says, "Picture of what we believe to be the ghost or ghosts of the moonville tunnel in ohio. Taken on a slightly rainy day in dim light with auto flash. Note none of the ghostly images that show up on pic were visible to the naked eye." It appears to have been taken by User:Djlland, who uploaded it.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that purpose-taken pictures of alleged paranormal phenomenon are a major problem. It's one thing to take a picture of something that everyone can see, and about which there is no dispute that there is something there to take a picture of. Or for that matter, where other people can look at the picture and verify that it is in fact an accurate image of the object in question. This picture cannot be so verified-- indeed, we have nothing more than the user's word that this thing wasn't photoshopped into existence. I am not so bold as to ask the thing be deleted outright, but I am highly inclined to ask for that deletion as a violation of a long list of research and reliability issues.

Comments, anyone? Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I've checked User:Djlland, and he was only briefly active in August 2007, mostly to upload and insert this picture. Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

To me it looks like someone has fun playing with Photoshop. Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence, not verifiable. --Salix alba (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The Image page includes EXIF metadata, I'm not terribly knowledgeable, but I believe Photoshop does modify EXIF data. Can someone clarify if the data can or cannot be manipulated to remove evidence of 'shopping? -- RoninBK T C 16:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
To say that it is a picture of a ghost is original research. To say that it is claimed to be a picture of a ghost is not. --Carnildo (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It still is original research when the only "claim" is coming from some random Wikipedian, rather than a "legitimate" parapsychology group.--Pharos (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is someone smoking behind the camera on the photograph evidently - it is just tobacco smoke--Lykantrop (Talk) 23:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone missed that class where the original research policy page talks specifically about photographs. Please read that specific section. Photographs have always enjoyed a wide latitude from OR. Almost all the photographs we host are taken by participants. We have no way to know whether any photograph is Photo-shopped, which touches on assume good faith. The caption of the photograph is another story, you should focus on that specific issue.Wjhonson (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, read that specific section of WP:OR. Quite right. It says: self-taken images are "welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments". This image does propose an unpublished idea or argument. Case closed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I'm not sure the picture proposes an unpublished idea or argument. The caption might however. The picture itself is open to various interpretations isn't it? It doesn't really say anything at all.Wjhonson (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
A user-taken picture of a ghost - isn't that the definition of original research? The picture should be in the WP:OR article itself! Franamax (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say it's a window reflection, but whatever it is, it's obviously nonsense. Wikipedia isn't the place to promote paranormal theories. --B (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You must be new around here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm tempted to take the article all the way back to the last time I edited it, modulo copyediting. It bugs the daylights out of the me that this stuff just takes over articles: see Point Lookout Light for another case. Mangoe (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: WP:NOR has nothing to do with whether editors think a claim is true or even plausible. The problem here is that the claim that the picture has anything to do with a ghost is simply an editor's own assertioin with no reliable source to support it. If there were a photograph that was associated with a notable claim of ghost-sighting with reliable sources to support it, there would be no problem including it in the article and describing the claim associated with it. The UFO article, for example, has long had pictures of notable claimed UFO sightings and there's absolutely no policy problem including them. The difference is that the pictures in that article are reliably sourced as connected with notable UFO sighting claims. Ghost and UFO claims are not extraordinary. They're made all the time and have long historical and cultural roots. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked at Point Lookout Light and don't see a problem. The stories of former keepers perishing under mysterious circumstances appeared unsourced, but if they were sourced I wouldn't have seen a problem, although I agree they needed trimming. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've watched the Moonville article for some time, and I've long been concerned about the picture, but wasn't sure what to do with it. I'm open to the idea of having such pictures (such as the aforementioned UFO pictures), but this one is different: it does seem to me to be advertising the ghost claim. Note (1) how dark it is, (2) the time it was taken [2:14 PM on New Year's Day, so a couple hours before sunset], and (3) how, judging by this picture at the same spot, how it's much much darker — far darker than is realistic for an unmodified picture. It's one thing to put up a simple picture (or even a complex one), but this is plainly modified, and therefore advances an argument and is therefore OR. Nyttend (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, folks: I got confused between Point Lookout and Clyde Tombaugh, which I've been preparing to work on. If you look at the latter, you'll find about a quarter of the article is dedicated to a lengthy examination of Tombaugh's supposed UFO sightings. Meanwhile, half of his life goes unrecorded. (As I said, I'm planning to fix this; but I haven't gotten the time yet and I'm clearly going to need paper sources.) Mangoe (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to put things strait. This picture was not altered in any way whatsoever. The date you refer to as New Years is inaccurate as the time the pic was taken. My camera automatically resets the date to new years when you change batteries. the pic was actually taken mid day August 7th 2007 as I stated in the article. I do still have the original file, it is completely unedited. Whether or not you believe it is a ghost is up to the individual. I cannot truely say myself that it was a ghost as I only seen it through the pic after developing the file at Walgreens. I have since retured to Moonville, taken several more photos in brighter light and did not capture anything significant. The pic in question was taken on a dim light, slightly rainy, foggy day. There was more to that day than what the pic shows but I did not bother writing all that in the article because I felt that would have been inappropriate use. Either way I felt this was a very good picture of the tunnel and it fits well into the whole story. I would appreciate it if you would allow it back in without the claims of ghosts. Thank you, djlland

Commons deletion of superseded images

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is a proposal to weaken the superseded images policy at commons, which is having effects at Wikipedia such as user confusion about which image to use. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Just when you start to think that we're all crazy here at Wikipedia, go look at one of our sister projects. Can we ship off some of our Deletionists over there please? -- RoninBK T C 09:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

did you mean...?

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

hey guys, your site rocks. i just wanted to offer a suggestion: create a "did you mean...?" service when searching. for example, if i search "barac obama", i get zero responses. but, when i search "barac obama" on google, i get a tag that predicted my intended search with the correct spelling. peace, greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregtrueblood (talk • contribs) 08:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:PEREN Charles Stewart (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:PEREN#Search_should_detect_spelling_errors is a pointier version and [6] is a version of google optimized for wikipedia. MBisanz talk 09:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I would reccomend using Google to search Wikipedia if you aren't certain of the spelling. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirects are often set up by editors for common misspellings. Like for Barak Obama. -Freekee (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to put things strait. This picture was not altered in any way whatsoever. The date you refer to as New Years is inaccurate as the time the pic was taken. My camera automatically resets the date to new years when you change batteries. the pic was actually taken mid day August 5, 2007 as I stated in the article. I do still have the original file, it is completely unedited. Whether or not you believe it is a ghost is up to the individual. I cannot truely say myself that it was a ghost as I only seen it through the pic after developing the file at Walgreens. I have since retured to Moonville, taken several more photos in brighter light and did not capture anything significant. The pic in question was taken on a dim light, slightly rainy, foggy day. There was more to that day than what the pic shows but I did not bother writing all that in the article because I felt that would have been inappropriate use. Either way I felt this was a very good picture of the tunnel and it fits well into the whole story. I would appreciate it if you would allow it back in without the claims of ghosts. Thank you, djlland

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_33&oldid=1138369579"