Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 49
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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
Mark all edits minor by default
I just offered a friendly suggestion to an editor that he uncheck "Mark all edits minor by default" since, even though he gives descriptive edit summaries, the bold "m" on every edit could be a factor in or cause disputes with controversial or any major edit.
I've noticed this sort of thing before (with a Thanks! when the user is pointed to My preferences, Editing, "Mark all edits minor by default"), and it makes me wonder why it's a preference. Why would someone who doesn't already have things like WP:TW mark all edits by default?
Finally, can a user get in trouble for continually marking major edits as minor? Gotyear (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- If a user mainly makes wikignome-type edits, then they won't need to mark many edits as non-minor. I use my alternate account mainly for testing Javascript in my own userspace, so I mark almost all of its edits as minor. It would be fairly rare on the list of things people will get blocked for, but you could feasibly get in trouble for marking non-minor edits as minor, especially if the edits are controversial. Mr.Z-man 23:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is an example of assuming good faith. As long as an editor is not abusing that preference, there's no problem. SMP0328. (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- That makes sense. I have seen a few cases of a person having it checked by mistake, presumably when combing through preferences and not knowing what it is or experimenting, because I think it's off by default. But your cases make sense for where'd it be useful (and I'm now exposed to the idea of WP:GNOME :), and it's not an "Are you sure?" Red Button kind of change. Gotyear (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is an example of assuming good faith. As long as an editor is not abusing that preference, there's no problem. SMP0328. (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:N (Political Parties)
Hey all. At User:Doktorbuk/pp I am currently drawing up with other editors guidelines on notability of political parties, something we seem to miss at the moment. I would like, in time, to bring this from my userspace to a policy proposal position, but am just careful about creating a new article without the proper links to , amongst other places, areas like this Village Pump and others. Could someone advise how I get this amendment to an existing policy now onto a more "official" setting? doktorb wordsdeeds 05:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
post-AFD question
I was going to add an oldafdmulti template to Talk:Doug Bell to add the link to the second afd, but there's no clear indication whether the result is Keep or No consensus. From the 4 keeps and 2 deletes, and that it was closed in under a day (WP:SNOW?), I'm *guessing* it's Keep, but I'd like to be certain before I proclaim it in the oldafdmulti template.
I was also going to add ===Doug Bell (2nd nomination)=== above the :{{la|Doug Bell{}} like all the other AFDs, as well as remove "{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|}}", but the template says No further edits should be made to this page. Would a regular user get in trouble if editing just to do this sort of maintenance with a clear edit summary? Balsa10 (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- To answer your first question, the AFD was withdrawn (sarcastically) by the nominator, so "speedy keep" would be the most descriptive result. To answer your second question, "no further edits should be made" means "no further comments should be added (or removed)". Sometimes you have to read between the lines. — CharlotteWebb 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- This was a very strange AfD. It was nominated and closed by the same editor, who is not an admin -- actually a newbie. It was closed the day after it was opened after only a few votes. It seems that the nominator/closer was very emotional about the subject and after initial votes went against him, he threw in the towel. I've seen some odd activity at AfD recently with more non-admin closings than I prefer to see. I'm also reading at the talk pages for notability guidelines that AfD is out of control. It sems to me that there should be some type of administrative oversight here. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, you definitely need to just do what needs to be done and not worry about the fine print when something needs to be cleaned up and you're reasonably sure you know what needs to be done. I removed the AfD sort template; you can work on the formatting if you like.
- To Kevin Murray: definitely a strange AfD, but I'm not following you about this fitting into some sort of larger pattern of AfD chaos. This seems like a single emotional editor who needed to get something off his chest. Darkspots (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Darkspots et al. Just wanted to make sure. I also didn't know that non-admins can close an AFD, though I'm guessing you mean only when the nominator withdraws it. Balsa10 (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Check out WP:NAC and Wikipedia:Deletion process. And tread lightly, and prepare to get smacked around if you do decide you are a good enough judge of consensus to close them. Which I think, by bizarre coincidence, is exactly the experience that administrators have when they close AfDs. Darkspots (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Feel like a harassed admin without the hassle of getting nominated, eh? ;) Thanks for the links and the caution. Balsa10 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is no user right for evaluating consensus. It only requires a brain (and arguably only half of it). — CharlotteWebb 17:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Any user can close an AfD whose outcome is absolutely clear. If there is any ambiguity, it's best to let an admin do the closure. I avoid doing non-admin closures unless the nom withdraws (and there are no supporting Delete comments), or the 5 days are up and there is an overwhelming Keep consensus. Deletes have to be done by an admin anyway, so there's no reason for a non-admin to close anything that would result in Deletion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, while WP:NAC is only an essay, a non-admin closing with Delete, even with clear consensus, would make more work for the admin, as they probably (again guessing) wouldn't know to delete an article for an already closed AfD. Also, reading that essay's "Pitfalls to avoid" on stuff admins do after deleting an image, I've noticed many uncommented-out image links to deleted images. Granted, it's a small percentage, but why does it happen? I don't know who deleted it or why because image URLs have no publicly accessible deletion log or What links here to find the relevant IfD. Balsa10 (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Non-admins closing an AFD as "delete" doesn't save any work for the admin who deletes the article, whoever actually deletes it is responsible for it, so they should still review the discussion even if someone else closed it. I'm not sure what you mean about images, they use the same deletion log as everything else. The majority of images are deleted because of licensing issues, so there won't be an IFD. If there is no log entry, the image was probably uploaded to and deleted on Commons. Mr.Z-man 23:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, while WP:NAC is only an essay, a non-admin closing with Delete, even with clear consensus, would make more work for the admin, as they probably (again guessing) wouldn't know to delete an article for an already closed AfD. Also, reading that essay's "Pitfalls to avoid" on stuff admins do after deleting an image, I've noticed many uncommented-out image links to deleted images. Granted, it's a small percentage, but why does it happen? I don't know who deleted it or why because image URLs have no publicly accessible deletion log or What links here to find the relevant IfD. Balsa10 (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a publically accessible deletion log for images too? Whenever I click on an image redlink, it offers me the option to upload the file, but no deletion log or What links here link. Balsa10 (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Consistent responses to speedy delete
I have been patrolling a lot of new pages and I have been seeing the need for some more standard procedures. Forgive me if these have already been discussed -
- Pages that have been deleted three or more times should be indefinitely protected
- "Attack page" names should be protected the first time they are deleted, "Brian is an ugly fag" or the like, as it is unlikely anyone will use this name for a serious article
- Editors who create attack pages, editors that repeatedly re-create pages, and editors that repeatedly remove speedy templates, should have consistent action taken against them by the deleting sysop (at the very least warning templates).
