Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive X

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

---

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

WP:ASR - linking to Special:Pages - Redistribution of content issues

[Copied from here]

One of the reason for WP:ASR is because Wikipedia content is widely distributed under the GDFL to other websites. A good example is Answers.com. This link will hopefully show you their version of the Wikipedia disambiguation of the name Leonardo (you may need to scroll down the page): answers.com disambiguation page for Leonardo. As you can see, the "See also: List of all pages beginning with "Leonardo"" link does not work there. I doubt it works on other mirror/redistribution websites either.

Which brings me to another point. The pervasiveness of Wikipedia results on web searches should be emphasised as widely as possible to all editors of Wikipedia - maybe even in the editing boilerplate text. I fear that people who are not aware of how widely the content is redistributed will "check facts" using web pages that are just regurgitating the thing they are trying to check! A horrendous exercise in circularity. Carcharoth 03:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[end quote]

This has probably been discussed before, but does anyone have any comments?

I personally find it very annoying when I try and check something with a web search, that the top tens or so of hits are just mirrored/redistributed versions of teh Wikipedia article I am trying to check. This is bad on so many levels. I am sure some people already "reference" an article by referencing copies of Wikipedia.

Can I propose, if it hasn't already been done, that a strongly worded warning is added to the various boilerplate warnings about verifying content, that people don't verify content using copies of Wikipedia! Carcharoth 03:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have the same concern. I think perhaps it would be a simple fix to update wikipedia's licensing so that regurgitation web sites must clearly label that their content comes from wikipedia. I myself have seen a page I created simply copied on one of those sites. However, in some cases it looks like articles on wikipedia are a copy edit OF a regurgitation site - although its hard to tell where the original copy first was published. Fresheneesz 03:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not paper" and AfD: need for revision or clarification?

I have seen that very statement used often for justifying the retention of articles on otherwise non-notable individuals and events. While WP is not paper, it still uses resources, and I believe it is supposed to (ideally) maintain a certain level of content by application of multiple policies to any given situation. For example, an AfD I put up on Kristi Yamaoka in accordance with WP:BIO and WP:NN has in both instances come down to applications of "well, WP isn't paper, so it's no big deal" or "she's notable because she was on the Today Show" or "somebody will expand it" (and no one has in weeks). At the same time, there are plenty of other policies that the article fails miserably, and while I suppose this will end up staying until someone else gets tired of it next year, I'm sure that similar things have happened in plenty of other cases as well. I understand that "WP is not paper" allows for more leniency with respect to what can go into WP, but at the same time, there are other policies and standards that prevent every day's news from becoming encyclopedia articles when the topic does not merit it.

In short, "WP is not paper" is the catch-all when no other reason to keep applies. So, perhaps something needs to be done regarding AfD policy such that failures of multiple policies are considered with greater weight than the one instance of one policy that said article passes? MSJapan 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In the first and second AFD, you never cited any *policy* the article violated. You confuse policy with guidelines, and essays. They are not the same thing. You also don't understand that some inclusions guidelines, like WP:BIO, say somebody needs to meet just one of multiple criteria listed (and even if they meet none, they can still be found notable and kept). Re-AFDing articles or changing basic policy can't change the fact that some people disagree with you about what is notable. Also, you've mischaracterized the reasoning of the keep voters. If you don't know why people voted the way they did, you're unlikely to ever convince them to change. And to address your point: Wikipedia is not paper, so it would be rather silly to say anything else. --Rob 07:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, by your claim, if I wrote an article about myself, it would have to be kept; there aren't any policies for notability, only guidelines. Furthermore, I haven't mischaracterized anything - my exact point is that passing only one guideline is insufficient. The reason why, BTW, people voted keep is because it's still contemporary and fresh in their minds, and therefore "important", when it really isn't. People are saying the artricle should be kept because it's uplifting, or because there's no harm in it, not because they think it is useful as an article. That illustrates a problem with interpretation, and that's what I'm here to inquire about - the fact that a change in how the criteria work (i.e., needing to pass more than one) would make a big difference in terms of what's really encyclopedic and what isn't. Wikipedia is supposed to be discerning over what's encyclopedic and what isn't, and it will never gain any credibility otherwise. In order to do that, guidelines may need to be reworked, hence my question. MSJapan 08:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said that just because an article doesn't vioilate policy it must be kept. You again misread the views of opponents. I brought up the fact that there was no violation of policy in the article because *you* suggested there were multiple vioilations of *policy*. That is a very serious allegation on your part, and you need to either prove what you said is true (cite policy and how its broken) or concede you made a serious mistake. Before that, there's no purpose in discussing anything else you said. --Rob 15:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

MSJapan, which are the policies which you feel that Kristi Yamaoka fails? The most important policies here are NPOV, verifiability and no original research, it meets all those. It also meets WP:BIO. You can ask "who will remember her in 10 years?", but due to the fact that the cheerleading rules were changed because of this event, it's safe to say that people involved in cheerleading will remember her. We have articles on baseball players from the 1940's, towns in Siberia, and 19th century mathematicians which few people have ever heard of either. I'm guessing that you have an overall desire for stricter, perhaps considerably stricter, standards of notability than the ones we currently follow. If you haven't before, you might want to check out Meta:Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians (or the opposing viewpoint, Meta:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians). --Xyzzyplugh 14:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

But the article doesn't meet WP:BIO: Kristi Yamaoka is not a political figure at any level, she's not a professional athlete, she's not an actress, TV personality, author, musician, or professional. She also has achieved neither renown (The quality of being widely honored and acclaimed) nor notoriety (ill fame) for her involvement in a newsworthy event - she was big sensational news for three or four days, and that was it. WP:BIO essentially states that one has to be more than a temporary phonomenon to merit inclusion. The only alternative test the article passes is verifiability (which is a requirement for all WP articles); there are very few unique Google hits (furthermore, the information the news reports give conflicts, so it's not all accurate either). After the first AfD, I let it sit there for two weeks, and nothing substantially biographical was added, and to be completely honest, nothing new was added after March 9, which was the day after the accident. So, the article was a kneejerk reaction to current events, not a real attempt at a bio article. MSJapan 15:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• MSJapan, you and I disagree on whether the Kristi Yamaoka article passes WP:BIO or not. You have a different interpretation of WP:BIO than I do. That's fine, and you are welcome to your opinion as am I. To rectify this difference of opinion, we would need to clarify WP:BIO to mutual satisfaction. As it stands now, your claim that the Yamaoka article fails WP:BIO depends upon a factor (relatively brief notoriety) that equally applies to a very, very broad range of biography articles that we have here. As noted on the second AfD nomination, a small sampling of these articles includes:

• Kenneth Pinyan
• Carlie Brucia
• Brian Wells
• Kayla Rolland
• Mathias Rust
• Jeremy Glick (September 11 attack victim)
• Randal McCloy
• Roger Olian
• Jason McElwain
• Karen Louise Ellis

• We have entire categories filled with similar articles. We are probably talking about thousands of articles that are about people who had brief notoriety. There's considerable grey area with extremes on both ends, and plenty of room for subjective debate. For example, John Wilkes Booth has fame only because he shot a president; nothing else about his life is otherwise remarkable. Yet, few if any people would suggest deleting an article on him. That's probably one extreme end. The other contains articles that are speedy deleted every day. Between the two extremes exists a very broad range of articles, not just one article.
• The general standard up to this point has been to include articles where notability claims have been made. There's considerable debate on what counts as a reasonable notability claim. This is a subjective area that will remain subjective. You can't measure it as notability is purely subjective from each person's viewpoint. To cheerleading coaches, Yamaoka is highly significant. To somebody in Timbuktu who doesn't even know what a cheerleader is, Yamaoka is meaningless. As a result of this wide disparity in viewpoints, we have tended to keep articles where there are claims of notability because, and forgive me for repeating others, we are not a paper encyclopedia, we do indeed have room for articles on such people, and disk space is cheap.
• I don't think we should be in the business of changing policy by way of AfD. Rather, we should be working together to come up with a community agreed upon standard and then applying that standard. There is and has been considerable ongoing discussion on notability standards. They have always been controversial and remain so today. Some places where you could contribute to these discussions include Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) and Wikipedia talk:Notability.
• I've reviewed your contributions to WP:AFD and have noted that in the votes you have made, you have never once voted to keep something. You are what some people would call an extreme deletionist. That's not an insult and please don't take it as such. There are all sorts of people here. Some are deletionist, some are inclusionist, and most are somewhere inbetween. As User:Xyzzyplugh noted above, you should probably have a look at m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. I think it important you should understand that as a deletionist you will frequently find yourself being a voice of the minority, just as you would be such a voice if you were an inclusionist. I grant that you have your opinion, and you are quite welcome to it. We need to work as a community towards what the standards are that we wish to uphold. We can't do that by sharply contesting individual AfDs. Instead, we do it by working on global consensus building mechanisms, whereas AfDs are local consensus building mechanisms.
• I hope the above helps. I know you and I disagree on the Yamaoka article, but please understand that I hold nothing against you personally, and consider you to be a fine contributor to Wikipedia. I am in no way expecting you to agree to my viewpoint on the Yamaoka article. Rather, I am hoping that the above helps to highlight the communal nature of our efforts here and why the microcosmic discussion on the Yamaoka article is considerably more macrocosmic. --Durin 17:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How to tell the difference between a Copyright violation and GFDL violation

I see a webpage which has content replicated on Wikipedia. But there is no way to tell if it is one of us taking their content, or that site taking ours. What is the policy in this (I would assume fairly common) situation? Do I report it as a GFDL issue or a copyvio or list it on both pages?.

This is the article in question: Guy Fawkes

Lurker 13:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That article is dated 2004-11-29, our revision of 2004-11-28 is the same (and had existed for a long time prior), so they copied us. They are allowed to use our content, for free and for any purpose, but they have to license it under the GFDL and acknowledge the authorship, neither of which they do. There's a page somewhere for reporting this kind of thing, but nothing actually gets done about it. Take your pick from Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance and m:Non-compliant site coordination-Splash^talk 14:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I should have checked the date, that would have told me whose fault it was. I've added the site to both of those pages Lurker 17:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Also note that a GFDL violation is a copyright violation! --Stephan Schulz 18:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

T1 clarification proposal

I originally had this on the WT:CSD, but robchurch recommended that I move it to the village pump to get a wider range of opinions.

T1 is so ambiguous that nobody can agree what it means. This has caused a lot of undesirable wikiFriction as of late. If we can clarify T1, maybe we can all cool down a bit. Thus, I propose that T1 be broken into subsections that specifically state what is and what is not acceptable, with examples. For instance, T1 should state specifically whether the following controversial beliefs are acceptable in templates:

• Controversial political beliefs (ex. "this user hates George Bush")
  • General political statements that are phrased in such a way that they are only an indication of possible bias (ex. "this user has liberal political views")
• Controversial wikipedia-related beliefs (ex. "this user thinks consensus should govern all parts of wikipedia" or "this user supports pure deletion")
• Religious beliefs (ex. "this user is Christian")
• Controversial beliefs regarding other cultures (ex. "this user thinks American English sucks")
• Controversial violent beliefs (ex. "this user supports the violent overthrow of the regime of Saudi Arabia")
• Controversial identity beliefs (ex. "this user is gay")
• Attack templates (ex. "this user thinks that stupid admins should start respecting the community and following policy")
• Beliefs considered almost universally offensive (ex. "this user is a cannibal")
• Condescending beliefs (ex. "this user thinks x and thinks that everyone that doesn't think x is wrong and will go to hell")
• Controversial moral beliefs (ex. "this user supports abortion")

Such a reformed policy should also include a statement that templates that do not fall into the above categories should be decided by the TFD process. Personally, I think that if such a system were to be put into place, all of the above except for wikipedia related beliefs and general political statements that are only meant to help inform people of possible bias should be allowed. What do you people think of the matter? Where ^(talk) 04:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• It makes sense to me. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 04:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for is a policy, not (a) speedy delete criteria(on). --AySz88^-^ 04:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. What you propose is extreme instruction creep. That a template is divisive/inflammatory is readily apparent from the reaction to it, I can't see how we could make it simpler. --Gmaxwell 04:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates seems to indicate to me that different people can get different opinions on whether something is divisive or not. This T1, may require clarification. Where ^(talk) 04:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Support. The vagueness and misinterpretations of T1 have caused much WikiFuss and opened doors to abuse by certain people. Misza13 ^{T C} 23:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Support. There have been (and will probably still be) wheel wars about these templates (unless all the Admins interested in doing this are in personal RfC or RfAr, and under orders not to do it.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't understand why you include homosexuality as a "controversial identity beliefs". So uncontroversial identity beliefs are okay? That seems awful ... I dunno ... tyranny of the majority. The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is only a "controversial identity belief" because there are some incredibly bigoted people out there in the world. Homosexuality occurs naturally throughout nature in a wide variety of different animals; it should be no more controversial than saying, "This user is a biped" or "This user has two eyes". But enough about homosexuality. I'd rather see a much simpler solution that clarifies the purpose of templates and categories. See Wikipedia:Proposed template and category usage policy. I think that'd be a lot less ambiguous than trying to work on T1 which is trying to make a decision about which unencyclopedic templates are acceptable and which aren't. Getting rid of all the unencyclopedic templates is a much simpler solution and doesn't allow anyone to claim bias, like I just did with the homosexuality example. --Cyde Weys 02:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Very good points. However, banning all uncyclopedic templates, even those that have to do with writing Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community, seems a little harsh. Where ^(talk) 11:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that divisive and inflammatory userboxes should be deleted. I am convinced by the events of the last few months that they should not be speedied. This proposal makes abundantly clear the amount of judgment involved in the application of T1; other speedy criteria can be verified trivially, and usually all reasonable editors will agree when they have been met. (TfD will also usually get rid of something faster, since speedies will often be listed on WP:UBD; and Undeletion will be seriously discussed and often approved.) Septentrionalis 15:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I really think this T1 needs to be refined and to have some limits to its application, based on how severe the disruption or potential for disruption is...Mike McGregor (Can) 05:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Templates

When I first started editing, I came across a section that suggested that it was against the rules to remove a NPOV template from the top of an article. I can't find it anymore. Can anyone point me to some useful page or pages?

If I have added a NPOV tempate to the top of a page, and I later edit it to say why I have added it, can that edit be reverted as NPOV? In my opinion it wasn't, but the other party won't accept anything that reflects badly on their contributions. Engjs 01:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Some guidelines at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. Generally it is bad to remove a tag if there is a genuine complaint about the neutrality of the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

When did redlinks become bad?

I've been seing more and more often stuff like "stub prevention" as an excuse for removing currently redlinked links. I always though that the whole point of redlinks was to spur people in crating the articles in the first place.

When and were did we turn on red links? Circeus 20:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Stub prevention looks like a bad reason. I've removed redlinks as part of AfD cleanup for a deleted article to prevent re-creation of articles, but I think a preemptive redlink removal to prevent stubs is generally bad, unless the redlink text is extremely obscure. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been going on for several years. It's kind of a clear example of the gradating conflict between eventualists, who see red links as leading to new pages and an improved Wikipedia, and immediatists, who see red links as unprofessional and detracting, or believe they will lead to unprofessional stubs. Personally I consider the eventualist outlook more sensible, but it's worth considering that not everyone thinks a surplus of red links is a good idea. Sarge Baldy 20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it is described in WP:CONTEXT in these terms currently:

(Third bullet of What should not be linked:) Subsidiary topics that result in redlinks (links that go nowhere), such as the titles of book chapters and the songs on albums, unless you're prepared to promptly turn those links into real ones yourself by writing the articles. It's usually better to resist linking these items until you get around to writing an article on each one.

I use fewer links than I used to. But the formulation of the WP:CONTEXT guideline is a little too edgy as far as I'm concerned. When I start a new article I very often check what links here to see whether there's any "demand" for it (or whether there's an ambiguity that should be resolved): removing redlinks thwarts such proceedings: without redlinks it is somewhat more difficult to trace which other articles should be updated with additional bluelinks after the article has started (so usually I don't bother to follow that multi-step process - I'm not a robot!).

Probably it comes down to: use yr common sense: something that's worth a good article can be redlinked without reserve; something that's in the notability border zone should better not be redlinked (while than you would give a fellow wikipedian that tidies up after an AfD extra work). --Francis Schonken 20:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Redlinks in context often make sense. What I object to are lists where 90% of the items listed are redlinked. This is where "stub prevention" is a valid reason to avoid redlinks, only I prefer to think of it as "bad-article-about-non-notable-whatever prevention". -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 21:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm of the opinion that redlinks should be only be created if the creating editor genuinely believes that a notable topic lies in wait - and ideally because they have reason to believe that article will be (self)created in the near future. Mega-redlinking, to peoples names, dubious list items and other random stuff, especially in articles of borderline validity, looks dumb and doesn't help. I quietly remove redlinks when I see cases of this, apply the {{redlinks}} tag in others and I've also written about them at WP:REDBLUE. Deizio 21:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Deiz. I only make a redlink when I think that Wikipedia should definitely have an article on the topic and will probably have one in the relatively near future. Recently, I have noticed that the names of people who are blatantly not notable enough for articles are frequently being linked. Something should be decided about what to do with lists that have some entries that have articles, or are clearly notable enough for articles, and entries that are not notable enough for articles. Typically, they are all linked, regardless of notability. This often results in large numbers of redlinks and encourages the creation of articles on non-notable topics. Non-notable entries could be left unlinked, but people might find the contrast more objectionable than having the redlinks. Editors sometimes bold the entries, or just the unlinked entries, but it is questionable whether that is an improvement. -- Kjkolb 10:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A user

Refuses discussion and simply puts sign "do not feed the troll" beneath my statements[1]. I consider it a serious breach of civility and personal attack. Is it a personal attack and does deleting this count as 3RR ? --Molobo 07:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please give us diffs pointing at the actions you find offensive. I wouldn't want to shoot from the hip here. An RfC may be appropriate. John Reid 09:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

New policy to allow articles about unverifiable memes

Memes are like viruses, bits of "information" or some other concept, that travels by word of mouth and spreads, sometimes, globally. They are a social phenomenon in certain cases, when memes become massive, particularly in the case of internet memes like the goatse phenomenon. Sometimes a meme can play a significant part in people's lives, or simply be a thing that's been around for years and years and is known by thousands and thousands of people.

However, some memes are inherently unverifiable, and WP:V does not allow any articles which are not verifiable. Unverifiable memes tend to be the type that exist through pure word-of-mouth continuance, and often are also just phrases or games. Not only does no one need to write about these in reputable sources (and they don't), some of them are intrinsically unverifiable, and the most obvious case of this is the The Game (game) meme, which is an anti-memory game, the object of which is to forget the meme; this basis has, of course, turned it into a massive global phenomenon. However, because the idea of The Game is to not talk about it, many people are totally unaware of its existence, and "sources" of any sort for its existence don't extend far beyond the odd blog entry; the sparsity of these entries demonstrates how widespread the meme is, and how notable it is; however this page has been deleted due to unverifiability.

I am suggesting a new policy that works specifically for memes, and nothing else. It is simply this, that WP:V can be overriden if consensus agrees or proves that the meme is notable. Notability may in these cases be verified by underpar sources such as a significant number of web-blogs or forum-posts, or even a significant number of Wikipedian testimonies. The new policy would be overriden itself by non-notability and would not permit stubs. -- Alfakim --  talk  19:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• I would strongly oppose this. Verifiability is the rock-bottom of all Wikipedia policies. Putting in unverifiable content would be unencyclopedic and inappropriate. There are other, more appropriate places for content that cannot be verified. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Concur with Robert West, with further note that our project should not feel the least bit lessened if nearly all memes recieve no mention on Wikipedia. --Improv 20:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Considering the low, low standard that WP:V is read to apply, it's hard to imagine that we want coverage of any topic so meaningless that it has no acceptable sources. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• There must be some other wiki where collecting unverified, unverifiable memes would be appropriate. This isn't it. Exceptions to WP:V are a Bad Idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Any meme notable enough for a Wikipedia article will be mentioned in at least a few computer/technology news articles from respected publications, so the WP:V standard is sufficient. --TantalumTelluride 20:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: this policy has been suggested specifically with reference to the The Game (game) contention. The Game is very article-worthy, but doesn't quite pass WP:V.

• Just how article-worthy The Game may be is a matter of opinion. I don't think it's nearly as worthy as a lot of verifiable subjects that don't have articles yet. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 21:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nup. This section includes the words "allow" and "unverifiable" which is out of the question. -Splash^talk 22:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the argument that this (or anything) is "inherently unverifiable", because it implies that everyone who hears about The Game (presumably including journalists, authors of books on games, and so on) wants to play it and no-one wants to document it or describe it to a general audience instead. Seems to be begging the question. Ziggurat 22:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Verifiability is non-negotiable, nothing gets in because it is mentioned in any number of weblogs. WP:CHILL. Deizio 22:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of "The Game" game outside of Wikipedia, and never before a week or so ago. If it really is so widespread and notable as claimed, someone, somewhere, will have written a good, citable source. Claiming the sparsity of sources proves the case because everyone who hears about the game is in on the game is question-begging. Jonathunder 22:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If Alfakim persists with this silliness, some admin should ban him for violating Wikipedia's policy against advertising. Verifiability is non-negotiable. Otherwise Wikipedia will be as unreliable as the blogosphere or any typical USENET newsgroup. --153.18.99.87 23:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it was bang out of order of you to say that. 1) "persists" implies I've been doing this a whole load against warnings from others, when this is the first time I've ever proposed a policy change. 2) I am not advertising, I am proposing a policy change. 3) I am not proposing the negation of WP:V, only an exception for memes. 4) I accept the comments of the above, and revoke my proposal. There was no need to invoke banning me. -- Alfakim --  talk  00:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- patent nonsense. John Reid 09:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Watermark indicating authorship on images

User:Alanmak has insisted on adding "Photographed by Alan Mak on December 4th, 2004" in obtrusive letters onto Image:HongKongGoldenBauhinaSquare.jpg and we've gotten into a revert war there on whether this should stay. Please comment on what you think should be done here. --Jiang 01:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• A watermark of this type is not helpful to the encyclopedia. Presumably the attribution on the history page is enough to satisfy the GFDL, so I see no argument for why the watermark should remain. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have deleted all versions of this image that contain the watermark. If I see any more feuding over this image, I will simply protect it.  Denelson83  09:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Watch out, the battle is moving to Commons. John Reid 08:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

New policy

I know this may seem a bit harsh, but here goes: what would you all say to a policy that makes it that people shouldn't add images to their signature. I know it may be a bit mean and it is seen only as a cosideration on Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages but mainly becuase it:

• Causes slowdown of the servers;
• If lots of people have them, then your browser has to download each indevidual and different image(s);
• It can be an ablosoulte pest when it comes to loading long pages.

What would you say? Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. To respond to your points in order:

• It doesn't necessarily affect the servers--it depends on whether the images are actusally stored on the servers. If the image is hosted somewhere else it adds no load to the Wikipedia servers at all.
• But, assuming you have reasonable caching settings on your browser, the image loads just once, or just once in a while.
• That depends on the size of the images. Page size is pretty variable. A 300-byte image on a small page might not be a problem. An SVG image--which isn't an "image" at all, but text, might even be bigger than a small gif.

So I think this policy is misguided--there is an issue here, but an image ban isn't the solution. Guidelines about how many bytes a signature should add to a page might be good, but the caching issue makes even that less serious than it might seem. · rodii · 17:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, If the image is hosted somewhere else? Wikipedia only uses images hosted locally. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

A fourth problem: images do not resize when browsers change their font size, mucking the screen up for people with very small font sizes. I think this is something that should politely be enforced. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

* Images in sigs -- no!

* Funny characters in sigs -- no!

* Rainbow colors in sigs -- no!

* Tricky links in sigs -- no!

* Manifestos in sigs -- no!

* Deceptive pipelinks in sigs -- no!

* Aliases in sigs -- no!

* Sigs that run on longer than most stubs -- no!

Taking users of such sigs seriously -- no!

Policy against such sigs -- never!

John Reid 08:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Image fair use clarification

We're having a bit of a problem here in the interpretation of the fair use for images. Currently, over at the article lolicon there are two images which shows the example of lolicon manga. User Brennan removed BOTH images on the grounds only one example can be posted on the article, due to his interpretation of the fair use policy. I've placed back the first picture that was in the article before the the second picture violated the fair use policy, and now this is being contested as well since, as he claimed, they both are in violation now, therefore, both must go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lolicon#Fair_use Arguments are stated above. Clarification would be most appreciated Jqiz 19:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ook? Putting aside the fact that I've actually only removed one of the two images ([2][3][4]) it's pretty straightforward: the fair use claim here is that this images are required to illustrate the genre. Unless we demonstrate in the text by citing third parties that there are sub-genres and that these are typical members, we can only use one image to "illustrate". There are several other hurdles to fair use here such as size and fact that it's cover art, but having a single image is the start. - brenneman^{L} 23:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

We're now arguing if lolicon manga is an example of a subgenre in lolicon, and you want a 'source' to confirm that the picture is a 'lolicon' manga?Jqiz 02:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Where on earth did brenneman get the silly idea that we can only use one image to illustrate something under fair use? That's complete nonsense. There's nothing in the fair use clause of copyright law that would justify this interpretation whatsoever. IT seems to me that there a lot of people on that article trying to censor it or otherwise get what they want done under some particularly lousy and ill-informed arguments over fair use. DreamGuy 00:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps from Wikipedia:Fair use. Wikipedia policy on fair use is more restrictive than copyright law. The policy (at the bottom of the page) includes the following: The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Burgeoning templates

I suggested {{See also}} for deletion, and before the day was out the TfD had been removed, debate closed, as speedy keep. All this without giving me a chance to respond to some of those voting (who admitted that they didn't understand my point — perhaps because, as editors hanging round the template pages, they're so used to them that they don't understand the problems faced by other users).

I suggested it for TfD in part because, after I'd posted a comment making the same point to Template talk:See also, after some time the only response had been one that agreed with me. It seems to me that the "speedy keep" was precipitate at best. The template is frankly absurd; it offers virtually no advantages over creating a "see also" section manually, and simply places another obstacle in the way of casual or occasional editors (who are perfectly capable of adding a bulleted link to a section, but have no wish to look up the template in order to work out how to use it. It seems to me that there's a regrettable tendency in Wikipedia to replace simple editing methods with geeky ones. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some templates are way too simple. Is it more convenient to type {{Main|Wikipedia}} or :Main article:[[Wikipedia]]? Too many silly templates on a source page can intimidate new users. As a matter of fact, I would have started editing Wikipedia several months before I did if I hadn't been turned away by all the confusing templates. I didn't know how they worked, and I was afraid to edit around them. All those templates do encourage consistent style throughout the encyclopedia, though, so it will probably be hard to change the current trend. --TantalumTelluride 01:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

See? I forgot to italicize that manual version of {{Main}}. It should actually be :''Main article:[[Wikipedia]]''. If I were editing a real article, I might not have noticed my mistake. --TantalumTelluride 01:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but once you'd noticed, what you needed to do was obvious — part of standard Wiki-markup. We can't legislate against typos and mistakes (you could just as easily make a mistake typing the template). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's true. I don't really know what the rationale is behind such simple templates, but it seems like they're always speedy keeps at WP:TFD. --TantalumTelluride 21:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea is that if the standard elements of the article are in a template it is very easy to modify them all at once. If a graphics designer will decide that the Main article should be bolded, or highlighted by color or by a glyph or put on the right side of the article, or whatever; then he or she should only modify the template. If the standard element is supported by a convention instead of a template, then such modification requires huge efforts with such tool as AWB and will pollute unmeasurable number of the Watchlists. What I would like to see is to have a button on the edit toolbox that has some sort of list of the most usable templates, so that a user would need only a couple of the mouse-clicks to insert a template. abakharev 00:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Lists of works: Discographies

I'd like to try and come up with a standard format for discographies. At the moment there are various ways of doing it; lists, tables, galleries, and each differ a lot. Not sure we'll have any success, but if anyone would like to comment... Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) SaltyWater 18:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Sea_Power#Release_layoutMe677 21:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morrissey_discography SaltyWater 22:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Should Chinese names in article titles include tone marks?

Some of you might have noticed that, recently, quite a few articles about Chinese stuff have been moved to titles that have diacritics indicating tone. For instance, Yuan Dynasty moved to Yuán Dynasty and Zhuge Liang moved to Zhūge Liàng. I've started a discussion about whether or not this is a good idea at: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Titles_of_articles_to_include_tone_marks? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus War 1

I'm going to put forward a conceptual policy question and I'd like input about how, in concept, it should be handled.

An article we will call Votefortruth is presently dominated by a relatively small group, which we'll call teamtruth. Teamtruth is, however, about 3 times the size of any other group interested in the article. Because of this, sources get ignored and, instead, consensus is demanded for everything before a change is made, regardless of how many WP:V sources are provided. The result is the article remains nearly the same with most of the changes coming based on what teamtruth likes instead of what fits the WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR policies.

To sum up my POV, or my bias if you like, I think this violates all policy, and even the Consensus guideline itself (see Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus vs. other policies).

The problem is, so now what? Is their a policy solution? Or does one have to go outside policy and round up their own majority to get more votes and edits/reverts on their side?--Pro-Lick 00:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is what the request for comment system was meant for originally, before it became polarized and used as a first step in complaints about users. "Consensus" means that many people looked at something in good faith and with differing POVs or NPOVs, and found no problems. If only one user out of 100 sees a problem and no one counters them, then consensus has not been reached. Even if "Teamtruth" is 10 times the size, all you need is one person seeing POV to stop them and have them NPOV the Votefortruth. Just need that one person, and a uncountered complaint.--User:Rayc

This seems to be standard fare for Wikipedia. I've noticed this same sort of Wiki-turf war (or, less generously, Wiki-thuggery) in, for example, natural selection, intelligent design, and, of course, more polically charged topics such as Zionist political violence. Often, this is done by administrators. It is just a fact of wiki-life. Ted 02:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

For some topic, as an experiment, it might be worth trying to format the article like the Calfornia ballot pamphlet, with sections

• Analysis by neutral analyst
• Arguments for one side
• Rebuttal from other side
• Arguments for other side
• Rebuttal by first side

with a general rule that posting disagreeing material in the other side's section gets you reverted. Might or might not work, but a cheap thing to try.--John Nagle 03:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Splitting an article into sections of warring views doesn't make the whole thing NPOV, it just encourages POV pushing in designated areas. Encyclopedia articles are not debate matches. While it is true that dedicated POV-pushers can form teams to try to win, the whole idea of NPOV is that true NPOV cannot be objectionable to either side, as it is written with both sides in mind but doesn't take one. Specifically taking a side and calling it consensus doesn't solve it. Of course the big problem is that we have many dedicated POV-pushers trying to declare NPOV as biased because it doesn't push their side like they want to have happen, which they call nuetrality. Like the people who show up to evolution and want to throw the whole thing out. Rayc's suggestion above that someone complaining is proof that it isn;t NPOV is just wrong, as the people who don't want NPOV make false complaints to try to get their POV to gain support. No way around that other than getting dedicated objective editors in. I think the openness of Wikipedia is actually working against it in this case, as there are more POV-pushing people in the general public than those dedicated to fairness and truth. DreamGuy 09:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I do think that people can go into article and complain to get their POV put in, but what I was saying is that the "ideal" system assumes good faith of all complaints. If a complaint was dealt with before, it's not an unrefuted complaint. It should be pointed out to the complainer that the objection was dealt with before, like all the people who thought the Mohammid cartoons shouldn't be in the Mohammid cartoon article. Back in reality, though, people don't have time to read the archives and re-complains end up with different outcomes, thus effective POV pushing. Another suggection is that if a point is highly contested, it can be moved to a subpage or subarticle to allow for a more focused debate. I don't know how to determine the difference between an objective editor and a non-objective editor if good faith is assumed. Any other suggestions? --User:Rayc

"I don't know how to determine the difference between an objective editor and a non-objective editor if good faith is assumed." I think the point is that when there are POV-thugs, good faith is no longer present. I'm not optimistic about being able to contain POV-pushing, which is why I don't allow references to Wikipedia in my class. Ted 12:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's been tried. Thanks. I'm trying to think of something that will work for Hubbert peak theory, which has reached the overlength point due to debate and is still growing. --John Nagle 18:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Related, if you're looking for some fresh ideas: wikipedia:criticism - this was revived as a proposal not so long ago. --Francis Schonken 11:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Almost famous

I've been cleaning up new articles lately, and I've been encountering some unhappiness regarding vanity articles from the "almost famous", usually self-promoting entertainers. The "speedy delete", "proposed delete", and "AfD" processes are available, but add "db-bio" to some unknown performer's page and they scream. Some will take off a "prod". AfD works, but is a hassle for everyone. Some current examples:

• Lee Asher - performing magician, moderately notable but not a big name. Becoming unhappy; see Talk:Lee Asher. Heavy self-promotion in original article.