JohnnyMrNinja 04:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you for most circumstances, but I think it should be left to admin discretion in each case. I always warn repeated page re-creators and have blocked several, and I think that's a simple matter of good judgment - standardization would seem unwieldy to me. For the first and second points, the appropriate response depends - sometimes salting is the right way to go, but sometimes either an attack page or a repeated re-create will be located at perfectly useful titles, especially if they're just a person's name (which they often are). In that case, it's best to just block the abusive account, since it will have re-register and autoconfirm to re-create it with a new account anyway (if they do persist in doing that, salting's the only way to go). Have you noticed problems with admins not taking action in these cases? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wikidaniel, Mars2025 are a couple I can think of right now. It would also be nice if {{db}} would show as a speedy even after someone deleted it. Several editors had a constant struggle to keep a template on Cody Potter long enough to get it deleted (it kept being removed by the creator and a sock puppet) until I brought it up at the notice board. JohnnyMrNinja 04:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- As for the last point, there's no reason only the deleting admin could warn for creating attack pages or removing speedy templates. I think we even have warning templates for those already. Mr.Z-man 05:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- If an editor removes speedy templates, the {{uw-speedy1}} series is useful. I have placed those templates on very obvious sock puppets (newly created spa accounts) as well, fairly successfully. You can report repeat offenders to WP:AIV like any other vandal. Darkspots (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- True. It's easier to deal with the recreations of an article on a hopelessly non-notable subject if they dont try to vary the name around. DGG (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I guess I would be against "sticky" {{db}} templates for anything but attack pages, because it's very important to be able to quickly remove inappropriate speedy templates. I think quickly getting an A3 template off and the right wikilinks, cats, etc. added has saved a newbie or two, at least I hope so. Darkspots (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't worry about editors who get confused when it doesn't seem like deliberate obstruction. People simply do not read the templates all the time, and I try to figure out what they intend to do. Since the usual thing that happens is that the hangon tag replaces the db, i just go ahead and judge the article. Obviously if someone keeps going things wrong its something else. Salting i keep for cases where there is repeated really nasty blp vandalism. Otherwise I find that I have better luck with an informal notice, saying something like "enough already, , I'm a person not a computer program, and I'll be keeping an eye on this." Many people seem to think all our templated notices are assigned by bots and can be treated as just annoyances. DGG (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- If an editor removes speedy templates, the {{uw-speedy1}} series is useful. I have placed those templates on very obvious sock puppets (newly created spa accounts) as well, fairly successfully. You can report repeat offenders to WP:AIV like any other vandal. Darkspots (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- As for the last point, there's no reason only the deleting admin could warn for creating attack pages or removing speedy templates. I think we even have warning templates for those already. Mr.Z-man 05:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wikidaniel, Mars2025 are a couple I can think of right now. It would also be nice if {{db}} would show as a speedy even after someone deleted it. Several editors had a constant struggle to keep a template on Cody Potter long enough to get it deleted (it kept being removed by the creator and a sock puppet) until I brought it up at the notice board. JohnnyMrNinja 04:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- While there's certainly no harm in protecting a title like Brian is an ugly fag from recreation, it's usually not particularly useful to do so either. Most such vandals usually get blocked fairly quickly and then they don't come back. If they do come back, they usually don't use the exact same page title—we would get Brian is a fag, Brian is a stupid fag, Brian is a stupid ugly fag, etc. Salting the page titles may just not be worth the effort. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Policy about articles vs. lists
I have trouble understanding most things about Wikipedia policy. This article, Additional materials on Che Guevara, should it not be a list rather than an article? Also, should it not list books by author's name rather than by book title? Also, is it comprehensive? Is there any way of telling? Regards, –Mattisse (Talk) 14:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Category:Bibliographies by subject might have some examples worth following. Yes, books should be sorted by author (lastname, firstname). The {{cite book}} template will help ensure correct formatting. Comprehensive, I have no idea. "Click here"-style links (like the one above the first section heading, or any other situation where the reader's understanding depends on a non-obvious link target) should be avoided for a number of reasons including their uselessness in a printed edition (which may sound far-fetched but consider that the content in question is a list of books...) — CharlotteWebb 15:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! –Mattisse (Talk) 18:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Profanity on talk pages
I read the guideline on Wikipedia:Profanity; this article, however, solely deals with profanity in articles. Is there a guideline on profanity on talk pages? If so, I would like to know what it is. If not, I volunteer to write one. JeanLatore (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- If the profanity is aimed at a person then WP:CIVIL already applies. If the editor is simply saying that they have had a gosh-darned fraggle-snack of a day then who gives a fat's rass if they say fying fluck? We are all supposed to behave like adults, and adults sometimes cuss. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- As long as it isn't being directed at someone in particular (whether it is an editor or anyone not involved in Wikipedia), it's fair game. People may not appreciate you participating in an AfD saying "Delete that motherfucker!", but technically speaking, there aren't any policies being violated (doesn't mean it's a good idea, though). Personally, I swear a lot more in my userspace than I do elsewhere on-wiki, and I think that's the way people should behave (and by and large, they do). EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that's great. I agree. I think we should write a guideline or essay that codifies all this; I can write one if there are no volunteers. JeanLatore (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with EVula that userspace is looser than the rest of the encyclopedia--generally, there's an expectation that people will be more-or-less respectful in project space--I personally would think that "Delete that motherfucker" in an AfD would ruffle a lot of feathers of folks who prefer that we treat even articles we find despicable with more respect than that. JeanLatore, if you write an essay about profanity in non-article space, definitely mark it as an {{essay}}, and let us know here. Darkspots (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
My Talk Page is disgraceful :-(
Hi All,
When I started using Wikipedia as an editor, I made some innocent mistakes, mainly adding pages with minimal information in the purpose of coming back and adding data whenever I have time. At that time I thought that it is a good strategy and I did not know the policies in this regard.