• Dante Roberson - drummer. On the way up and just on the low edge of making WP:BAND criteria, but original article was weak and he's not in Google much. Part of the problem is that he performs under a different name, like many hip-hop artists. Currently in AfD process, and will probably not be deleted, but it's taken quite a bit of effort by several people to find enough references for him. Original article posted under Roberson, causing complaints from Scottish clan people. See Talk: Dante Roberson.

• EXelement - unsigned band. Grumblings, deletion notices were deleted, but currently in AfD process with all votes "Delete".

• Buz Sawyer (advertising executive) Original article was basically a resume. Moved to (advertising executive) to deconflict with comic strip. Edited language for NPOV. Verified claims. Found and added references. (He was responsible for promoting a failed dot-com). He's probably not quite a prominent enough executive to be in Wikipedia, but nobody is pushing for deletion right now.

Can the "almost famous" be dealt with in a more graceful, or at least a less labor-intensive, way? Or is this about normal? Advice?

Maybe a "Further information is needed to determine if this article qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. Information needed is: ... If this information is not provided within N days, the article will be deleted." template. Effectively, this would be equivalent to "prod", but nicer. --John Nagle 21:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth, I've been involved with several such incidents - not just involving minor "notables", but with minor businesses that feel they should be included. What you're doing seems to be the right path; simply open up a dialog. Even if they have a significant conflict of interest (owner of the business, or a self-promotional article for a performer), it is still right work with them to develop something appropriate. This isn't always possible - sometimes, a corner coffee shop is just a corner coffee shop. I do like your idea about the modified prod template. Kuru ^talk 02:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Enforcing policies

In most cases, policies are followed, and the consensus prevails. But the situation can arise when a couple of editors will "ignore" policy, or provide their "opinion" on why policy can be interpretted in another way, by selectively choosing their facts.

Since Wikipedia Consusus is a guideline, it seems to me that Wiki Policy takes precedence. Some policies claim to be "absolute and non-negotiable" (eg. Wiki neutral point of view).

I have personally wasted MONTHS of time arguing with certain individuals over their point of view, despite being able to VERIFY my position with Wiki policies, and they have been unable or unwilling to verify theirs. There has to be a more effective way of enforcing basic Wiki policy, or at least ascertaining whether policy has been followed or contravened? --Iantresman 15:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As was pointed out on the admin noticeboard, it looks like a content dispute, so the next step in resolving disputes could be to try and get other people's opinion on the matter. Policies may be absolute, but that does not stop disagreements over interpertations. For example, in a dispute, both sides may agree that NPOV must be upheld, but differ on whether a particular phrasing is neutral or not. Have you tried any of the suggestions in WP:DR, and if so, what was the results? Regards, MartinRe 15:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid a specific example. I know there are ways to resolved certain issues, but they can be (not always) long and tedious.

We have quick ways to resolve (a) vandalism (b) the 3RR rule. Surely there could be a quick way to judge "the three content-guiding policies" (c) verifiability (d) neutral point of view (e) no original research. --Iantresman 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is normally very clear cut, and blocking is often appropiate, if they are not contributing anything useful at all. Blocking for 3RR is an attempt to calm people down, there is nothing magical about 3 reverts or 24 hours, it's just an arbitary "line in the sand" to reduce edit warring (aka content disputes gone mad)

Other content disputes are not so clear cut: is a reference a WP:RS? Is this phrasing neutral? Is this a new analysis or not? The best way to go in content dispute is to get multiple opinions, right from a third opinion upwards. If a dispute is clear cut, then getting more editors to explain the policies might help. Assuming good faith, the other editor might simply have a different opinion, misunderstood the policy, and having multiple people clarify it might help. There is the possibility that the editor might not accept the weight of opinions agasint them, but at that point, there should be multiple people keeping the article in line with policies. Of course, there is also the possibility that asking outside opinions might indicate that the misunderstanding is not on the other editors side, or may lie somewhere in-between.

So, yes, there quick ways to judge (3O is quite quick), but unlike vandalism and 3RR, there is no concept of blocking people for differing opinions (and I hope there never will be), so all you can do in a content dispute is gather opinions, work out a consensus, and the content dispute will resolve itself. Regards, MartinRe 17:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediawiki

I went to Mediawiki recently in hopes to find the same Wikipedia governmental resources there, as I had a post that didn't relate to Wikipedia in general, but more broadly, to mediawiki in general. I"m appauled to find there ain't the same governmental resources there. I mean, wikipedia has these resources to include everytying, so then why hasn't mediaiki have that yet?!?! PLz include it!!!.

Mediawiki is a software suite, not a place. Mediawiki.org is for development coordination. Perhaps you meant to go to wikimedia.org? But then, that's just a portal. So maybe you wanted to get to the wikimedia foundation's site? If you had, you would have found the link to m:Wikimedia site feedback. -lethe ^{talk +} 10:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, my rationale is that it seems like wikipedia is like at the top of all the wiki projects, but that's not the case, wikimedia is. I'm just saying like there should be some institutions found in wikipedia that sould also have a version for wikimedia. As i mentioned in my most bottom comment, wiktionary doesn't have that either. For example, this Village Pump section, or set of pages, or Instition of Wikipedia should is not found in wiktionary or Wikimedia; There should be a Village pump institution in Wiktionary, & wikimedia, for disscusion that woulnd't apply just to wikipedia, but to all wikimedia (projects). For excaple, I had a post pertaining to accounts. Well, that would apply to all wikimedia projects woudln't that? thanks for the reply by the way.24.70.95.203 11:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

But here's my post

Vandals:

Looks like you guys have a problem with vandals. Well delete thier accounts. Yea, you don't have to delete thier M.O. pages because we could use them for future reference. [I might feel different about this later in my life, but this will suffice for now.]

Voting:

Wikimedia is an elitist community. I'd like to vote, but I want the security of being able to delete my account. Is this fair representation??

Usernames:

Wikimedia is also hypocritical. Wikimedia is for all languages, so then why are usernames only allowed in the Latin alphabet. Yes, you say its so it'd be easier for wikipedians to refer to the username, but obviously not all wikipedians know the Latin alphabet.24.70.95.203 10:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think search should be revamped to advanced. I alos just when to wiktionary. They don't have a village pump!!!! I mean, wikimedia doesn't have to have like rfc pages; I mean, Wikimedia should have the same governmental institutions found in Wikipedia!!! But, Imean, like those institutions found in wikipedia that woud'nt have any use in wikimedia need not be incudled, I mean, wikimedia has to be more useful!!!24.70.95.203 10:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So, I put a bit of though in this issue. I looked at the GNU document, and it seems like that someone just decided to make this licence. Well, I could make my own licence. Wikimedia could make their own licence. And I think they should, if it the new liicence is ammended so that accounts can be deleted, I mean, if wikimedia wirtes its own licecense, it could be so universal like the current liceces its using, that other applications in the world could us the licecese; [the licence could be written nonexclusivly, so that in other things (sorry i don't have a very good vocabulary:Pjk), where appliplicable {[as in] not refering to accounts} could be posslibe]; they if contributers and users want to vanisih, they sould be allowed; freedom of speech also gives the freedom to be silent.24.70.95.203 16:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See -- wikt:Wiktionary:Beer parlour. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for the heads up\link. But still, it seems like wikipedia is like 'head' of all the other projects. For Example, User pages are located on wikipedia; I still think there are still some things that could be moved higher up the wikimedia hiarchey,, located on wikimedai, [or in]. Having the current set up now implies that Wikipedia is better than Wikitionary. Seriously what does THAT say!!!??? I smell hypocracy......24.70.95.203 09:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There are user pages on all of the projects, not just Wikipedia. What makes you think people can't have user pages on Wiktionary? Angela. 12:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy on including/excluding articles about foreign language subjects?

Is there a policy that explicitly states that articles about e.g. films or books that have never been translated into English are or are not acceptable? The absence of a policy prohibiting such articles would seem to indicate they are acceptable. Additionally, some guidelines seem to indicate they are acceptable, e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Title_translations. There are articles on WP about primary source materials that have not been translated into English like e.g. Akkari-Laban dossier and 23 (film) and I think there are probably many others. However, sometimes such articles show up on AFD and some people believe that the fact that they have not been translated is a valid reason for deletion. It would help to know if there is a policy on the matter that is being overlooked, or if there is not one whether one might be needed. Thanks, Esquizombi 20:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly disagree with anyone advocating deletion solely because the film or novel weren't in English. If there were other disagreements, such as notability, that's a different issue. If the film is listed at imdb, it should satisfy notability, if there were references to indicate that the film had been seen by large numbers of people, or the book read by large numbers of people, and it has decent numbers at amazon, then it should definitely be kept. But this is all just my opinion. Can you give us some examples of such articles that have been listed at AfD? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

E.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_CIA_and_September_11_(book): a book in German that has not been translated, but several of the people posting there thought that in itself was objectionable. The number of people who thought so made me want to find a policy on the subject. Feel free to recommend delete on it if you can identify a valid reason for doing so, in which case I might change my recommendation too. I dislike the idea of a precedent for deleting articles on that basis; I have limited foreign language skills (minimal Spanish, German and Arabic) but could conceivably add articles on untranslated foreign films or books if I felt confident I had some understanding of them. I've watched movies in at least German, Dutch, Turkish and Italian that weren't translated and have contributed info to IMDb on some of them. Esquizombi 23:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There is not now, nor has there ever been, such a policy. We write our article in English, but the subject of the article may be from any field or culture. We may have a slight bias towards English-speaking topics because most of the editors are English speakers, but we do everything we can to fight that bias. Please, if you have a good article about a non-English topic, add it to the encyclopedia. -lethe ^{talk +} 21:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The only caveat is that if you cite from sources that are not in English, you need to provide original text and translation in the footnotes so that it complies with WP:V. See WP:RS#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English. Otherwise you are good to go. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Should there be an explicit policy on this? Or is it enough to say to someone who wants to delete such an article that there is no policy prohibiting them? Esquizombi 18:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Paths on the top of articles

I think it would be very useful to have paths on the top of articles, so that one can navigate back and forth through articles in an organized way. The current fasion of having scattered links on the page, and in See also sections are extremely useful, but they don't allow someone to see specifically what an idea or concept falls under (ie a more general category). This is what i'm proposing: put a path on the top of each page denoting what pages directly precede it and a button to view "Subsections" for a list of pages that linearly follow the current page. For example on the page Monomial, this would be at the top:

Mathematics $\rightarrow$ Algebra $\rightarrow$ Elementary algebra $\rightarrow$ Polynomial $\rightarrow$ Monomial $\rightarrow$ Subsections

An example of the subsections for the page Elementary algebra (this would appear as its own otherwise blank page):

Elementary algebra	$\rightarrow$ Polynomial	$\rightarrow$ Monomial
		$\rightarrow$ Binomial

This would allow users to browse wikipedia in an organized fasion that can't be provided by portals and c ategories. Comments please? Fresheneesz 03:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• There are some category tools on the toolserver that can do things like this (though not integrated in the way you suggest). The main problem is that our content is not really organized in a tree structure in the way that your proposal would demand; it would be a great deal of work to organize WP in this way, and I don't think there is much benefit to be gained beyond what exists in the category system. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• This implies that Wikipedia's content is organized, or organizable, in a hierarchical way, which I don't believe is true. Even in some of the more areas sections, pages may "inherit" from multiple superordinate categories, and even if your scheme could handle that, it seems like the categorization would begin to overwhelm the content. In most areas, though, Wikipedia has a true network topology, with connections going every which way. Where would Bill Clinton go, for instance? Presidents, Arkansans, Lawyers, Adulterers, Authors? And the denizens of those categories are all ging to have their own nonce set of categories... the problem of imposing an order quickly becomes intractable. I think in the case of this kind of sprawling, multi-structured data, a bottom-up classification system like categories (or del.ici.ous-style tags) is the right way to go. I would add that you haven't really, in my opinion, made a case for why a system like this is desirable, but there's nothing to stop you, as a proof of concept, from creating a page (maybe in userspace to begin with) with a hierarchically structured map of a concept area--say, algebra--where each node is a link to an article. If you can pull that off, with comprehensive coverage of an area, and not too many "leaks", maybe that would be in interesting project in its own right that wouldn't need fundamental changes to the way WP operates. Think of the way Wikipedia uses the Ethnologue structure for languages, for instance. · rodii · 03:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• A bad idea, for all the reasons stated above: assumes a hierarchical structure which does not exist; duplicates a job which categories do in a more general way; far too much effort to implement. Gandalf61 08:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Those are all good points. One problem with categories is that the category pages are not very organized. I have never actually found a use for the category pages myself. On the point of "our content is not really organized in a tree structure", I did think about this and one work around is having a *main* tree structure, and then also linking to sub categories like this:

Mathematics $\rightarrow$ Algebra $\rightarrow$ Elementary algebra $\rightarrow$ Sections related to Polynomial $\rightarrow$ Subsections

Here, clicking on "sections related to" would turn up a page of other categories that Polynomial is in. Also, this system is by no means a proposal for *all* wikipedia pages. The main place I see this helping is in math and science related articles where there is a clear progression from most general to most specific. This could also be implimented within history or timelines. For example, in history, many articles are about something *specific* that happened in WWII, or something like that, and other articles get increasingly more specific. These categories could show a clear *main* path that someone could trace to find out more about the subject. Once again, articles about such general things as "Bill Clinton" might not be a good candidate for this sort of proposal. But I think some subjects would work with this quite well.

One question: What category tools on what toolserver do something similar to this? I haven't ever used whatever you're talking about, so it might be close to what i'm looking for.

In any case, more comments please? My goal of discussing this here is to get consensus permission to do a *trial* of this organization system, so that we can see how well it works. Fresheneesz 10:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

One example is the CategoryTree tool. Start by inputting category "Fundamental" and it creates a downward-branching tree structure through all article-space categories.

The functionality of relating articles to their immediate superiors and other closely related articles is often accomplished through the use of series boxes. (See WP:CLS for background on this.) Usually these appear at the bottom of an article, but sometimes as a bar on the right side. It is possible that these are not being used as well as they could be in math and science articles; you may want to consult with the editors of templates like {{BranchesofChemistry}} as to how to better create a networked structure in these fields. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In those instances where areas do admit such an obvious tree structure for organizing the data, we already have one. A perfect example is provided by biological species; a transcluded speciesbox shows what Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species it belongs to. Similar boxes exist for languages. Probably other areas too. It's probably the case that this is not a useful way to try to categorize all wikipedia articles. Perhaps you would suggest that mathematical objects could be so categorized profitably, but I don't think I agree with that either. -lethe ^{talk +} 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is a perfect example of an obvious tree structure. For example, this categorizes Cat (for example) under "Living things -> Animals -> Mammals -> Carnivores -> Cat family -> Cat". But if all articles should only have one location in the tree, I would suggest that "Society -> Private life -> Personal life -> Pets -> Cat" would be more relevant. Which illustrates the problem with a simple tree structure. Eugene van der Pijll 16:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what don't you agree with? That taxonomy is not an obvious tree structure for biological species? You think that for some species, other classifications are more relavant than their taxonomy? So why haven't you gone to the article cat and replaced the speciesbox with its more relavant categorization? I probably disagree with you. The most useful and obvious tree structure for biological species is their biological taxonomy, and every single species should be so classified. This does not preclude any particular species (such as cat) from also being dscribed under other taxonomies as well (the one you suggest would be a good taxonomy, if such a taxonomy existed. As it stands, it might be OR). -lethe ^{talk +} 16:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it is the obvious choice to put on the article as its single taxonomy. The role of cats in our society as pets is much more important than their position in the tree of life relative to the Indian Desert Cat or the Sand Cat. That role is (for example) the only reason why Cat is much longer than Sand Cat. However, my alternative tree is better presented in the article itself, as prose, and not in the taxobox, as it is much less "systematic" than the biological one. That is why it is good to have the biological taxobox at the top. By the way, my structure is not OR, at least not by me; I got it from Portal:Society. So that taxonomy is already on wikipedia. Eugene van der Pijll 16:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But being systematic is one of the criteria which in my opinion makes that structure the most natural. -lethe ^{talk +} 16:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Not that this is very relevant to the idea, but I'd have to say that the taxonomy is a good structure for cat. The purpose of such a tree structure as I'm suggesting is *NOT* to provide an obvious and loosely related progression, but to provide a *tool* that people can use to furthur look into the subject that they're in. Someone can easily look up "pets" if they're interested in other pets like a cat, but its not quite so obvoius what subject something like "Taylor Series" is in, or what it can be directly related to. Same thing with the taxonomy, its not what specific categories cats are a part of. Fresheneesz 20:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As I tried to suggest above, there is nothing stopping you from creating an article called, say, Structure of Mathematics, developing a comprehensive tree structure classifying all the mathematics articles and providing links to them. Why does the navigation information have to be on the article page? And then if it turns out that it's a fabulously useful tool, maybe an argument will be plausible that your taxonomy should be built into math articles the way languages or species are classified. I am skeptical, but why not try it? · rodii · 01:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it'd be pretty useless if noone can find it. Even if people can find it, it simply wouldn't be used if it were out of the way like categories are. How often do you use categories? Fresheneesz 07:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well you have to do a proof-of-concept in an out of the way place before it can even be considered for the main article space. All you have right now is a bunch of words. If people like your work, then, and only then, will it go where people will find it easily. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll think about developing it further for a specific part of wikipedia first. Thanks. Fresheneesz 08:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Extending the WP:NPA policy

Although it is not possible to enforce the policy of No Personal Attacks outside of Wikipedia, there have been occasions in which some users use public forums, blogs and personal home pages to attack editors of Wikipedia by name, alias or both, while at the same time demanding that the WP:NPA policy and WP:AGF guidelines are observed to the letter in article's talk pages. I am referring here not to a critique of an editor, but to obvious personal attacks such as the use of vituperative and obscene language and making pernicious and disparaging comments about them.

I personaly believe that such a position is indefensible and should be considered disruptive behavior. It creates an atmosphere of ill-will, animosity and lack of trust, that are not conducive neither to collaboration on editing articles, nor to community building.

I would appreciate comments from editors about expanding the WP:NPA policy to include some wording that will address the attempt to bypass policy and game the system by an editor "outsourcing" his personal attacks against other editor(s) to public forums in order to "get away with it". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the same reasons that we have the NPA policy in the first place apply to personal attacks off-wiki. They pollute the community and generally make collaborative working on the encyclopedia less likely to happen. Putting aside all the potential problems that go along with this, like making the correct identification of of users off-wiki, this is a sensible concept. There are certainly a lot of things to take into account here and work out before making it policy, in particular whether it is semi-private journal website, or wheher it is specifically designed to target others or for the consumption of the general public and Wikipedians. In the latter case, personal attacks are just as reprehensible off-wiki as on, and should reasonably have repercussions on Wikipedia. Dmcdevit·t 01:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I would support this. There are currently a few editors, most of them already banned, who have set up other websites/webpages to launch serious attacks on Wikipedians, using what the editors believe are their real names. In the case of one of these banned editors, the comments involve very serious sexual abuse. In the case of another editor (not banned), he's making comments about an admin on another website that he's specifically banned by the arbcom from making on Wikipedia, a ruling he had agreed to stick to, so him engaging in the same behavior elsewhere shows bad faith. I agree with Dmcdevit that we'd have to be careful how we worded the policy, but in principle it has my support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I started a proposal page at Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks/Extension ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have the same concern as Dmcdevit regarding the context of the comments. The person may just be venting their frustrations on their personal website or journal (though it does not excuse personal attacks). There is also the problem of evidence when the behavior takes places offsite. Everything is preserved on Wikipedia and who said what can be determined in the history, but with emails, newsgroups, chatrooms and websites other than Wikipedia, the evidence may be transitory, forcing us to rely on hearsay, and there is the potential for falsifying evidence as well. This is one of the problems with the Wikipedia IRC channel. People are sometimes blocked on Wikipedia for what happens on IRC (it frequently affects requests for adminship, as well, usually negatively), but there is often no proof besides hearsay. -- Kjkolb 10:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that some editors are not afraid to state that they are they themselves that are posting personal attacks, and they have the chutzpah to assert the need to abide by WP:NPA in Wikipedia hosted pages. You see, anyone can put up a dime-a-dozen website or free blog and assassinate the character of a Wikipedia editor or editors, by posting these messages anonymously. But I am referring to something else: those editors that unashamedly use other public forums to attack members of the community as a way to bypass WP:NPA. This is the intention of this extension. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to attempt to extend the reach of Wikipedia's rules to activities elsewhere than Wikipedia, for a number of reasons. Since our own user validation is so weak, and since it can be assumed to be at least as weak elsewhere, there's no way to verify that the User:Jpgordon on Wikipedia who is nice and NPAish is the Jpgordon over on Upyours.com who is flaming the nice people on Wikipedia. Further, our rules our to regulate our behaviour while in the process of developing Wikipedia -- not our behaviour in life in general. There are rare exceptions to the reach of our rules -- I'm thinking of User:Amalekite, who took it upon himself to post a list of "Wikipedia Jews" on a prominent Nazi website and found himself made persona non grata here. And I'd certainly look askance at someone who said nasty stuff on Nastinessaboutwikipedia.com and then posted pointers to it on Wikipedia. But our rules are properly (in my opinion) about what we do on Wikipedia itself. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What movies should be in WIkipedia?

Many movies have entries in Wikipedia. Yet, Wikipedia doesn't have, probably never will have, and perhaps should not try for the comprehensive coverage of the Internet Movie Database. Wikipedia just isn't the right tool for this job. IMDB is a database, with links for actors and directors, connections to the Directors' Guild of America for correct credits, links to trailers, and similar supporting machinery. Trying to emulate all that manually within Wikipedia is like pounding a screw.

I'd suggest that Wikipedia only have articles for "historically significant" movies, defined in some objective way, like "won an Academy Award". I'm not sure what the criterion should be, but it should be an objective one. --Nagle 18:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I concur with Nagle here. --Improv 18:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't emulate imdb. But, we shouldn't have an unreasonably high standard, as suggested. Certainly all films from the big studios belong (even the "bombs"). Also, generally, theatrically released independent films should be included. Most direct-to-video films don't belong, simply because anybody with a camcorder can make one (that's a particular problem with porn). If we write up a criteria, it should describe what we're already keeping, and not try to delete a majority of existing articles. Most of what's in imdb is already kept out, and I don't see what the problem is. --Rob 18:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• The answer is that every commercially released movie should be in Wikipedia. Whether iMDB exists or not doesn't matter, Wikipedia's job is completely different. Wikipedia is not a database, it's an encyclopedia = sum of all interesting human knowledge. Doesn't matter if it's movies or video games or, uh, primary schools you're looking for - you have it all in a single site. That's why Wikipedia is so great.  Grue  19:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Third-party verifiability is as high a bar as we need. WTF. - David Gerard 21:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• As someone who has done a lot of movie work, I would have to agree with Grue. If we're only talking about historically-significant movies, why stop there? Remove all of the historically-insignificant video games, books, television shows (and their episode articles), people, places, and things. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not as concerned by what movies are in Wikipedia as the more general problem that Wikipedia is the wrong tool for the job. This is a database problem being addressed, with excessive human effort, with manually linked text files. Movie entries have cast lists which link to actor entries which link back to movie entries. Remakes need to be linked to originals, and vice versa. Actor careers need to be accessable. It's all manual, and the links are unreliable.
  • If people want to make the effort let them. If they are stopped it is more likely that they will make no contribution to wikipedia than that they will switch to writing featured articles about films you consider to be historically significant. Piccadilly 15:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• The same problem applies to music albums, books, and TV shows. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia which just list an album and the songs on it. Those are really catalog entries. To some extent this is also true for books.
  • Re. books, there's a tentative "notability criteria" description in wikipedia:naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria --Francis Schonken 08:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Long-term, we may need a "Wikicatalog" system for media catalogs like this. Preferably before someone bulk-loads Books In Print or the Library of Congress catalog into Wikipedia. Something to think about. --Nagle 04:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• All commercially released films should get an entry. The existence of IMDB is neither here nor there. Piccadilly 15:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, IMDB is infested with ads. Piccadilly 15:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

IMDB, In My Doubtful Belief, is most dutifully basic. I must dare boldly imitate mechanically de brains involved making dat base. WP Won't Progress with plenty wordy dang.

We find e.g. movies, music albums, games, gamers and football players where we want an encyclopedia. That it is not paper (see the same questioning theme one or two sections further) can't allow to create stubs or plentiful articles for things only known today and that you will be happy to forget tomorrow. It is fun, we are submerged with publicity, but one should feel responsible for a content that means something for more than half a generation : or Britannica beats us. --DLL 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You only find them if you look for them. They are completely irrelevant to the quality of the articles on more traditional topics - except insofar as they draw in more users, some of whom will contribute to those articles. Hawkestone 22:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Municipal naming

Is there a word which can be used as a generic term meaning "city", "town", "village", "municipality", etc? All of these have a legal definition and I'm looking for a general term to use which could mean any of them "colloquially" (such as a category including all of them). The only one I have found so far is "community", but that seems odd when a category includes Chicago, St. Louis, etc. (community sounds like a small place). I can't find anything in Wikipedia which addresses this. I started to use "town" for some smaller places, then found out it had a legal definition, too! If anyone knows, or can direct me to the proper place it would be appreciated. Thanks.Rt66lt 04:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot think of any. Also, any word that you find may have a generic meaning in some areas, but not all of them. If I had to choose one, I would use either "town" or "city". You could also use "cities and towns in..." for the category name. -- Kjkolb 05:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a word, but an awkward phrase, "incorporated place", if you want to include only entities with a legal status, or "populated place", which is what the USGS uses in its database. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. "Populated place" sounds best so far.Rt66lt 15:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a problem in the English language. I consider "city" the best generic term. "Populated place" sounds silly to me and could refer to non-urban geographic unit, such as an island. The fact that some governments give it a legal definition needn't control everyday usage of this fine and ancient term. Brock 04:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As a legal term, capitalization might help. As a generic term, city and town and village are all useful. Census-designated place is ugly and stupid, however precise it may be. ;Bear 05:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you use "city" to describe Dixville Notch, New Hampshire or Hart's Location, New Hampshire? I think that is stretching any definition of "city" too far. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 16:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically, these are called "administrative divisions" (some fellow has incorrectly moved it to "subnational entity" that will have to be fixed), whereas "census-designated place" (CDP) is the term usually reserved for places without a more formal designation. Anyway, he was looking for a catch-all "generic term", and the current Wikipedia catch-all is Category:Human habitats.

--William Allen Simpson 17:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough another Bobblewik?

We seem to have another Bobblewik these days. Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) is running SmackBot (talk · contribs), and it is very clear from the speed of the edits and the context of various changes that he's not actually reviewing the edits before commit.

There are loads of complaints on his talk page. This has been an on-going problem. He's been blocked (at various increments) repeatedly.

(Actually blocked once, for two minutes, in error - prior to these postings by WAS. Rich Farmbrough 10:25 27 March 2006 (UTC).)

Last week, it was screwing up US and UK.

The most obvious today is delinking dates.

Now, it just unlinked "max may med" to "max May med" at List of three-letter English words. There is no possible way that a human reviewer would have made that mistake.

The idea that a bot should ever again run around delinking dates, days, months, or anything else has been so long discredited that it leads to apoplexy. (I still remember when another AWB delinked 1947 in Israel.)

Heck, it's worse than that! Reviewing the contributions (that it's making every 6 seconds), I see that it moves the trailing ]]s to s]] on piped links. That's against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Form.

I'd suggest that the bot be blocked until he certifies that he's personally reviewed and fixed every single edit ever done by the bot.... At a rate no faster than 1 every 2 minutes.

--William Allen Simpson 01:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#SmackBot_and_AWB_operated_by_Rich_Farmbrough --Francis Schonken 10:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Or any of the other places this has been posted about by William Allen Simpson, which exclude my talk page. Rich Farmbrough 17:40 26 March 2006 (UTC).

Just noticed this verifiably false comment, belied here (now hidden away in his Talk archive). There were many other comments on his talk page as well. Hopefully, the issues are being resolved at the Schonken link above.

--William Allen Simpson 17:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Significance -> Wikipedia:Notability/Proposal

I created Wikipedia:Significance as a proposal which hasn't so far garnered much support. It's been suggested to me that I repropose it as a notability proposal. Therefore I have moved it to be a subpage of WP:N, Wikipedia:Notability/Proposal, and ask all interested parties to help evolve the proposal to a stage where it has achieved community consensus. Steve block talk 08:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the idea is to build a proposal which espouses the nutshell idea that:

• Information should have some notability within its associated subject area. This notability should not be conferred by wikipedia or individual editors, but rather should be based upon verifiable sources and presented in a neutral point of view.

• It's not an attempt to define an arbitrary value of notability, but rather to create a guideline which gathers all the strands of encyclopedic value from various policy pages and guidelines, notably guidance on vanity, the perfect article, writing an article, what Wikipedia is not and the three core policies, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The main arena for discussing a topic's notability would remain the rticle talk page and, ultimately, WP:AFD. Steve block talk 08:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

POV forks?

There has recently been a proposal on Talk:Human to split up the article on human beings into a POV fork in order to sidestep controversy regarding the science/religion issues (such as whether "human beings are Homo sapiens", the dictionary definition of the word human, is "just a POV", and whether we should spend several paragraphs of the intro discussing the human soul and spirituality); homo sapiens sapiens has been created as an article for the biological details of humanity, in an attempt to heavily restrict biological information from being included in human in the future; human, meanwhile, is planned to become a purely spiritual and cultural article. I can see several problems with this, such as that the word human is used equally in all circles, scientific and religious, that it is original research to separate "human" and Homo sapiens sapiens without research, and that there are already plenty of daughter articles for both biological and spiritual articles (for example, why use Homo sapiens sapiens for biological details rather than Human biology?), but I'm mainly here to discuss whether this will set a precedent for other articles to be similarly forked, like having one article for cat (discussing the cultural significance of cats to humans only) and one for Felis silvestris catus (discussing the biology of cats); certainly having such a prominent article so dramatically forked will having a huge influence on hundreds of other articles that are similarly controversial among editors.

I would like to bring this to the community's attention, and get a wider array of feedback on the idea, mainly because if this fork is implemented and approved by the community, it will be the first time in the history of Wikipedia that a Wikipedia article has been forked in such a way without subsequently being reverted/deleted, and since there's currently a large number of editors on the Talk page who seem to support such a fork, and the process of splitting the page has already begun, there's a very large chance that this article will be divided in this way soon. As such, this certainly merits a more thorough and broad examination of the situation by as many Wikipedia editors as possible: should Wikipedia begin the shift away from WP:NPOV (presenting all noteworthy sides of controversial issues side-by-side and centralizing related topics on a single top-level page) and towards Wikinfo-style articles (where a separate page is created for every possible perspective)? I can see valid arguments for both sides, so I think this is a very important discussion to have. -Silence 19:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

From wikipedia:naming conventions (common names), examples section: "Dog (not Canis lupus familiaris)", so on first sight the Human/Homo sapiens split would be also in contradiction with that guideline. Just as an additional argument, the NPOV argument seems more important IMHO.