As a result, all of those pages where deleted and I got a lot of warnings in (My Talk) page.
I have came a long way since then. But my (my talk) page is a disgrace and I am ashamed to have the page with all those warnings!
Is there a way to reset it?
Jaber —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaberm (talk • contribs) 04:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Or just edit the page to remove the warnings, archiving them is not required. Anomie⚔ 05:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, just remove the warnings and you will be in very distinguished company. Thincat (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:MOS
One thing that I don't see in the discussions here is how it affects the WP:CONSENSUS flowchart and the outcome (if at all) when the material that's been edited has previously been viewed and used by an enormous number of people. Input is welcome at WT:Manual_of_Style#Stability and WP:CONSENSUS. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Global deleted image review
FYI, a discussion about allowing commons sysops the right to view deleted images on any wikimedia project is happening on Meta here: m:Metapub#Global_deleted_image_review -- Avi (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
More input needed
At Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories A number of major changes are being discussed, and it needs more heads to look into the arguements and come up with good consensus. Ward20 (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Pronoun problem - What does "their" mean in this policy subsection?
I am trying to prevent an edit war on a minor but ambiguous policy point. I need input to determine what the object of a pronoun is in a subsection of the WP:V policy. Under the rules about using self-published sources the following is stated:
- Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if:
- the material used is relevant to their notability;
- it is not contentious;
- it is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
My concern is with item #1 which says "their notability". My question is simply this, does the phrase "their notability" mean "the notability of the self-published and questionable sources" or "the notability of the topic of the article those sources are used within" ? Is there another interpretation that is correct ? Can you provide any examples to support your views please ? I am open to all arguments in a search for the truth of what this policy means. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Grammatically, it appears to me that "their" is referring to "Self-published and questionable sources", because that is the topic of the list. If "their" is meant to mean otherwise, it should be replaced with a clearer word or phrase. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I can only assume it means the subject of the article. We don't require sources to be notable, so the alternative wouldn't make much sense. I agree it should be clarified though. Mr.Z-man 01:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think the current wording has ended up there mostly by mistake, and may be due for rewrite. Here is how the wording came to be what it is:
- The section formerly allowed self-published sources to be used not only just about themselves, but also only in articles about themselves, and the notability requirement was that "the information is notable".
- The wording was changed to require that the material "is relevant to the person's notability". At this point such sources could still only be used in articles about the source or its author, so the source or author could be presumed to be notable. The intent appears to have been that the material had to be relevant to the thing for which the author or source was notable, not on some other subject.
- After several changes in wording, the notability requirement was changed to "it is relevant to their notability", with "their" replacing "the person's or organization's", where that person or organization is both the author of the source and the subject of the Wikipedia article in question.
- Less than a month ago, the policy was changed to remove the requirement that such sources could only be used in articles about themselves—such sources can now be used for information about themselves even in other articles. The editor making the change seems to have not recognized, however, that this change removed the justification for assuming that the source would be notable.
- So, the original intent appears to have been that the source (which could be presumed to be notable since it had a Wikipedia article) could only be used as a source of information relevant to the thing for which the source was notable. The removal of the limitation of such sources to articles about themselves has rendered the existing wording ambiguous if not outright misleading. It needs to be changed. The requirement is not and cannot be that the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article, because self-published sources cannot be used to establish notability. Per Wikipedia:Notability, only reliable sources can be used to establish notability, and per WP:V self-published sources are not reliable sources.
- If we want to require self-published sources or their authors to be notable, we should say so explicitly, and could then require such sources to be cited only for matters relevant to the reasons why they are notable. The wording should be clear that such sources cannot be used to establish notability, however.
- I think instead that we should not require sources to be notable. I'm not sure what requirement we would then impose instead of this strange "relevant to notability" rule. It's not clear to me that it shouldn't just be deleted. What we really are constraining here is whether the information that the citation supports is suitable for the Wikipedia article, not whether the citation itself is appropriate. It seems to me that this is a matter of editing judgement and perhaps other policies and guidelines, not WP:V.--Srleffler (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fully agree with Z-man -- the alternative does not make sense. ImpIn | (t - c) 02:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- the material used is relevant to their notability; the subject of the article, of course. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- and related articles. Articles about a book if written by the author of the book, etc.DGG (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- the material used is relevant to their notability; the subject of the article, of course. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- From a grammatical POV, it is indeed ambiguous, and could refer to the sources. However, since it's the subject of the article that is at question, "their" has to refer to the subject, not the sources. The word "material" refers to the sources, and further strengthens the view that "their" refers to the subject. That view make much more logical and pragmatic sense. Mr. Z man is correct that we don't require the sources to be notable, just reliable, independent, etc. The policy does need to be recast to remove ambiguity in that statement. For example, as as the simplest proposal: "the material used is relevant to the subject's notability;" — Becksguy (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest caution with that wording, as the "subject of what" becomes recursive ambiguity. How about "the notability of the article's topic." ? 208.43.120.114 (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- See my long comment above. The original intent was that a notable source could only be cited on matters relevant to the thing for which they were notable: you could only cite a self-published work by a famous physicist on matters related to physics, for example. Given that sources are not required to be notable anymore, the purpose of this requirement has been lost and it is not clear that there is any need for it now.--Srleffler (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Srleffler, i have read your comment above and also note the discussion from here. If consensus is that #1 can be removed that is fine and eliminates the problem. If such consensus does not exists then the wording needs to be non ambiguous. I would note one error in your comment however when you say "The requirement is not and cannot be that the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article" ... just because something is relevant (related to) to a notable topic does not mean it is the support for notability itself. Imagine that i write an article on some (hypothetical) private lawsuit against the taliban in the world court for breach of contract. I establish notability by citing several major newspapers. If i include a quote from a video of the complaintant saying he used to be a taliban trainee that is a self-published source that is relevant to the notability of the article's topic but in no way is that source used to establish notability. On the other hand if i include a quote from video of the guy saying he is a big fan of cindy lauper that is non-relevant material. I previously proposed the word "germane" (relevant and appropriate) to avoid confusion on this topic but there has been resistance to that word. Perhaps we could say "the material must be related only to the notable topic(s) of the article." ? 