"it will be the first time in the history of Wikipedia that a Wikipedia article has been forked in such a way without subsequently being reverted/deleted" — wouldn't take any bets on it that no POV fork ever escaped the attention of wikipedians... but that's not a reason not to try to stop this one. --Francis Schonken 21:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This comment is a bit disingenous. Comapring cats with humans is a bit reduccionist as well. I would sugggest that interested editors take a look at Talk:Human#homo_sapiens_vs_human_vs_humanity for the spirited discussion about this subject. A POV fork is NOT an option as you will see. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested in a disinterested opinion after reading the proposed fork map—forking to have a main article and sub-articles is nothing new, and doesn't necessarily indicate lack of NPOV. But it appears to me that topically, there's an attempt here to split into sub-articles, not titled for the subtopics as is ordinarily done, but rather all titled with (rough) synonyms for the main topic—all while declaring one of the sub-articles (psychology) the main one. This seems a rather extreme way to handle countering a systemic bias towards biological information taking over the article. --TreyHarris 02:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestions on how to handle this would be much appreciated at Talk:Human ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Screenshots of Windows software problems

Hello, I've been looking through Category:Screenshots of Windows software and I'm noticing quite a number of items in this category that don't look like they belong. For example, there are screenshots of characters from Flash animations[5], political maps[6], band pictures[7], logos[8], and even satellite images of cities[9]. The problem seems to be that people are assuming that, because they were able to obtain the image by taking a screenshot using SnagIt or whatever, that this somehow makes Template:windows-software-screenshot the correct copyright tag for an image, which I'm pretty sure is a wrong application of this particular copyright status. What's the right path forward in a circumstance like this? Warrens 15:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Re-tag appropriately. --Durin 17:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• This is a popular way for trying to cheat our prohibition against using Google Maps images (both commercial satellite photos and maps) in wikipedia articles (other than the article about Google Maps). If you find a Google Maps or Google Earth image on any other article (particularly articles for the geographical location shown) there's no fair use case whatever and it's a blantant copyvio. That Burlington images is a prime example. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've gone through and re-tagged most of the Google Maps/Earth screenshots, as well as a couple of other obviously mistagged images. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy on pseudoscience

A policy should be created regarding pseudoscience. Should we include pseudoscience in science articles? Because if we excluded them, then it wouldn't be NPOV (or so I think). But if we included them... well, then Britannica will have something to say. So there should be a policy on whether excluding pseudoscience is non-NPOV or not. In fact, should we create a poll on this topic?--Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 12:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

We need to say something about the subject. I would say just link out to a separate article. If you include a summary in the parent article, this shouldn't count as a POV fork. I think. I would put the summary towards the end of the article in most cases. The trouble is that some pseudosciences are just silly and shouldn't be mentioned, some sound reasonable and need to be refuted, and some are reasonable and should be respectfully put in context. You could also try mentioning a pseudoscience in its historical context, rather than its (non) scientific context, to avoid giving it too much credibility. Also, the actual term pseudoscience is a rather vague and misused one, IMO. Carcharoth 13:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Having read the pseudoscience page, which is a good article, I don't think a general policy is a good idea. I would say a good guideline is to read the pseudoscience article and decide on a case-by-case basis. Carcharoth 13:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with pseudoscience is that it is ill-defined. Are subjects pseudoscience, even though I can apply the scientific process to any subject (eg. clairvoyance could be construed pseudoscience, even though it might not be claimed to be scientific, and I apply scientific standards to investigating the subject), or is a person someone who applies bad science pseudoscientifically to even subjects that are considered scientific (eg. the recent Korean guy and genetic cloning)?

The other problem is that some fringe subjects are often considered pseudoscientific, because they are unpopular, unfashionable, or merely inconclusive. For example, there are many scientists studying non-standard cosmologies (ie. theories alternative to the Big Bang), and these are often labelled as pseudoscience. --Iantresman 18:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This reinforces the need to treat cases on a case-by-case basis, since it appears that people disagree over when to use the word 'pseudoscience'. For what it is worth, I would not use the label pseudoscience for any of your examples. I would say that something that doesn't claim to be scientific (clairvoyancy) cannot be called a pseudoscience. Someone that practices bad science can just be someone claiming to be a scientist and doing things the wrong way; this is not usually the case for practitioners of pseudosciences, as pseudoscience is a label applied (justly in my opinion) by their detractors - the practitioners themselves would not agree with the label being applied to them, but might claim to be scientific - in such a case, I would draw a distinction between those who misapply or falsify the scientific method (bad scientists) and those who misunderstand the scientific method and (wrongly) claim the respectability that science confers (pseudoscientists). The final example, of scientists working on fringe subjects, is just that - no pseudoscience there at all, IMO. Overall, I would say that "pseudoscience" is a label that should only be used in the context of reporting what person X calls person B. We shouldn't uses the term ourselves, except in the article discussing the issues. ie. outside of the pseudoscience article, any uses of the word 'pseudoscience' should be referenced to a source. Does this sound reasonable? Carcharoth 19:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As a slight over-exageration, I would say that the only people who use the term "pseudoscience" are "pseudoskeptics" --Iantresman 10:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There is the proposed Wikipedia:Fringe theories but it needs work. Esquizombi 01:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this issue goes beyond science/pseudoscience. I'm (slowly) working on a major rewrite to Arianrhod, who is a figure from Welsh mythology. She is mentioned in four (maybe five) original sources. However, many (if not most) mentions of her in modern writing will be "facts" and fanciful notions established in 1948 by Robert Graves and a handful of some that I can't track down the source of (but suspect they are much more recent). Given that the average person reading on this subject is more likely to encounter noise than signal, I am trying to find a way to acknowledge the modern contributions without giving the false impression of authenticity. The reason for this is two-fold: one is to put the information in a proper context, but also to write defensively. If it isn't there, it is very likely that some well-meaning person will add it...and it won't be from quality sources. I suggest that the standard for mentioning the truly psuedoscientific theories would be the signal-to-noise ratio: how likely is the average person to encounter that theory (especially in relation to the established theory)? And that writing defensively is the key. Expect that if a popular fringe view isn't mentioned that someone will add it, and it won't necessarily be credible. The historical context suggestion is good; it can be truthful, NPOV (no one needs to be reminded about that, right?), but without being nonsense. --Straif 14:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Novus Ordo Seclorum had a similar problem, with editors insisting on explaining to the world how this is a sign of the Freemasonic/Jewish conspiracy. I put in a section (entitled "Conspiracy theory"), setting out the theory based on their edits, and including some facts which may inspire skepticism. The believers have occasionally edited this, but it's not in the intro; and if it ever were, it would merit removal as duplication. The same would probably work on Arianrhod, and might even develop into an interesting subarticle about Graves' abuse of his sources.

Pressing for sources and reading them yourself is another useful technique. People of one book have rarely read it accurately, and you will often find some useful balance which they have not reported. Septentrionalis 15:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Google test

User:Nixer and me have recently had a dispute regarding the spelling of the name of a certain Russian airport (Ostafievo International Airport). I am not going to bore everyone with the details of what the dispute is about, but a google test was used to prove certain points. The problem, however, is that a different google count is obtained by both sides. When googling for "ostafievo -wikipedia", I get 220 hits (see a screenshot), while Nixer gets 1,470 (see his). I tried two different computers (with different ISPs), and I still get ~220 hits. The discrepancy is just too huge to ignore, and as google tests are quite common in the community, I would like to request public comments as to what may be the cause.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. With the specified link, I get 214 hits; but when I add "English" in the Language field of the advanced search, I get 781. Perhaps this may be related. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And I got 1990 (!) results [10] when specified the English language.--Nixer 16:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I got 781 just like Arthur above.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't explain the discrepancy, but I can eliminate it through better methodology. The "raw number" is often fairly useless for searches like these with a small number of hits. A much better count is the number of "unique" pages, which AFAIK google doesn't display directly, but if you jump to search result page 10, you'll see a message at the bottom of the screen like this: In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 67 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included. Using that metric, I get 67 hits searching in English-only and 85 searching in all languages.—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I get 215 in Australia. I've suspected in the last few months, specially since the China controversy, that google gives diff results in diff countries. BTW what % of web does it now index? Mccready 16:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is not so much countries. Google has many hundreds of servers, and they are not perfectly synchronized—in theory two people searching at the same time in the same city could get different results if their ISPs connect them to different data centers. A discrepancy of a few results is not uncommon, although a discrepancy of over 600% is unusual in my experience. -choster 19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Insignificant difference. Google test is a rough measure; only order-of-magnitude differences are significant. John Reid 06:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

---

And this all is just another reason to avoid Google "tests". Who cares how many folks badly spell a word? As we wrote at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places):

• "Generally, use the official English name for the place and its type."

Nota Bene: The testimony of locals and people familiar with the country should be considered above Google evidence. Google is very likely to have many results from news organizations and wire services. These remote reporters may be ignorant about local naming standards.

What's most important is that the company that built the place has an official name: "Ostafievo".

--William Allen Simpson 18:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Official name should be used, if there is one and it does not contradict Wikipedia's policies (in this case, the official name is in Cyrillic, so it cannot be used as a title). As for your second argument, the most important fact is that that same company spelled its name as "Ostafyevo in their legal address on the very same website. Finally, the question was not about the dispute itself, but about the cause of google test discrepancies. The applicability of a google test in this particular case is indeed disputable, with me being the one disputing it, by the way.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot find your cited (italicized) text in the search. The original name in cyrillic is not the "official English name" as English does not use cyrillic characters.

Google was not designed for "tests". If the official website itself is confusing, email the webmaster, and check other official sources such IATA and ICAO. Don't guess based on "tests". Use the Source, Luke.

--William Allen Simpson 08:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

1. You can do an inline search (Ctrl-F in many browsers) for "legal address" and/or "ostafyevo" if you don't see it right away.
2. This airport does not have an "official English name", and the substitute sources of information are contradictory (main page uses the i-spelling, while the legal address and some other subpages use the y-spelling). If there were an official name, you would not see this request posted here at all.
3. The airport does not have an IATA/ICAO code (I'll be more than happy to be proved wrong, though), so we cannot use that.
4. Emailing the webmaster is a moot point. If they cannot get their own name consistently spelled on their own website, you cannot expect what they say in an email can be trusted.
5. For the third time, it was not my idea to perform a google test. My course of action was to apply Wikipedia policies→use official English name; since one could not be determined, use the next best applicable policy, which, in this case, is WP:RUS. Google test was Nixer's idea; one I do not agree with but tried out of curiosity. The 600% discrepancy in the number of hits for the same query run by different users is something I never encountered, so, knowing that google tests are done in the community on certain occasions, I decided to bring it to everyone's attention. Hope this closes this discussion.
6. Just to emphasize—this thread is not about the applicability of a google test to this particular dispute. This thread is about why google queries may return so very different numbers of hits for exact same query run at approximately the same time in different locations of the same planet. That's all there was to it.
7. Thank you for trying to help anyway.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation page links on articles with disambiguated titles

I have brought this issue up before, several months ago, I think. I asked whether articles with disambiguated titles, like tables (board game), should have a link at the top to a disambiguation page. I thought that it was unnecessary, since a person will not get to an article with a disambiguated title by accident. Others here, or possibly at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), agreed that such as link is unnecessary. However, Wikipedia:Disambiguation now seems to be in conflict with what was agreed upon. Here is a quote from that page.

In most cases, the generic term or phrase should be the title of the actual disambiguation page. This permits an editor to visually determine whether a disambiguating page is generic in Category:Disambiguation.

Pages that deliberately link to generic topic pages should use an unambiguous "(disambiguation)" page instead, to assist in distinguishing accidental links. In turn, the "(disambiguation)" page will redirect to the generic topic page. This "(disambiguation)" redirect page should always be created for the Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages listing.

For example, the specific topic Tables (board game) links to Table (disambiguation), a redirect to Table with the template {{R to disambiguation page}}. Table is a generic topic disambiguation page.

Are such links necessary, and if they are, why? Thanks, Kjkolb 03:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction between a generic topic page and a DAB page, but in reply to your original question, having the link to the DAB is not strictly necessary, but it is helpful. Sometimes people pick wrong (like Table (database), versus Table (information)), so it's nice to have the link there, rather than having to rely on the back button, or doing another search.Freekee 05:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use meaningless apocopations, "DAB" doesn't seem to have anything to do with this discussion. Moreover, this was rather thoroughly covered at Wikipedia Talk:Disambiguation, see the archives. Most (97%) disambiguation pages are "Generic Topic".

Yes, sometimes such links are necessary. Once upon a time, "Tables" was the board game page. Now, "Tables" is the plural redirect to "Table". Therefore, the only way to find other uses of the plural from Tables (board game) is through the Table generic topic disambiguation page.

However, most specific topic pages do not have such links at the top. That's why the language says: "Pages that deliberately link...." This requires "deliberation" (that is, thought). Do not mechanistically add such links.

--William Allen Simpson 18:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. I don't understand what you mean in the second paragraph, William Allen Simpson. No one will get to tables (board game) by accident, so why is it necessary to have a link to the disambiguation page? Also, I don't see how tables being a redirect to table affects anything. Finally, why is it necessary to link to table (disambiguation) instead of table? It is obvious that the link is intentional. Thanks, Kjkolb 13:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've no strong opinion on whether the dablink should be on that specific page, but as Freekee pointed out, articles about similar terms can be confusing and it makes sense to provide an easy method for users to find alternatives in these cases. I also don't understand what William's point was in his second paragraph. As for linking the dablink to table (disambiguation) instead of table, that is because in general disambiguation pages (table in this case) should not have links to them. Linking the dablink to the redirect (table (disambiguation)), makes it clear that it is a deliberate link and not a mistaken link. See Wikipedia:Hatnotes for more on the theory and practice behind these dablinks. That is only a proposed guideline, but has some support and is generally based on current practices. older ≠ wiser 13:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the point in the second paragraph was that when the board game was at tables, a top dab link was necessary, as someone could be looking for a table and enter the plural. As tables is now a redirect to the singular, it is no longer necessary, but at the time it was. (hence the sometimes) In the original quote above, WP:DAB is not saying anything about the necessity of the link. What it is saying is that, if the link is put in, that link must be to table (disambiguation), even if that always redirects to table.

My understanding of the difference between a generic topic and dab pages is that the former is called "Topic" and the latter is called "Topic (disambiguation)". The difference is in search results. For the former, searching for "Topic" will return "What type of 'topic' do you mean?", but the latter will say "here's 'Topic', if you meant something else called 'topic', check here". The figure of 97% was quoted above, which means most searches will result in "what sort of topic", only going directly to one specific one when it's the agreed primary topic, like "Rome". The idea behind both is to give the results that surprise the least amount of people. Regards, MartinRe 15:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Most disambiguation pages are at "Topic", not "Topic (disambiguation)". The latter is almost always a redirect to the actual disambiguation page. That may seem counterintuitive, but redirects are considered "cheap".

The requirement to link to "Topic (disambiguation)" instead of directly to "Topic" is not new, it was originally described by a fellow named "Brion" when he created disambiguation pages in 2001. It is explicitly specified at Wikipedia:Disambiguation quoted above, and prevents it showing up in Disambiguation Pages with Links (DPL).

MartinRe is correct. The whole idea is least amount of surprise, and ease of use.

And I reiterate, don't try to make a mechanistic choice about whether (or not) to link from a page to a disambiguation page. It requires thought. Contemplation and deliberation should not be antithetical to encyclopedia editors.

--William Allen Simpson 08:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Institutions

Wikipedia serves as all Wiki Projects' highest form of governemnt; I don't think that's right. I think that Wikimedia should be where Help, Reference Desk, Proposals, Policy, etc. should be located. Also, Beer Parlour & Tea Room should be deleted, etc. & if there are any other institutions like as mentioned in this comment, then they should be deleted to. User pages should also be consolidated into 1 central location, namely Wikimedia, or a separate place, but these are draft ideas, but the general idea, would organize Wikimedia & save resources. Taking the point of saving resources, Accounts should be allowed to be deleted.

Please leave one if you'd like more clarification on this issue. You could also contact me <redacted> [since they haven't instituted the option to delete your account, made their own licence, or the GNU licence hasn't changed yet, I haven't signed up].

thanks

24.70.95.203 14:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Martin 13:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I went to the link, & I noticed that all Wikimedia Projects including Wikimedia is sorely disorganized;, still, the above issue has not been addressed;: on the link, nowhere was there Refernce Desk, Compliants, Help Desk, etc.. Also, Wikitionary has no links in any part of its entirety which would lead to Refernce Desk, Compliants, Help Desk, etc.. Coudn't there be a project or devlopers clean this mess up?!?!

Please leave one if you'd like more clarification on this issue. You could also contact me <redacted> [since they haven't instituted the option to delete your account, made their own licence, or the GNU licence hasn't changed yet, I haven't signed up].

thanks

24.70.95.203 14:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your premise is simply incorrect, Wikipedia has no power or jurisdiction over the other projects. They are all self-contained. Wikimedia is not a project, it is the umbrella organization. Wikimedia is the only organization with power and jurisdiction over the others. And yes, Meta (which is a wiki about wikimedia) is quite disorganized, and they are working on that.

Thanks for the reply.

Your right wikipedia has no power of jurisdiction over the other projects, & I'm glad for it; if that wasn't the case, we'd have a bigger problem on our hands. Excactly, if Wikimedia is the Umbrella organization, then it should have Help Desk, not Wikipedia; in the current state, only Wikipedia has Help Desk, & this is just an example, as you can see with Refence Desk, etc.., which correlates to the fact that Wikipedia acts as the Umbrella organization, in some areas, & I hope that this gets brought up & I hope this changes.

And I'm a bit puzzled by what you mean by Meta.

By the way, you forgot to sign-_-'

Please leave one if you'd like more clarification on this issue. You could also contact me <redacted> [since they haven't instituted the option to delete your account, made their own licence, or the GNU licence hasn't changed yet, I haven't signed up].

thanks

24.70.95.203 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia used for self promotion, verifiability

Please can people check out these afds and noticeboard below as I believe a seriously misleading campaign of self promotion has been going on involving multiple websites and if we don't take a stand on these articles Wikipedia is going to be vulnerable to further claims reinforced by marketing/agency websites promoting their clients: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_advertising_scam, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_5#Rikki_Lee_Travolta, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_5#My_Fractured_Life, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_5#Twilight_Serenade. Arniep 16:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting issue - supressed details

I have a rather interesting issue to discuss. Recently, there was a high profile rape case (Louise Nicholas) in NZ in which the defendents were found not guilty. A few days after the verdict was annouced, a feminist group distributed flyers which listed some details that have been temporarily supressed. According to one TV news channel, these details are accurate and were with held from the jury. I don't know if they will be permanently supressed.

In any case, at the moment publishing these details would be contempt of court for NZers (the group is under investigation). Of course, NZ courts don't reach out side NZ and if one publishes these details outside NZ you can't be held accountable. It is possible that people who publish the info could be held of contempt if they ever visit NZ but I'm not a lawyer or clear on the law here and I don't think it is the case (unless you further publish the details in NZ of course).

This is not the first time supression orders have come under controversy. In at least one case I recall, the name of an All Black (national rugby team player) who had assaulted his pregant wife by dragging her back to the home was permanently supressed. This name was later published in a UK and/or Australian paper. Note in this case, the permanent name supression was largely to protect the victim and her children.

Anyway what I'm wondering is, is there a policy for dealing with these matters? Since wikipedia is hosted in the US, editors from outside NZ are free to add details which have been supressed. However this would mean the article, could potentially become a no edit zone for NZers. Even debating whether these details should be included on wikipedia could be a risky activity for NZers IMHO. Since these articles will primarily be of interest to NZers, it creates a disturbing trend. Furthermore, publishing these articles in NZ whether by mirroring wikipedia, distributing on DVD, printing or whatever will almost definitely be in contempt of court unless the details are specificly removed or the articles excluded.

To me this raises serious concerns about the GPL and 'freeness' of wikipedia. Of course, there are some copyrighted images which are similarly in dubious positions outside the US but these are at least tagged. Perhaps we could require that supressed details at least be tagged like we do for spoilers or something? Similarly there are some details published in wikipedia which would probably be considered illegal in countries such as China but court ordered supression isn't in quite the same league as limitations on speech to protect the government and/or community harmony. Of course it may also arguable whether details that have been supressed are important enough to be included in an article and whether publishing them would violate NPOV. And you could also argue that publishing the details might be unfair to the victims in cases such as the All Black case.

And in the Louise Nicholas rape case, you could argue that a flyer cannot possibly be considered a reliable source although as I have stated, media reports imply that the details are accurate. Also, if the people who distributed the flyer are held for contempt of court, this is basically an admission the details are accurate? However I guess you'll also need a copy of the flyer and you'll need to show the flyer copy you have is accurate reproduction of the original. In the case of the All Black, I guess the fact that it was published in a paper might give it more sufficient credibility to be included if the detail itself is considered worthy/fair to include.

So I guess what I'm asking is, how do you think we should handle court ordered supressed details? Should we allow them to be published if they are considered worthy and fair of being published? Should we tag them? Note I'm not necessarily against publishing supressed details on wikipedia but think it's a controversial and important issue that we should discuss first. This is perhaps an even more interesting issue for wikinews but I'll cover that another day.

About the Louise Nicholas case, it actually isn't covered particularly well on wikipedia at the moment. It is mentioned at New Zealand Police (under Historic sexual misconduct). From usenet, I came across a claim that an image of the flyer is available here [11] however I haven't visited it so it could be a shock image for all I know...

Finally, as you may realise, this is a new account. I have specifically created it to make it more difficult to identify me. It's possible that by giving a link, even though I'm not sure what it contains I might be in contempt of court. I'm not currently in NZ but I am a NZer as you might guess.

New Zealand Kiwi 19:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I see all kinds of problems here. IMO, as described the pamphlet doesn't meet the requirments of Wikipedia:Verifiability. A published account stating that the details in the pamphlet were correct would not work either, unless that same account gave the details. Finally, anything of a derogatory nature about any living person, and that would include the alleged perpetrators, now must pass a high barrier in Wikipedia. At this point I think the most that can be put in Wikipedia is an account of the controversy as it has been reported in reliable and reputable sources. Wikipedia is not a source of breaking news, and is not the place to leak suppressed information. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 21:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As the primary author of the paragraph in New Zealand Police, I'd like to see it expanded into a short article on the case, but I really don't have the time to do that at present. That article should deal with the controversy over the secret evidence and the pamphlet linked to above, as well as giving much more detail on the case overall. It should not, in my opinion, link to the pamphlet, or explicitly state the allegations in the pamphlet.-gadfium 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the flier is not a source trusted enough to allow us to present the info as fact. On the other hand, statement that the name of perpetrator was withdrawn by the court but such and such group distributed a flier alleging so and so might be verifiable and relevant. I am not a lawyer but I do not think sun an info could be qualified either as a libel or as a contempt to the court. abakharev 04:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What? The flier breaches a suppression handed down by a court judge. No ifs, buts, maybes. Future developments might change the situation, but until then we should avoid compounding the contempt. There is a further rape case pending which may influence this matter. It wouldn't be a feather in our cap if that case were aborted because suppressed information had been published, and we were one of the publishers of it. I would be one Wikipedian questioning our integrity. We should not publish the information which is in contempt of court unless we want to openly say "stuff the rule of law". Moriori 04:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Transborder publication has always been a major problem in a wide variety of different contexts, some connected with strictly legal matters like jury prejudice, with other connected with issues amounting to varying degrees of censorship. Given that Wiki's footprint is becoming ever more real in so many more jurisdictions, it might be constructive for Wiki to formulate a policy to deal with the situation of notification that it is hosting material in breach of another state's laws or court orders. Or perhaps the office already has this policy is hand? David91 04:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Caps in albums and song titles

There's been some discussion on the WP:NAME talk page about a possible tweak to the naming convention guideline for album and song titles. The current guideline suggests capitalizing according to standard English conventions; the proposed rule suggests capitalizing according to primary sources (liner notes, official promotional material), and using standard conventions where primary sources are ambiguous or inconsistent. Your feedback is welcome. --Muchness 02:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect from main namespace to category namespace?

Hello. I'm not sure the appropriate place to discuss this, so if there is a more appropriate venue, please feel free to direct me to it. I noticed that the page Fellow of the British Academy redirects to Category:Fellows of the British Academy. This is the first time I've seen a main namespace article redirect to the category namespace, and I wasn't sure if this was allowed. I've looked for guidance at WP:R and WP:CAT, but haven't seen this issue addressed. My first thought is that this shouldn't be allowed, and that an article should either be developed, or redirected to something such as British Academy. Lbbzman 15:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we have an explicit policy on the matter, but the common sense interpretation is spot on—we don't do cross-namespace redirects without a good reason. (Minor exception: shortcuts to Wikipedia-namespace pages are technically in the article namespace, but are tolerated.) I've made the proposed change to the redirect; it should point to British Academy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A matter of taste with regard to images.

Some of you may have heard about the recent debate produced by a Rfc relating to the deletion of an image, by a sysop, of an image which is of questionable taste. I would strongly recommend that everyone views the archived debate, and adds to the topic by continuing the debate below as it seems that this is a very key point to do with Wikipedia, and is likely to be a situation we will face more and more in the future. --Wisden17 14:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There is also a poll going on at Wikipedia:Censorship about whether or not it is ok to delete images because they are immoral, as opposed to deleting them for any of a thousand other reasons. The point it that the editorial discussion on deleting can or can not include cultural standards concerning morality. Vote one way or the other, please. WAS 4.250 22:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That proposed policy, which has failed at least once, is about a lot more than deleting images. It even attempts to criminalize making an image smaller, moving it down the page, or replacing it with an image that might be considered less likely to offend people. The very name of this proposed policy is all about scaring people into thinking Wikipedia is being censored, when in fact it is this policy that is trying to censor the freedom of editors to make up their own minds about what is best for an article. U$er

The attempt to pass this "Censorship" as a policy, is based on a lack of understanding of the fact that WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT is a very strong framework that does not need the clutches of policies such as one about censorship. Wikipedia is not being censored, and if a group of editors come to consensus about making an image smaller or bigger, so be it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

How to split pages - Wikipedia guidelines missing?

After reading around these Wikipedia pages: Wikipedia:Move; Wikipedia:Merge; and Wikipedia:Deletion; I started looking for instructions on the opposite of a merge: a split, or spinning content off from one article to create a new one. I looked at Wikipedia:Fork, which was more about POV forks but which led me to Wikipedia:How to break up a page, which is really about why it is sometimes necessary to break up a page. Unfortunately there are no instructions on that page on how to break up a page, and in particular on how to preserve edit histories (as required by GFDL). I then looked on the talk page and realised that I wasn't the only person to have this concern, see here.

In general, I presume that if the content being spun off an article is small (eg, a section of the old article) and has a small history, then the origin can be noted in the new article's edit history, and this satisfies GFDL. When the split is more complicated though, what should be done? Does it need an admin to sort out the edit history? I've also raised this at the Help Desk. Carcharoth 11:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia:Fork and Wikipedia:How to break up a page also point to another recommendation: wikipedia:summary style - which I suppose to have become a standard technique for splitting pages (maybe not the only splitting technique, but a very frequently used one). This is also a technique that makes it easy not to disturb the NPOV balance of an existing article... also an important point when splitting articles.

"content being spun off": if this implies removal of material in the original article, without even leaving a summary there, nor a pointer to the spin-off (doesn't make a difference whether the spin-off is "small" or "complicated") is by definition the objectionable sort of content-splitting (aka POV split, POV fork), so: don't do. --Francis Schonken 12:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you say about POV, but I am talking here more about how the guidelines fail to make clear that there needs to be proper attribution when splitting content off from a page. I'm not talking about whether it is desirable to do the split, but rather when it has been decided to do the split, the guideline needs to make clear how to start the new article and attribute the origin to the old article. This is a paraphrase of what I said at the Help Desk: "...the guidelines should make clear that the new article should say in the edit history and on the talk page, that the article started as a spin-off from another article. If this is not stated, then later readers and editors have no way of knowing what the original article is that they could go and look up to see the edit history of the "seed text". Ideally, the new article would say something along the lines of "For the main subject, see this article", but still, that doesn't make the origin of the original "seed text" crystal clear. I think the guideline should say add <this> to the edit history when starting the new article, and add <this> to the talk page of the new article. But as it is one of those guidelines with a big tick on it, I don't want to actually edit it unless I've generated some discussion and consensus, which should then be copied to the talk page of the guideline. Carcharoth 12:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm also a little unsure on splitting (and noticed the lack of clear instructions). What I have seen done (e.g Controversy in horse racing is that to split off a sub article, the new article is created with "Created with content from [[Main Article]], which should preserve history. However, if the original article gets deleted for whatever reason, is the history (and attributation) lost? Is there a way to copy over the history to the new article as well so the split is completely clean, or is having the history in another article (deleted or not) suffficent? Regards, MartinRe 13:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Copying the history of the original article to the talk page of the new one is a sure way to preserve attribution for as long as the split article exists. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you copy the history to the talk page? And what about cases where there is a legitimate need to track the history through earlier incarnations? Lacking any guidance, I did the following rather heavy-handed process at the top of these talk pages: Talk:Ptolemy (name) and Talk:Ptolemy (disambiguation). So: (1) Is that acceptable under GFDL, and (2) How can I get something agreed on to add to the guideline Wikipedia:How to break up a page? I haven't really found anyone willing to say anything definite on this yet. Carcharoth 14:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What I've seen done (as above) with simply starting off the page (and talk page) with "split from original" does maintain history, even if that history is contained in more than one article. (fine under J of the GFDL, afaics) However, if that original article gets deleted, there may be problems, either because the history is unavailable for a deleted article, or because the history needs to be always visible to comply with the GFDL. If the history needs to be visible, then deleting articles which contain the history for split articles is problematic, but there is no way of flagging an article as containing the history for another article. Is there a way to "duplicate" a page, inc history, and then on the split page, remove all the non needed data, or would that mess up contribution history as authoer who had contributed before the split had identical edits in two articles? Regards, MartinRe 15:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

All you need to do is select all the revisions on the history page, copy, and paste. This does not maintain history in the Wikipedia sense (i.e. you can't look at diffs) but it does preserve full attribution of all the authors, which is what the GFDL needs. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I'm still not quite clear what you mean here. Would it be possible for you or someone to write this up as a guideline to put on the Wikipedia:How to break up a page page (and maybe the Wikipedia:Merge page as well)? I don't think I'm the only one needing guidance over this. Thanks also for pointing out that there is a difference between preserving the attributions for GDFL and preserving the page history the "Wikipedia" way (with diffs). Maybe this needs to be made clear somewhere as well? Carcharoth 12:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a request on the Administrators' noticeboard asking some feedback here. I don't think just copying a list of authors would be sufficent, as there would be no way of differentating who contributed what of the original article. Take an extreme example, good editor A writes up good grticle. Bad editor B modifies it into rubbish article. Editor C splits it at this point, refers to rubbish article with editors A and B as co-authors, but without any breakdown of who wrote what. I seriously doubt that would be an acceptable situation, so I'm fairly sure that you have to keep the diffs as well as just the author names. Regards, MartinRe 13:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In case it helps, I've summarised the links to most of the discussions (though the Village Pump seems the best place for discussion): see here, here, here and here. Carcharoth 15:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have asked the same question before (see Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 36#Splitting pages, edit history and GFDL compliance). As I said there, I think the "tagging" of the source article of a split should be done with a really good edit summary (like "Splitting Section Foo off to new article Foo in Comparative Barzionics). Then a deleting admin might see this comment in the history and figure out some way to properly attribute the authors of Foo in Comparative Barzionics. But Wikipedia is probably breaking the GFDL all over the place -- misattributed edits due to splits or cut and paste moves without comment, translations of other language articles without mentioning the source etc. Kusma (討論) 01:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation Keys

--Dameyawn 12:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)I think all wikipedia articles should include a pronunciation key. I've come across countless articles where I've been unable to determine how the word or name was meant to be pronounced. An audio clip would also be nice, but at the least, a standard written pronunciation description should be included.

Dameyawn, firstly I wish to welcome you to Wikipedia. I hope that you feel welcomed here, and that you stay as a valuable contributor. Many Wikipedia articles already feature pronunciation keys, but many others lack them for several reasons:

• The pronunciation of the word is known for most, if not all, English-speakers (e.g. Cat, Dog, etc.)
• The pronunciation of the word is not known by the editors of Wikipedia (e.g. it is a word which appears only in the context of a novel, and the author has given no guide as to the pronunciation of the word)
• There is controversy regarding the pronunciation of the word. If this is the case, then a discussion should, in most cases, be viewable on the article's talk page.
• No Wikipedia editor has, as of your viewing of the page, contributed to the article by adding a pronunciation key.

If there were to be a widespread move to add pronunciation keys to most, if not all, of the Wikipedia articles, several logistical difficulties would have to be resolved, such as which type of pronunciation key to use (e.g. phonetic may be the most easily understood by readers, but it is not usually regarded as the most technically correct). Also, discovering the pronunciations of many words would be difficult for the wikipedia community. If you feel strongly that pronunciation keys should be added to Wikipedia articles, I suggest that you help by starting format discussions, and a movement to research and add. I think that the proper place for discussions on this topic would be on a WikiProject, perhaps Wikiproject Pronunciation. If such an entity already exists, I suggest that you join their team! Again, welcome to Wikipedia—I hope that you enjoy your time here, and that your stay is a productive one. Abhorsen327 12:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, some of these difficulties have been resolved - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation). The standard for pronunciation keys in Wikipedia is IPA. Discussion of why IPA is preferred (over approximations like "pro-nun-see-AY-shun") can be found at the talk page and its archive. FreplySpang (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for increasing accuracy of content

There has been much press lately about the varying quality and accuracy of content in the Wikipedia and I know wikipedia.org is doing much to improve this. I haven't posted content to Wikipedia and my comments are based on what I have read, so excuse me if I show an ignorance of the process.