208.43.120.114 (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you that material can be relevant to notability without being used to establish notability, but the wording must make this distinction clear or avoid the confusion between the two. I'm not sure that is what we actually want, though. Whether the material is related to the notable topics of the article is an editing decision: is something worth saying in the article or not. This is not a matter for WP:V, which is concerned with whether a source can be used to support a given statement. To use your example, the video provides a valid, verifiable source for the statement that the taliban trainee is a big Cindy Lauper fan. WP:V should be satisfied by that. We might decide that this fact is not important enough to mention in a Wikipedia article, but that properly should fall outside the purview of WP:V. It is a question of the relevance of the material, not the verifiability of that material.--Srleffler (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is not easy; while I am concerned that the multiple tugs on this section (well-researched by Leffler) might result in an unintentional broadening of SPS use, I am generally not opposed to broadening of source use. Agree that clause 1 really refers more to content than to verifiability, as per WP:IINFO (News reports) and WP:UNDUE (other verifiable statements). Example: "Trevor Lyman likes Frosted Flakes" was reliably sourced but debatably deleted from his article as trivial; but if it had been self-published, it would be undeniably trivial. My current view (subject to change) is something like: "Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources in articles about themselves and closely allied topics, and only if: 1. the material used is sufficiently important to the article's topic (see the undue weight provision); ...." But I am open on this. JJB 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you that material can be relevant to notability without being used to establish notability, but the wording must make this distinction clear or avoid the confusion between the two. I'm not sure that is what we actually want, though. Whether the material is related to the notable topics of the article is an editing decision: is something worth saying in the article or not. This is not a matter for WP:V, which is concerned with whether a source can be used to support a given statement. To use your example, the video provides a valid, verifiable source for the statement that the taliban trainee is a big Cindy Lauper fan. WP:V should be satisfied by that. We might decide that this fact is not important enough to mention in a Wikipedia article, but that properly should fall outside the purview of WP:V. It is a question of the relevance of the material, not the verifiability of that material.--Srleffler (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Srleffler, i have read your comment above and also note the discussion from here. If consensus is that #1 can be removed that is fine and eliminates the problem. If such consensus does not exists then the wording needs to be non ambiguous. I would note one error in your comment however when you say "The requirement is not and cannot be that the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article" ... just because something is relevant (related to) to a notable topic does not mean it is the support for notability itself. Imagine that i write an article on some (hypothetical) private lawsuit against the taliban in the world court for breach of contract. I establish notability by citing several major newspapers. If i include a quote from a video of the complaintant saying he used to be a taliban trainee that is a self-published source that is relevant to the notability of the article's topic but in no way is that source used to establish notability. On the other hand if i include a quote from video of the guy saying he is a big fan of cindy lauper that is non-relevant material. I previously proposed the word "germane" (relevant and appropriate) to avoid confusion on this topic but there has been resistance to that word. Perhaps we could say "the material must be related only to the notable topic(s) of the article." ? 208.43.120.114 (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom cases are not case law
The following is an interesting bit of interpretation I came across on my random reading up on wikipedia procedures:
I have removed this text: It is Wikipedia's convention that arbitration committee rulings are considered precedent and carry the weight of policy. Those editing articles dealing with fringe theories and pseudoscience are bound by these precedents. That is incorrect. ArbCom cases are not policy, but application of policy in a specific set of circumstances to address a specific editing behavior. ArbCom does not define, set, change r otherwise propose changes to policy, let alone set precedents for policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this really true? If Arb Com does not set binding precdents, how are we simple editors supposed to know how to conform our actions to a particular standard? If what Jossi is saying is correct, the fact that Arb Com sanctioned user X for doing Y,Z, and P means that I should not expect arb com to sanction me for doing Y,Z, and P myself, since Jossi is saying all arbcom decisions are limited to the specific circumstances of each case. That cannot be correct. Or am I wrong? JeanLatore (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to be misunderstanding "precedent." If arbcom sanctions X for doing Y, Z, and P, why wouldn't you expect them to do the same thing to another editor who did the same thing? Arbcom cases not being precedent means they won't automatically do the same thing, but if they did it in the past, its pretty likely they'll do it in the future if it's effective. Just because they aren't creating precedent doesn't mean they'll avoid doing the same thing more than once. Mr.Z-man 03:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I fully understand the term "precedent." It means if a body rules a certain way under a set of circumstances, it will rule that way in the future if those circumstances come up again. That is how humans can rationally predict how the body will act, and thereby tailor their behavior to meet the standards expected. But Jossi is saying Arb Com doesn't work that way. While you say that ArbCom is "pretty likely" to conform to their precedents, there is no guarantee that they will. Thus, my friend, still allows them to art in an arbitrary and capricious fashion that instructs no one. JeanLatore (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- there's no certainty with any court, even those that claim to be the most precedent-bound. At arb com, where for the most part the principles are well-agreed and only the interpretation and application differs, each case will of course be a little different. As an analogy, they are finding fact as well as law, and they are also using the discretion of a sentencing judge to set appropriate sanctions in individual circumstances. In general they do in fact act the same from time to time, at least while the body of arbitrators is the same. And sometimes they even specifically announce that hey will regard something as a precedent. To take the least controversial matter I can find, it's absolutely clear that admins who lose control of their accounts will be desysopped until they regain control and established appropriate security. DGG (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well there is no hardcore binding precedent with case law or common law either. So what we can say is that ArbCom decisions ARE case law after all. They give you a really good idea what the "court" might do, but are not 100% ironclad and can be changed in new circumstances. Right? JeanLatore (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- But I wouldn't count on it, any more than with real courts. ArbCom does not consider its decisions to have binding force on cases not mentioned in them; if they want to make general decisions, they do so explicitly, and are even now reaffirming their right to do so. In practice, if a decision is widely protested, it is still binding on those it applies to, but ArbCom is unlikely to press quite so far in the same direction next time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Abuse Filter
A new proposal has been made to enable my new AbuseFilter extension on English Wikipedia. — Werdna talk 08:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
References: publication date and access date?
Showing publication date and access date for the same reference is confusing for casual readers but can only be hidden by expert users. Should the access date be hidden by default? Please comment here. Thanks, --EnOreg (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Proposed changes to the naming conventions
I have added three sections to the talk page Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions suggesting some changes to the WP:NC policy
As these are proposals to change some things that have existed in their current form since 2002, I think that as many people as possible should consider if the changes are desirable. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Global rights policy proposal on Meta
There is a proposal for a policy governing global user rights on meta - this is an umbrella policy, meant to guide the creation and implementation of new user rights and to require that new rights proposals respect the input and independence of local projects. Its available at m:Global rights. Avruch 14:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Page moves without consensus
The article Roman trade with India was today moved to Roman trade with modern India with the justification that India as a republic did not exist in Roman days. The move was not discussed on the talk page nor was my question on the talk page answered. The person doing the moving is a very active editor today. I discussed the page move with a past editor of the article who also agrees that the move was in appropriate and makes no sense. Subsequent edits may to the article by the same editor that did the page move also make no sense and is mostly injecting the word "modern" everywhere. Is is appropriate to revert the article to the last stable version before the page move today and inappropriate edits? Thanks, –Mattisse (Talk) 19:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Per the BRD cycle, I would tend to agree. –xenocidic (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Does that mean that it is permissible that I revert it? (Modern India did not come into existence until 1950, long after the Romans). –Mattisse (Talk) 19:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Banning solves false flag related NPOV disputes?
retrieved from archive
I've noticed that a huge number of editors has been topic-banned in the wake of an ArbCom case, even though the ArbCom did not give a single verdict on any specific behaviour by anyone. I myself have been topic-banned, ironically, after issuing a warning myself: {{Uw-9/11}}
Now I am interested to know whether there is only a small kernel of wikipedia editors and admins who happen to be interested in September 11, and favor banning other editors, or whether this approach of solving POV conflicts by banning one side of it, is supported by the community at large?
In my perception, edit conflicts are arising between two point of views, whereas those that are doing the banning seem to think that their POV is the truth and therefore the NPOV form that articles should have, and they call the editors to be banned "POV-pushers", whereas in my opinion, most of them are only trying to restore NPOV: make sure that multiple POV's get fair treatment.
For instance: would citing the 9/11 Commission Report likely be POV-pushing? Would factual descriptions of actions of government officials be POV-pushing? Would mentioning the opinions of prominent international polititians be?
If wikipedia is locking out so many editors, it really amounts to locking oneself in.
It's not just the subject of 9/11 which is at stake for me. I can live with the English language Wikipedia being inadequate on such a sensitive subject (other languages seem to have less problems here). Everyone has the freedom to his or her own beliefs. When a vast majority of editors is unable to detect false flag operations, so be it.
What concerns me, is that the same mechanisms seem to be at work all over wikipedia. Wikipedia is valuable to me because of the NPOV policy: the reader is likely to be presented multiple viewpoints on a given subject, which the rest of the web often fails to do. If we loose our understanding of true NPOV, than Wikipedia sinks back in the background noise of the web. I'd hate that !
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone interested in the discussion about this user's Arbcom-related ban should read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#Xiutwel. I see nothing wrong with this approach, when extreme amounts of disruption, as cited in the Arbcom case, require it. Mangojuicetalk 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is it really within our behavioral guidelines to issue preemptive warnings like {{uw-9/11}}? "Hi. You haven't done anything yet, but I'm going to assume you're likely to be bad" seems rather bitey and not assuming good faith to me. Anomie⚔ 00:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
current discussion
Regardless of Xiutwel's ban, the question he-or-she posed is a legitimate one. I consider that the comments above by Mangojuice and Anomie to be disruptive, in that they are an ad hominem attack on the ASKER of the question rather than discussion of the question itself and tend to deflect the discussion from the question that was posed. The comments also make it seem at first glance that Xiutwel is a disruptive editor, and hint that even discussing the issue posed will bring down the 'wrath of the there-is-no-cabal' upon any editor with the temerity to discuss the actual issue, rather than just bang on Xiutwel for having been banned. Regardless of who posed it, it's a legitimate question:
- "Is there "a small kernel of wikipedia editors and admins" who ... "favor banning other editors" (who, assuming good faith, are attempting to bring NPOV to articles that they feel are biased)... or whether this approach of solving POV conflicts by banning one side of it, is supported by the community at large?"
- I do not support this approach, which I feel is out of line with several foundational core policies. I also feel that Xiutwel was banned outside of any WP process, for edits made prior to the ArbCom decision, and for behaviour which does not match the banning criteria set forth by the ArbCom.
- We as encyclopedia editors cannot allow content to be 'managed' by a small group abusing Wikipedia policies and processes, for whatever reason. We have clear policies regarding that, WP:OWN and WP:NPOV and WP:POINT and A RUDELY NAMED POLICY, all spring to mind.
- Also see Template:Uw-9/11 and decide for yourself if, as seems to me and apparently as it also seems to User:Xiutwel, "it is really within our behavioral guidelines to issue preemptive warnings such as Template:Uw-9/11 " -- as asked by User:Anomie. For the record I am against warning a bannable user who should be banned under policy, however, I do not feel that issuing a warning of the consequences for disruptive behaviour is grounds for a ban of any type. If it were, all those who patrol recent changes may fall under the axe. User:Pedant (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Today's_featured_article/requests straw poll
I have started a straw poll to ascertain support and opinions on changing the current request system from 5 nominations at a time to 14 days ahead of time utilizing existing templates; in order to permit greater community input on the TFA process and shift informal TFA requests from the User talk space. - RoyBoy 04:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Graphs
Hello,
I'm all for not having an overflow of policies people are supposed to know about, but we need one on graphs. Graphs of data that purport to show a trend should have their origins at 0 so that the trend is not exaggerated or sensationalized. This graph to the right, for example, taken from New Deal, currently is sensationalized; it greatly exaggerates the drop in unemployment from 1929-32, as well as the subsequent upward spike. This trashy data interpretation is common in daily newspapers (even the Wall Street Journal) who always seem to have a nagging fear that they need more exciting-looking trend lines in graphs in order to make their stories look more exciting; but this is an encyclopedia. Exceptions are OK as long as the graphs are explicitly labeled with an appropriate disclaimer.