I thought of a way of sharing a solution to the quality problem with the end user. The model I'm basing this on is the ratings system for vendors on EBay, but with significant differences in who does the ratings. My idea is to request people to submit content with references supporting it. Upon submission, a quick check of the quality and quantity of these references would get the posting a star rating from one to three. If there are no supporting references, the content would be unrated. Content that had gone through a proper peer review would get 4-5 stars.

I hope I'm wrong, but I assume this would cost a significant amount of money to do (especially the peer review) and that would be seen as a limiting factor. If that is the case, I would suggest having 3 levels of membership to Wikipedia. Level one would have, as it has always had, no cost to the user involved. This type of member would see the content as it posted currently, with no rating system. The second level of membership would cost a very small, nominal sum, enough to generate revenue to offset the cost of doing the first level of quality checks. This level of membership would allow the user to see the ratings from one to three and it would include the references submitted and verified. The last category of membership would be more costly. This level would see all rating levels including peer reviewed material. A level 3 user could also request a peer review of any article (up to a reasonable number of articles per year before additional charges are incurred) to verify it's claims. The pricing would be set with the idea of maintaining Wikipedia as a non-profit, but solvent organization.

All users would still see peer reviewed articles in their entirety, but would not know that they had been peer reviewed. Level 2 users would see the 1-3 star rating that the article had before peer review. When material is edited, the same process would apply. For articles with multiple submissions, each submission would be identified with it's own rating when necessary. There are still many details to think out. For example, there should probably be a mechanism for retaining higher rated material when it is replaced by lower rated material and there should probably be one-article-only membership upgrades possible.

In this way, the user has choice as to the quality of information they require when using Wikipedia. I hope my comments will be of some use in stimulating discussion.

Bob KennedyBobkenn 13:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If I interpret you correctly, you seem to be laboring under the misaprehension that there is some group of super-editors or fact-checkers that review articles and verify facts. That would be an interesting model, but it is not the Wikipedia model. Here, anyone, member or not, can edit nearly any article, and that it is up to other volunteer editors either to accept or to reject the content. We hope and expect that this will gradually produce a very good source of information, at least comparable to other general-reference works, but with greater breadth. Some projects consist of volunteers who look for articles on particular topics and try to help out, but actual verification is usually done only by another editor deeply interested in the subject, and who may be watching the page. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't compatible with the wikipedia all-volunteer model and the inference that references are the best guide to accuracy is dubious to say the least. It also isn't sufficiently flexible to cope with the constant evolution of articles. Very few articles are submitted substantially complete and even those which have a good level of completeness early on continue to evolve. Choalbaton 19:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As per Choalbaton, I feel that this is not compatible with the all-volunteer and all-welcoming model upon which Wikipedia is based. I view myself as a new but increasingly dedicated member of wikipedia, but would not contribute if I were forced to pay to be an editor—I am a student, and any money I earn is extremely precious. Also, it would promote a system of super-editors or fact-checkers who would reign supreme over the wikipedia system. Theoretically, every wikipedia contributor is a super-editor and fact-checker, and any contributor is responsible to correct anything he or she sees that is factually inaccurate. Your rating system of peer-reviewed contributions and rating of articles might work, if it were handled in some way by the WikiProjects, but I think that the idea of levels of contributions to Wikipedia being on a subscription basis is completely unfitting with the ethos of Wikipedia. The closest thing we have to your super-editor model is the sysops, or admins, however you wish to refer to them, and these people are chosen for their positions based on the quality and number of their contributions and interactions withing Wikipedia. Bobkenn, I hope that this clarifies some of your questions about the Wikipedia system, and I welcome you and hope that you stay to become a valuable contributor yourself. Abhorsen327 03:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A further note: Wikipedia does separate articles main categories based on quality. Category:Wikipedia editorial validation has a number of subcategories which classify some articles based on their factual accuracy, inclusion of sources, and text and formatting quality, as well as other criteria. Good Articles and Featured Articles both undergo a peer review process of some sort before they are deemed to be "the best of the best of Wikipedia." Again, I suggest that if you are concerned about the quality of the articles here at Wikipedia, you contribute, so that every article here is truly "the best of the best." Abhorsen327 05:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Bobkenn, systems similar to, but less convoluted and formalized than, the method you have proposed already exist. I recommend checking out Wikipedia:Peer review, with reviews articles for quality and gives suggestions for how they can be improved, and Wikipedia:Featured articles, which gives special status to articles that are recognized as meeting a large list of important criteria, of which being well-referenced is only one (though it is a very important one). -Silence 05:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the policy for links in quotes?

Sometimes I see quotes in an article that have words inside the quote hyperlinked. I'm worried that having various words inside the quote link off to other pages is subtly misrepresenting what the author originally said. What is the policy on this, are links in quotes disallowed, or encouraged, or what? –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{13:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)}

I wuold argue that adding wikilinks inside a quote is not appropriate and in violation of WP:NOR. Surely, the author of those quotes did not envison that his words would be hyperlinked to articles which he/she does not have a say. I would remove any wikilink from quotes, after explaining this in the article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, linking jargon is eminently useful. If, for example, the joke

Two kittens were sitting on a roof. Which one falls off first? The one with the smaller mu.

were to be placed in an article, it'd gain a lot of meaning through a link from "mu" to Friction. Similarly, a politician's allusion to a little-known historical figure could be concisely explained by a link to the appropriate article when the figure is mentioned. Pipelinks, however (like this) are probably to be avoided, though, unless they are only used to bypass redirects. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is one example of what I mean (and it's not the only one I've seen recently). I'm not sure how to justify removing those links (or if it's even the right thing to do) or whether any attempts to do so would be treated as vandalism. –Tifego^(t) _{00:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

I am against the idea in principle but I am occasionally forced to link when the jargon word(s) only appear in the quote and nowhere else on the page. The only alternative would be to footnote the quote to a link at the bottom of the page but that seems cumbersome. David91 03:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a perfect example of how to wikify quotes. The passage in question is laden with names which may be unfamiliar to the reader; the use of links makes the subject clearer without filling the article with footnotes. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I see no problem whatsoever with the wikifying in question, assuming that the terms are not linked previously in the article. The hyperlink is not, strictly, part of the text. If I were quoting text from a website and the text contained a hyperlink, I would not normally retain the external link, on a similar reasoning.Robert A.West (Talk) 18:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The way the Web has always worked is that things are capable of being hyperlinked to related things, and it's not implied that the hyperlink itself is necessarily part of the original quote; it's merely there to permit access to related information. I suppose, however, that hyperlinking quoted words could be done in a malicious manner, like if they are made to go to advocacy articles for positions opposite to that of the original speaker, or definitions of terms that conflict with the manner in which the original speaker used them. *Dan T.* 18:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not dead-set against it when used cautiously, but I do feel that the text decoration used for links (blue and, depending on your settings, underlined) cannot help but bring an emphasis to the terms being linked — an emphasis not present in the original text. There is also as mentioned the opportunity to interpret or even distort the source's words by choosing what to link to. All in all, I feel such links should be made sparingly if at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you, or any other editor, see a link in a quote that you think distorts the original meaning of the quote, you can be bold and change or remove the link, but explain why you did so and be prepared to discuss it with other editors. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 20:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my original input: the principle at stake is that any intrusion inside a quote by its nature, adds emphasis to the word(s). Thus, I always indicate when the emphasis given is intended to be significant by italicing the word as well as linking it and following the quote with the words, "Emphasis added". Failure to do this will always potentially distort the meaning attributed to the quote. David91 04:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Widepedia Format Change Suggestion

While I admire the concept of Widipedia, I think its format is very confusing. May I suggest that its administrators examine the Yahoo!Finance Message Board for stocks and see if they can incorporate its format for Widipedia. In Yahoo!Finance Message Board posters read and react to each others' stock performance comments and post them instantly in as many times and ways as they want. Accessing comments, deleting them, moving them, renaming them, etc. all are easy and natural, without viewers or writers EVER getting lost in the labyrinth of subscreens within subscreens. I think the idea of Widipedia is too important to be left to its current confusing format. This suggested format change will catapult Wikipedia to the popularity that it really deserves, bringing it much needed contribution for making it into a household tool of true non-biased expression for any worthy issue, as no paid reporter can ever be free or non-biased (I know this for fact as I used to be one of them). Good Luck, Cyrus Pakzad [e-mail address removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.199.80.100 (talk • contribs)

Wikipeda is a top 50 website with its current format, and it isn't a discussion board like the one you cite, it's an encyclopedia. Its Talk pages may be likened to discussion boards, but that isn't their real purpose. What do you mean by subscreens within subscreens? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I oppose any change like that, for the record. Pedant 06:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abbreviation expansion

This proposal has been kicking around for some time, and previously mentioned here. Its contents are mostly a consolidation of practices from other guidelines pages. Its categories and templates have survived (or been renamed according to) CfD and TfD over the past month. This seems to be the time to upgrade to the guideline notice.

--William Allen Simpson 18:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. Surviving CfD and TfD does not, I believe, make the current use of the category or template valid; does it alone make your proposed guideline an official one? You did not post this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies until yesterday, and Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Abbreviation expansion shows that otherwise, this page has not been widely publicized. I thought there had to be positive consensus to adopt a policy or guideline, with many people involved. Is lack of consensus to delete sufficient to adopt a guideline? (If it is, great—I've suggested a few guidelines in my time that have had a mute or ho-hum reception—I thought that meant they were not adopted, but if I was wrong, I'll go change the tags on those, too.) --TreyHarris 01:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TreyHarris in terms of waiting for positive consensus with guidelines. There's really no other way to approach it because you're talking about the equivalent of original research. In this case, it seems something of equal concern to the technical people in Wiki, so I would be looking for a consensus of them. As for my POV of it, as a user, it seems like the equivalent of a lot of bureaucratic shifting around with no real benefit in terms of content or use, with the possible exception of the Wiktionary links (assuming those are not already in use).--Pro-Lick 02:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody likes it; sorry. John Reid 06:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, just by bringing it up here, you've garnered one more vote against it. It would only be of help to scrabble players, who have other more useful tools to use for that. I really think that to change the status quo, you need more than just a couple of votes. Pedant 06:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I keep coming across articles that seem to be simply a cut-and-paste from another online source. can someone drop me a line on my talk that points me towards policies and guidlines that cover how this is to be delt with? Thanks, Mike McGregor (Can) 05:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations gives a step by step guide that you might find useful. The offical policy is at Wikipedia:Copyrights Regards, MartinRe 08:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I got to thinking about this in the last few days when I came across USS Saratoga (1814) which mostly comes from [page] and Lake Chicago taken from [incredibly poorly written page]. I was pointed towards WP:CSD A8, but that seems to apply to pages using a commercial source. These 2 articles are copied from government sources. Is there Is there policy that's ment to be applied to plagiarism as opposed to copyright infringment? Would a new Cleanup tag saying something like: "To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. This page appeares to be plagerised in part or in whole, from this source. blah blah blah...," be uesful in situations like this? I don't want to start seeing these kindes of pages deleated, just improved. Thanks, Mike McGregor (Can) 09:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Both of those sources you mention are products of the US Federal Government. US law says works of the federal government aren't copyrighted. So legally both of these are perfectly fine. -- Middenface 09:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In regard to plagiarism vs copyright infringement, we're quite the opposite of what you might expect. Plagiarism (using someone else's ideas) is frowned upon in academia; here it's mandatory. There original thought is lauded; here it is deprecated (see WP:NOR). Here every article should have a complete list of the sources from which it was derived, and any idea you find in a wikipedia article that isn't supported by the quoted sources should be removed. An encyclopedia is, by definition, a collection of someone else's ideas. -- Middenface 12:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree that Plagiarism is mandatory here. Plagiarism is using someone else's work without proper acknowledgment. Any novel idea used here should be cited, but if a concept is written about in the same way widely in multiple sources it can be described here without having to list 100's of references. Also, "The use of mere facts does not constitute plagiarism", and much of the content here is factual. Regards, MartinRe 13:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If I have interpreted what you are saying the wrong way, my apologies. I don't care if there are a thousand sources for the same fact, you should still cite at least one reliable source for every fact in an article. Very often one source will cover most, if not all facts in an article, but it is desirable to have more than one source to give readers a better chance of finding one of the sources if they want to check the facts. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Slight misinterpertation, or me being unclear :) My comment wasn't about facts, but ideas (as facts can't be plagerised, only unreferenced). Novel or unusual concepts/opinions should be cited, but it's not feasible, nor warranted to cite every possible phrase that might possibly be classed as an opinion. For example, a sentence such as "Motorway Blah is a major road in X, carrying Y,000 cars per week" doesn't need a citation of someone classing it as a "major road" in my opinion. It would need a reference for y,000 a year figure though. Slightly contrived example, sorry I couldn't think of a better one, but hope that clarifies what I meant. Regards, MartinRe 15:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 15:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

From http://www.history.navy.mil/warning.htm "All information on this site is in the public domain and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested."

At the bottom is the byline "This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.", which seems similar to the way articles from 1911 Britannica are referenced (although I'll put that text in a references/source section to make it clearer. So, it appears to be fine, it's PD, and credited, cleanup needed, maybe, but not plagerised. Regards, MartinRe 09:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What I'm looking for clarification on is wether or not an article copied verbatum word-for-word from a government or PD source is an acceptable arrticle on wikipedia, or If articles like that should be cleaned up to include multiple sources and so that the information from those sources is written into a "new" article unique to Wikipedia (until bots from other sites re-post it elsewhere...).Mike McGregor (Can) 23:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, there is nothing wrong with copying public domain material ver batim, as long as you acknowledge the source (which is what I did at Cape San Blas lighthouse). Of course, if you have a second source with additional material, you should include that, rewriting as necessary to create a readable article. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles#Lists has several projects using PD sources. From looking through some of them, it's advised not to dump text straight in, but to clean up spelling, POV, etc. so a straight copy is not up to wikipedia standard, but it's probably not the worst starting point to have, so long as the article is labeled appropiately. In short, acceptable article, nope. Acceptable starting point, yep. MartinRe 23:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have the same question. I was reverted by an adminsitrator and accused of plagiarism when I took 3 sentences of fact from a copyrighted "About" page. I cited the source but was still accused of plagiarism because it was word-for-word. My understanding is that factual content need not be reworded (just cited). The only concern therefore would be copyright, but since this was significantly less than 300 words and only a small portion of the page and it conformed the sites usage, I didn't think that applied since it was fair-use. Is my interpretation of plagiarism incorrect? Cited and factual seems adequate to avoid plagiarism. --Tbeatty 21:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between copyright violation and plagiarism; one is a legal, the other an ethical offense. A citation gives credit for the facts and ideas; it does not imply, without quotation marks, that the words are the same. Taking someone else's words and passing them off as Wikipedia's is generally just wrong; for many of the same reasons that cloaking your PoV in Wikipedia's voice is wrong.

The degree of the offense depends on whose words they are. Wikipedia itself encourages other people to rip off our words; many government sources work the same way. On the other hand, consider Joe Biden, whose presidential campaign sank when it was discovered he'd been ripping off Neil Kinnock's speeches. Kinnock's speeches were public addresses; they may well not have been copywrit, and I doubt Kinnock sued; that wasn't the scandal.

Even if this had no other problem, it produces bad writing. It is an invitation to neither read, nor understand what your source is saying; and Wikipedia is supposed to summarize. Most of our sources aren't. Septentrionalis 02:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

From the Intellectual Property Notice of the Naval Vessel Register:

"This work is not Public Domain outside of the United States. The Naval Sea Logistics Center Detachment Pacific (NSLC Pacific) makes this information available and makes no guarantees that this material is Public Domain. Therefore, reproduction of this material could violate individual copyrights, licensed to the U.S. Government."

Since the article is copied nearly word-for-word from the site, and since Wikipedia is international in scope, do we have a potential copyvio here? Robert A.West (Talk) 04:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If I were editing it, I might think it appropriate, where word-for-word transcription seemed desirable, to:

"quote text verbatim in an indented and italicised form, with attribution at the end"

-from The United States Naval Register

and to rewrite the portions that could be better expressed by using my own words. That way, the quoted part stays intact and unedited (I hope) and the portions I wrote in my own clumsy style get lovingly massaged by thousands of devoted editors until they are as a shiny perfect gem. Pedant 05:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this a copyvio?