I couldn't find this policy on Wikipedia. Does one exist? If not, where do I begin? Tempshill (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- PS: The main reason I want a policy on this is mostly so there can be a shorthand so that editors concerned about this (namely, I) don't have to explain and try to establish validity of the whole theory every time a change request is made for a graph. Tempshill (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
You express a valid concern, but zero is not always the relevant Y intercept as zero is typically not the appropriate X intercept. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- The issue describe is one of the classic techniques of using statistics to distort the truth. It is definitely mentioned and discussed in the 1954 text How to Lie with Statistics. Article reviewers should be wary of this and the other issues, but most people are statistically illiterate so I don't expect you to get a lot of headway. GRBerry 21:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- The book "How to Lie with Statistics" is quite thin (70 pages?) and anyone who has not read that book or its equivalent is almost disqualified from writing articles using graphs or statistics or even subject matter that can be analyzed with statistics. IMHO. If you have the time, it would be beneficial for ANY editor to check out a copy and read (not memorize) it to at least have enough of an idea of what can go wrong w statistics to be jolted awake when scanning something "not quite right".24.10.111.154 (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree that graphs should not be drawn to look misleading, but often it depends on the circumstances and type of variable being measured. I suppose one major exception to this is temperature. There's often no need to make a temperature graph's y axis start at 0°C as that's an arbitrary value chosen to match the freezing point of water. If the graph was about gas pressures or very cold temperatures, you would make the scale start at 0 Kelvin since that value is quite relevant. For most everyday graphs, however, the temperature scale would not need any specific starting point. Tra (Talk) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand what's wrong with the second graph there other than the choice of vertical scale. Is that all? We can just choose a more reasonable scale to fix that. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 21:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- The other graphs are just there to demonstrate that a rigid criterion can be manipulated. We just have to be willing to use good judgment. You just can't make very issue a matter of policy. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Cutting down on policy-proliferation is always good, but I sympathise with User:Tempshill having to explain things all the time. It seems like an essay on the subject would do the trick well enough, documenting the different aspects of "how to make good graphs" (including, as in all things, common sense). Does that sound like it meets your needs, Tempshill? An explanatory essay that you can link sounds about right from my point of view (who knows, it might even make it to MoS-guideline status in some possible future). --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 21:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- An essay sound like the approach. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Cutting down on policy-proliferation is always good, but I sympathise with User:Tempshill having to explain things all the time. It seems like an essay on the subject would do the trick well enough, documenting the different aspects of "how to make good graphs" (including, as in all things, common sense). Does that sound like it meets your needs, Tempshill? An explanatory essay that you can link sounds about right from my point of view (who knows, it might even make it to MoS-guideline status in some possible future). --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 21:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- The other graphs are just there to demonstrate that a rigid criterion can be manipulated. We just have to be willing to use good judgment. You just can't make very issue a matter of policy. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The criteria you're concerned about meeting is that the ratio of areas in a graph showing a change should be similar to the actual change. A graph showing an increase of 5% should not be offset in a way that looks like an increase of 50%. I think a policy should be set but rather than talking about offsets it should talk about area proportionality as the same misrepresentation can happen for things like log-scale graphs. Likewise, graphs showing the derivative of something without any reference to the constant factor have this problem as well. Rather than denying these outright, perhaps they should have some kind of not proportional caption with a link to a Wikipedia: page on reading graphs? I don't agree with Kevin Murray's comparison graphs. The one with the zero offset still does a better job of showing how the change is small with respect to the total, while the small version does not. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to see some graphic examples of your proposal. It sould be an interesting solution. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Kevin Murray, I would give you 1/8th of a Tufte Barnstar for these graphs if such a thing existed. A picture is worth 984 words or so; thank you. I do disagree that the 2nd graph is less misleading, though - despite the vertical scale, I still see the rise from bottom depth to top height as an increase of about 75%, rather than an increase of about 350%. I think the essay idea is fine and I'll do it. Tempshill (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Any barnstar can be created, and 1/8th well earned is better than 8 from folly. I like GM's idea but am concerned that a graph loses its meaing without some visually perceptible variance. In my business huge dollars can be gained or lost on minute marginal change which is not always relevant to the total value, since the probable risk is rarely a loss of all, but a loss of some increment. I have to make subjective decisions on how to demonstrate data to sophisiticated investors who don't have a lot of time to spend on preliminaries, but a flat line does no good in showing the nuances. I'm glad to help, and if needed be your devil's advocate in the process. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Anything that can be done to reduce the general misunderstanding of graphs (and statistical theory) would be helpful. So yes, we need an essay (at least). How to Lie with Statistics is certainly a great, and maybe groundbreaking book. I also recommended books by John Allen Paulos, especially Innumeracy and A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper which includes those fallacies and others. Area proportionality makes sense per Gmaxwell. — Becksguy (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading graphs now exists. Please feel free to edit. I'll add some references in a bit. Thanks, all. Tempshill (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- What, a whole discussion on graphs and no mention of WP:NOR? Any way you read this "pillar" policy, it is incompatible with graphs other than those taken from a published source (assuming you get permission). Emmanuelm (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's WP:OR paranoia. It's not original research to take a table of statistics from a source and trivially turn it into a graph any more than it would be to include a table of statistics in the article as a table. Anomie⚔ 21:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Images are specifically exempted from WP:NOR. --Srleffler (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this proposal. Scientists and engineers oftem employ the "lightning bolt" in order to simplify their graphs. This allows them to represent more detail without filling an entire page. Whether you like it or not, graphs are professional tools, and therefore hard to use. 68.144.80.168 (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's actually what's missing from the problem examples above (and commonly seen elsewhere): a "lightning bolt" or break mark on the axis, to visually indicate that the axis does not extend linearly from zero. It may seem like a small thing, but that mark does make it much more obvious.--Srleffler (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
User subpages used to subvert Mediawiki limit on signatures