I just came across the article McCain Detainee Amendment and I had a copyvio question. In the section called McCain Detainee Amendment#Statement by Senator John McCain on October 5, 2005 we quote a speech made by Senator McCain at length, and putting aside the stylistic reasons why we may not want that, I was wondering if that would be a violation of his copyright? I mean, I realise that I'm being extremely paranoid, and it's not like he is ever going to sue us, but still. It is quoted in full, so it can't really be called fair use.

I know very little of copyright law (just enough to get by on wikipedia, really), but isn't a speech protected like anything else? Oskar 21:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought speeches on the floor of Congress (House of Representatives or the Senate) are PD by definition. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a violation. All speeches by US government officials are non-copyright public domain. Indeed, all US government documents, electronic data sets, and publications (and artwork, as in WPA posters) are free of copyright. Rjensen 21:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, there we go :D Oskar 21:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

However, speeches belong in Wikisource, not here. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What about the Gettysburg Address? Pedant 05:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not entirely true; only speeches that would be performed (or any other material prepared) as part of their work for the government would be public domain. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually it isn't a matter of copyright. Forbidding republication of legislative debate would absolutely violate the First Amendment. Apollo 11:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in texts re: content submission licence

According to Wikipedia:Copyrights "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts."

Alternately, whenever someone adds content to Wikipedia, it says underneath "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL."

The former is arguably freer (and IMO is the best option for Wikipedia), but it adds conditions that the contributors didn't agree to when they submitted the text which is dubious, legally.

Note: This is a clarified version of an earlier topic. I have (re)posted because an unfortunate typo in the original derailed the discussion; if the double-posting is inappropriate, please delete the earlier version. Irrevenant 12:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: the message itself is at MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning. — sjorford (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

External linking at Lolicon

Possibly, quite possibly, peoiple are tired ot disinterested with this issue. However, at its heart is a question about how policy is enforced, and that to except a certain page or issue from policy needs the strongest consensus attainable. Dsicussion of the issue is at Talk:Lolicon#Link inclusion policies. Thank you for your contribution. Steve block talk 08:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Infestation

I appricite any feedback at Wikipedia talk:Infestation. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 07:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD closure policy

Why is there a need to close no-consensus AfD's? Say there's an AfD on an obscure article, it's unclear what existing policy says to do, so there's slow ongoing discussion which involves some off-wiki research. After 5 days (or whatever the mininum normal closure period is) the vote is 6-3 favoring deletion and the AfD is closed as no consensus. Why not leave it open for a while longer? This particular article was a vanity bio from a publicity seeker, and discussion revolved around what notability consisted of for someone in that field. (I won't name the article right now because I'm asking this as a general policy question, rather than to keep scratching at that specific article, which was unimportant in the scheme of things). Phr 02:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What discussion is really going to happen after 5 days? Most occurs within 24-48 hours usually. Few people go through old AfD pages looking to do anything but close them. --W.marsh 03:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This particular one had comments dribbling in over the whole 5 days, including some new people showing up. I'd intended to post another comment when I found the afd had closed. Phr 03:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We need to be far more carefull when deleting images

Often when a new version of an image is made it is for various reasons (such as its a hybrid image or a different format or just modified enough to deserve a new name) uploaded under a new name to here or commons. Then the original gets deleted as OB or OR. The result is we are losing a lot of information on the history of our images and quite probablly violating the GFDL too. Plugwash 21:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Phr 02:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Censorship

A poll has started on the revised policy, please see the talk page to see changes and vote. Thank you. Loom91 08:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The proposed policy was declared rejected. There is some residual activity on the talk page. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Relationship of XfD to proposals?

I'm wondering what the relationship is of items for deletion discussions to policy proposals. Two examples:

1. Earlier on this page, William Allen Simpson wrote,

   categories and templates have survived (or been renamed according to) CfD and TfD over the past month. This seems to be the time to upgrade to the guideline notice.'

2. Yesterday, the templates created as part of the Wikipedia:Root page proposal were listed on TfD, even though the root page proposal is still being actively discussed. No notification was made to Wikipedia talk:Root page.

I thought proposals were supposed to gain consensus or fail on their talk pages. But it seems that surviving a deletion discussion can be used as evidence that the proposal has gained consensus to become policy, or that the merits of a proposal can be hashed out in a deletion discussion (where, presumably, if the consensus is to delete, the proposal would be summarily aborted). Do XfD's trump talk pages? If so, is there any obligation on the part of the lister to publicize a deletion listing so that those participating in the ordinary talk-page process can move their discussion there? --TreyHarris 09:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Per Guidelines for creating policies and guidelines, #10: "Do not call a vote.", so I don't think XfD "voting" has any value in this context (surviving an XfD might still lead to {{rejected}} or {{historical}}, i.e. "non-active", guidelines)

So, until accepted by the community, put up the {{proposed}} template on the guideline proposal, and try to work also by the other points mentioned at Wikipedia:How to create policy. Maybe also have a look at the introduction of category:wikipedia proposals. --Francis Schonken 10:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I may be being obtuse, but I don't see deletion discussions referenced in these links you've offered (which I've read before). I know how the process is supposed to work. I'm asking what the relationship of Xfd is to a proposal that is following that guideline. Xfd is external to the proposal process, but it can definitely affect it, and I'm concerned in these two cases that the orthogonality and/or the consequences are being ignored. I'm not particularly concerned about Mr. Simpson's claim I quoted—all we need is for people to say, "no, that's an incorrect interpretation, there's no consensus" and we're done. But the second case is more problematic. If a proposal, or its mechanisms, get deleted while it's still under discussion, then the process no longer can work, as far as I can tell. --TreyHarris 12:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no particular reason mechanisms for a proposal have to be in "live" template space, or in use on "live" articles. On the other hand, there's also no particular reason any XfD discussions should be held on mechanisms relating to an active proposal. XfD certainly doesn't trump consensus acceptance of a proposal if that's what you're asking. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, agree with Rick, what I had prepared says more or less the same, but Rick was successful in using less words:) "proposal" proceedings and "XfD" procedures are not related. If someone says they are, they're wrong.

It may be considered at least uncivil, and maybe also WP:POINT ("If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline... do set up a discussion page and try to establish consensus; don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong, or nominate the existing rule for deletion" - but "proposals" need not necesserily be treated as if they were "existing" rules I suppose) to draw an actively discussed proposal in an XfD procedure... probably unless the proposal is completely bananas, when everyone would agree to have it speedied.

So both the one drawing a guideline proposal (that has a reasonable chance to survive) in an XfD, as the one saying the result of the XfD reflects back on an XfD-surviving proposal are wrong IMHO. But if a proposal was XfD'd and if positive and workable suggestions appear on the XfD page, no reason why you shouldn't copy them to the proposal's talk page and try to do something with them.

Note also that it might for instance happen that people linger with a proposal, in order not to see it archived or rejected, and are nonetheless expansive on applying its templates, calling "refuge" for not having these templates TfD'd, while the TfD procedure prohibits to TfD templates connected with active guidelines. As long as the template only appears on the proposal, I don't think anybody could TfD it. At least that would be rather uncivil. The example is completely hypothetical. Nonetheless, it advises not to be expansive with the putting in practice of proposals, and seek consensus first, being only expansive with advertising the proposal in as many appropriate places as you can find (RfC, "current surveys", this Village Pump page, related WikiProjects, ...). A consideration I've sometimes seen with people working on proposals is that they say "it's not ready yet for advertising". Wrong IMHO. Always start broad advertising in the earliest stage.

Don't know if this answers your concerns, but I tried. --Francis Schonken 13:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion: Don't create a lot of furniture in support of a new policy proposal. Make the proposal first, then let it cook a bit. I'm tempted to lobby for an addition to CSD: "stuff made to support a brand-new, novel proposal". But of course we can all be bold.

In any case, XfD on a piece of furniture supporting a proposal has no effect on the proposal itself although you might be inclined to summarize and link to the XfD debate on the proposal's talk. The proposal, however, must stand or fall on its own merits.

On the other hand, no XfD process should be used to remove an active policy proposal. We don't do stuff that way. John Reid 06:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

John, I have bad news for you. A certain clique of folks does do "stuff" that way. It's been very disconcerting for those of us who are trying to follow the historic guidelines.

--William Allen Simpson 08:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not news. It is wrong: subversion of process. John Reid 05:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:ARCHIVES

Following a discussion in a FAC then an RFC the following proposal has been organized. Obviously if you have an alternative proposal, please voice it, and vote no matter what if you have an opinion. Basically the proposal includes 3 slight alterations to allow archives to be used as source on Wikipedia provided that additional information is included in the citation to prove the archives existence, public accessibility, and reliability. Staxringold 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This poll seems premature. I can easily imagine that there may be cases where the use of unpublished archival materials may be fine to confirm some detail, but mainly as a supplement to published sources and secondary sources. This would require more discussion. Tupsharru 10:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:1WW

There's been a fair amount of well-reasoned discussion about this concept (including not one, but 5 related proposals) over the last couple of months. It may be time for an overhaul; please comment. John Reid 05:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There's another more detailed proposal, WP:0RR, which has not been put to a poll yet but also seems to enjoy some degree of consensus. I'm not sure how we ended up with two redundant proposal pages; this is the first time I've heard of WP:1WW. I'll discuss this futher on the talk page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Future Tag on Future Years

This article or section contains information about scheduled or expected future events. It may contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the event approaches and more information becomes available.

The above is the expected events tag, which I believe was designed for movies, sports events, and other predicted events. I do not believe it should be used on the pages of individual years or decades because:

• 1. It is obvious that these years are in the future, and all events are scheduled or predicted, making the tag moot.
• 2. I do not believe any tags on Wikipedia which go on the top of articles are meant to be permanent. These tags will stay in place for years unless we remove them.
• 3. The tag does not exist for articles about future years.

I think we should officially remove the future tag from the future years/decades pages (2007 onward). Captain Jackson 05:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So, am I the only person who cares about this?

For the sake of consistency with the other "future event" articles I'd leave them on the "future year" pages (or add them if missing). As for 2. Wikipedia is also meant to stay forever, right? So eventually the appropriate time for removal will come for every one of those tags :-) --Dschwen 22:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course the only person who cares enough to respond disagrees with me. I'd piss my pants right here at the computer if anyone on this God-damn site ever agreed with me. Well hell let's go add these tags to every freaking year and wait half our lifetimes for them to expire. Captain Jackson 09:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Captain Jackson, I know exactly how you feel... but don't piss your pants just yet. This is the first time I've seen your proposal, and I just can't work up a real opinion on it. Sure, the tags seem silly on year articles... but what the hell, they're silly everywhere. Melchoir 09:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

While I have nothing in particular against your proposal, I care about the issue slightly less than about which end first I should eat my boiled eggs. Given the interest people have shown in discussing this here, I suggest you wait a few more days and, if no opposition emerges, go ahead and remove them citing this discussion. You might want to post pointers to this discussion at Template talk:Future and other relevant talk pages first. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it's obvious that the year is in the future or not, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and that fact should be emphasized. I think the pages are fine as is - although the template may be annoying, it is at very least a reminder of a tangible, immutable truth. Nihiltres 03:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that the tag on 2007 wouldn't be removed within days of the next 1 January. It's too obvious. - Runcorn 15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Article title length

I propose to discourage really long article titles. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)#Article title length. Thanks, Melchoir 23:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ammendment to deletion policy

I've created this proposal to bring about a fundamental change in the deletion policies and review our approach towards the process of deletion. Please discuss it at the talk page (not here please, keeping the discussion centralised helps editors see the various different views). Thank you very much for participating. Loom91 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Rename Władysław II Jagiełło to Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania

Copied here from Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board 16:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło to stop this monstrosity from happening.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

notability of internet memes policy proposed

Please join in constructing a policy concerning the notability of internet memes/phenomena at Wikipedia:Notability (memes). Thank you, Urthogie 15:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy on movie summaries?

Is there any sort of "Wikipedia is not a novelisation of a movie you like" policy? Reading up on a few films (Sideways springs to mind), I'm taken aback at these ridiculously long and detailed summaries of the entire plot of a film. Does an encyclopedia really need to list the blow-by-blow sequence of events in movies minute for minute? It seems fansiteish, somehow, to have these 1,000-word summaries floating around. --MattShepherd 20:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly a policy, but you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films#Plot. The talk page is very active, so you may want to ask your question there too. Melchoir 21:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

ABOUT WIKIPEDIA PRINCIPLES

YOU SHOULD NOT COMPLICATE EVERYTHING UP TO INSANITY,BECAUSE IT CAUSES ONLY CHAOS.YOUR INSTRUCTION ABOUT WIKIPEDIA SHOULD BE ONLY ON ONE OR TWO PAGES. ONLY YOUR ADMINISTRATION SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO DELETE TEXT. HOWEVER, EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO WRITE.WHAT'S MORE,YOU SHOULD MAKE INDEX LIKE GOOGLE INDEX.

  TRULY YOURS,
  PETER

Stop shouting - Adrian Pingstone 11:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith: Maybe his Shift-key is stuck? --Dschwen 11:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably not! - Adrian Pingstone 12:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Next time I throw in a smilie...

Anyway, I give it a shot and try to answer seriously.

1. The Help pages are complicated, but it got a whole lot better compared to a few months ago. Every new user should receive a greeting once they create an account. It contains a link to a quick introduction (Wikipedia:Tutorial I believe). Anyway, any serious contributor should take a few minutes and at least read this tutorial.
2. Write only, but no deleting? This is technically extermely difficult to realize (if not impossible) and not the Wiki-idea. Imagine it would always tak an admin even to clean up the slightest typo. You couldn't rewrite paragraphs, only append new ones (overwriting text is the equivalent of deleting overwritten text and insert new text).
3. Wikipedia has a search functionality, which is currently hampered by limited server resouces. But you can always use Google to search WP. --Dschwen 12:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Update to Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms

I have a draft of changes to the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline, and I am looking for input from other editors.

As described in the current discussion, the goals of the rewrite are as follows: 1) to clarify the distinction between writing using neologisms and writing on neologisms; 2) to incorporate concerns about neologisms as dicdef entries; 3) to clarify the position of WP:OR on neologism pages such that simple google searches can't support articles on neologisms; 4) to respond to the kinds of arguments that I've seen in AfD in support of neologisms.

The draft is located here. In order that discussion takes place in one location, may I suggest adding your comments to the discussion on the existing guideline's talk page here. Many thanks. -- cmh 04:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

New page cleanup branch

During a discussion with some other users today, the topic of the enormity of the cleanup backlog (currently 1.33% of wikipedia) was raised, and I think I have an idea to help with that, so I'd like to propose it here. What I was thinking of is a sort of 'recommendation taskforce' to help spread the workload and get new (perhaps less experienced) users involved. Here's my thinking: We get experienced users into pages tagged for cleanup, not to actually do the deed, but to write up a laundry list on the talk page of things that need to be worked on in the article (as most pages merely have the generic cleanup tag, and even with the more specific ones it is sometimes unclear what is needed). Not only would this make cleanup quicker for the actual cleaners, but as I said, it could allow users less aquainted with wikipedia style guidelines to put in work on some of these articles. Whaddya think? --InShaneee 21:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So... would this taskforce encourage the use of {{todo}} on pages needing cleanup? Or something more...? Melchoir 23:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I think something like that would be sufficient to point would-be cleaners in the right direction, although there would of course need to be some pointers for any suggesters as to what and how much to write. My whole inspiration for this was checking out some of the older cleanup pages, seeing that they clearly weren't great pages, but not knowing quite where to start with them. I mean, not only would this be telling people what needs an overhaul (and perhaps a hint of how), but what DOESN'T, ensuring that the wheel doesn't get reinvented (another time saver). --InShaneee 00:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't the cleanup tag turned into a "replace me with a more specfic tag or tags", and should only be left on an article if the editor doesn't know what one of the subtag is called? Or is their cleanup not covered by some of the tags?--Rayc 05:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a small mention to that effect on the tag, but the fact remains that the "cleanup|date" tag is still very much in use. Besides, I think the primary goal of this would be to clear out the now-massive backlog. --InShaneee 06:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)