There is currently an MFD with respect to user subpages used to subvert Mediawiki limit on signatures, since it could in theory set a precedent in future MFDs and per this link there are potentially over a thousand people who are using these, I figured the best place to post a notification of the MFD would be here. The MFD is at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User subpages used to subvert Mediawiki limit on signatures. –xenocidic (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless whether the signature is substituted from a template or directly typed into preferences, we don't permit signatures over 255 characters anyway (this is the length the software enforces when they are directly typed into preferences). If you notice users with signatures over that length, point them at WP:SIG. 255 characters is more than adequate for users to include links to custom pages or use a different name in their signature. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, the only problem with that is that WP:SIG is a guideline, not a policy. –xenocidic (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Note I have added the byte counts to this list. I'm not a big believer in arbitrary numerical limits (as long as the visible result isn't fucking obnoxious or unreadable due to poorly chosen colors) but it would be easy to re-do the list using a template to make each line appear or not appear based on whether the size is over 255 (or over 9,000) or whatever. Basically change each line to
#{{show_if_in_excess_of_255|User:Alice/sig}}
and create a template consisting of
{{#ifexpr: {{PAGESIZE: {{{1}}} }} > 255 | <!-- if too long -->
# [[{{{1}}}]] ({{PAGESIZE: {{{1}}} }} bytes) ({{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=delete}} delete])
| <!-- otherwise show nothing -->
}}
Other variations are possible, obviously. — CharlotteWebb 15:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hrm, it stopped parsing at #500. –xenocidic (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- possible solution without mass-MFD'ing: what about submitting a request to disallow substing in the signature preference box? –xenocidic (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- That could be easily circumvented with javascript where ~~~~ is replaced by {{subst:whatever}} at some stage prior to submitting the edit. — CharlotteWebb 15:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well "easily" by someone who knew what they were doing. I would gather most people who create these obnoxious sigs wouldn't be able to figure that out. –xenocidic (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Other than this comment that it can still be worked around, does anyone have a problem with my putting in a request to disallow {{subst}} in the signature box? –xenocidic (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, I cooked up a quick patch to MW, that would do what you want here. HTH. SQLQuery me! 15:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. If no one objects in the next couple days, perhaps you can submit it? (I've never done a bugzilla, so...) –xenocidic (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, I cooked up a quick patch to MW, that would do what you want here. HTH. SQLQuery me! 15:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- That could be easily circumvented with javascript where ~~~~ is replaced by {{subst:whatever}} at some stage prior to submitting the edit. — CharlotteWebb 15:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Image submission embarassment
A big part of the reason we have all sorts of copyright related rules for images is that we're trying to encourage people to make more freely licensed images. Great stuff.
So, obviously, we should want image uploading to be as easy as possible. It's not, and past usability studies have faulted Wikipedia for making it hard to upload images. Some of those difficulties are impossible to fix (like, we were faulted for asking for the copyright status and authorship of uploads), but some we can improve.
I was disappointed today to find out that we've recently made the situation much worse: Pursuant to a bugzilla request and a vote on meta all WMF wiki's except for Commons were set to require that uploaders be auto-confirmed.
This proposal was apparently not widely discussed or popularized on English Wikipedia and as a result much of our instructions are now highly misleading. For example, many articles have the FromOwner pleas begging for image submissions (For example, Larry_Gelbart). The FromOwner system has gotten us hundreds of freely licensed photos which probably would not have been otherwise submitted. However, since the change if you follow the instructions and create a new account to upload, when you click the upload button you are told: "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups Autoconfirmed users, Sysops." and no further details. You're pretty much just screwed. So now honest people wanting to give us images are shown a brick wall, while vandals can continue to use sleeper accounts. So much for Assume Good Faith.
I'd like to propose that we request this ill-considered setting change be immediately reversed for English Wikipedia and that we instead use site-JS to only stop new uploads of non-free images (based on the upload page uselang). --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Greg, we do have WP:IFU which in theory addresses this issue. Now getting more people to clerk that page is another matter. MBisanz talk 21:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- How is images for upload supposted to upload an image I took which is stored on my computer? For non-free images pulled from the web .. fine. But Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about just copying things found elsewhere. :( Regardless it still leaves us with bad and confusing instructions spread all over the site. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- A caveat though; for every good image we get from those (shudder) placeholders, there's likely a far, far greater number of copyvios. Should we really allow such easy uploading of the latter, which we are clearly doing of late? What I mean is, uploading images is very easy, almost too much, but is this the way to help curb it? That i dunno. Wizardman 21:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't looked for a few months but in the month or so after Geni started FromOwner a majority of the images were kept. ::shrugs:: People seem to do a better job when we ask them for only images they created. Beyond that, our mission is creating and collecting free content. Deleting a single image is easy. Getting a free release of some obscure person or place can be hard. We should endure a hundred copyvios just to get one more image freely licensed. ... If you really think avoiding deletion work should be our first priority, then the best solution would be to disable upload completely. No more problems! :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Shouldn't that message direct potential uploaders to the Commons, where autoconfirm is not required and free images should be hosted anyway? Kelly hi! 21:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Make sense to me. Wizardman 21:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- This was discussed in the past, but sending users over to commons is really confusing. Not exactly a friendly way to handle new contributors. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I get where you're coming from, but I think a brief explanation of what Commons (a repository of free media) is would handle that. Kelly hi! 22:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- But it demonstratively doesn't. Adding commons to the mix requires another 6 or so steps in the upload process (going to commons and creating a commons account), and probably subjects the user to a couple of kilobytes of additional text that they should read. Evidence suggests that the upload pages are already largely unread due to information overload (people don't follow the pre-existing recommendations to use commons). ... and beyond that, making upload autoconfirmed hides the upload link, so they won't even make their way to the instruction to use commons. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- This would work better if projects are more seamlessly integrated. We could link directly to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=ownwork and omit most of the intermediate steps, but only if "unified login" pre-enabled for newly created accounts. If it isn't, it ought to be. — CharlotteWebb 10:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- I get where you're coming from, but I think a brief explanation of what Commons (a repository of free media) is would handle that. Kelly hi! 22:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c)The only issue I can see with restricting non-free uploads only is that it might encourage people to upload things with incorrect licensing, putting even more strain on things like WP:PUI. Couldn't we just change the directions to direct people to Commons? Mr.Z-man 21:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- The reason for making image uploads autoconfirm-only is not vandals, it's the clueless. --Carnildo (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- A 4 day, 10 edit limit inhibits every person and not preferentially the clueless. If I were joe-photographer wanting to give an image to WP I'd follow the instructions and get an access denied and give up. I'm not going spend an hour reading just to discover I need to make 10 edits and wait 4 days, or register at another site just to give Wikipedia something, I'm going to either just forget it or take my ball and go home. The result of making it harder for people to give us free images is that there will be fewer free images submitted, talk about counterproductive. :(--Gmaxwell (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I've always been of the opinion that there should be some sort of quiz for image uploads. We have an overwhelming amount of information and instructions right now, but it's all very easy to ignore. If uploaders were forced to take a brief quiz before uploading an image, I'm pretty sure it would take care of people who can't read, don't like to read, are stupid, are children, are stubborn, or all of the above. Wikipedia:Upload was a push in the right direction, but it seems a lot of people just hit "my own work" and ignore everything else. --- RockMFR 22:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:VPT#Proposal - Upload Block for something along these lines. Kelly hi! 22:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- We started to write a quiz at commons once.. but it turned out to be hard work! :) Consider the question there "Do you know what fair use is?" '... SURE! It means that it's fair for me to use what I want!' doh. ;) I'm of the view that we should split uploads into "Did you create it?" vs "Did you find it someplace" address the latter with WP:IFU and the former with a quiz that determines if they really created it or not (and collect a working email address so we can follow up with them!). Somewhat OT for my complaint here... --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Admins at Commons understand copyright. Admins at en Wikipedia are (mostly) clueless about copyright. Send the uploaders to Commons. Kelly hi! 22:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Give me instant SUL and cross wiki redirects and I'll do it. Until then not practical. there is no reasonable way I can get people to jump to commons and back without ending up with cracks in the rails.Genisock2 (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm actually there might be a way to move them across smoothly but it would be an abuse of the mediawiki functions that makes the interlang stuff look minor.Genisock2 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Give me instant SUL and cross wiki redirects and I'll do it. Until then not practical. there is no reasonable way I can get people to jump to commons and back without ending up with cracks in the rails.Genisock2 (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Admins at Commons understand copyright. Admins at en Wikipedia are (mostly) clueless about copyright. Send the uploaders to Commons. Kelly hi! 22:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth: The rate of surviving (non-deleted) freely licensed images uploaded per day went down by 7.1% (and 0.4% on commons), when comparing the 75 days before vs 75 days after the change. Surviving (non-deleted) non-free image uploads on EnWP decreased 5.5% and the total image upload rate (including images which got deleted) to EnWP decreased by 31% during the same timespan. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- For whatever it's worth, that's about the timeframe when ImageTaggingBot stopped working and STBotI, which is more aggressive at tagging new uploads, started running. --Carnildo (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I was speaking today to one of the (real-world) system administrators in my university, who was telling me how he was totally unable to figure out how to upload images successfully to Wikipedia, either public domain or making a plausible claim of fair use. He had failed in his first attempts, and was consequently intending not to try contributing to wikipedia again. Now, this guy is a very experienced computer guy, with a full career of experience in complex computer systems involving multiple protocols and man of them almost non-existent documentation, and considerably experienced with intellectual property licensing, and it's the first time I have known anything related to the subject to discomfit him to the point of abandonment. 01:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- it's a known problem. Placeholders are meant to counter it to an extent.Genisock2 (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
So finally when, thanks to the efforts of many editors and bot operators, the non-free uploads problem is finally being brought under control, this unnecessary step is taken? It might make sense for smaller projects, but enwiki has the resources in the form of people power and bot power to deal with all new uploads. Turn it off! --bainer (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Gah! The image problem is not under control! Go look at image categories using {{PD-old}} or {{PD}} or {{PD-Russia}}, or even {{PD-self}}. They're chock full of copyvios! And hardly anyone is working to fix them. Kelly hi! 02:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- To us old timers a backlog of < 50k images is fairly "under control" by historic standards. --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I get you. But I would guess the backlog is at least that, if not more. This is a total scientific wild-assed guess on my part, based on the total number of images on Wikipedia and the percentage of copyvios I find when looking at them. People tend to think the problem is in the areas of non-free content - that is actually well-patrolled by bots and not too bad overall, by WP:NFCC standards. The real problem is in public domain images that have no, or insufficient, details on authorship to justify the PD claim. It's not just PD, but other claimed free licenses as well - I was moving Flickr-sourced images to Commons, and around 10-20% of those Flickr-sourced images on en Wikipedia do not have free licenses and have to be deleted. I'm seeing articles with copyvio images in them getting all the way through peer review, good article review, and featured article review. As an example (just off the top of my head, and maybe not the best one) look at the image of the playwright Gilbert in the article Creatures of Impulse, just promoted to FA. Who created that image, and when and where was it published? The article got promoted despite the concern being unresolved. Kelly hi! 04:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- What I hate is that I'll be out at some building or location that has a WP article, check WP via my phone.. see that there is an image and not bother taking one. Then I look later and realize the image was a copyvio (or otherwise non-free). Watch out on the flickr sourced images. Flickr will not remove copyvio without a direct complaint from the holder, and generally won't disable accounts. Lots of copyvio on flickr. --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Kelly, that image came from the New York Public Library, that's what NYPL means. As to when it was taken, who cares? Please, your copyright paranoia is off the charts. Enhance your calm, there is no need to panic. Wikipedia isn't going to die if you miss a copyvio. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I get you. But I would guess the backlog is at least that, if not more. This is a total scientific wild-assed guess on my part, based on the total number of images on Wikipedia and the percentage of copyvios I find when looking at them. People tend to think the problem is in the areas of non-free content - that is actually well-patrolled by bots and not too bad overall, by WP:NFCC standards. The real problem is in public domain images that have no, or insufficient, details on authorship to justify the PD claim. It's not just PD, but other claimed free licenses as well - I was moving Flickr-sourced images to Commons, and around 10-20% of those Flickr-sourced images on en Wikipedia do not have free licenses and have to be deleted. I'm seeing articles with copyvio images in them getting all the way through peer review, good article review, and featured article review. As an example (just off the top of my head, and maybe not the best one) look at the image of the playwright Gilbert in the article Creatures of Impulse, just promoted to FA. Who created that image, and when and where was it published? The article got promoted despite the concern being unresolved. Kelly hi! 04:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- To us old timers a backlog of < 50k images is fairly "under control" by historic standards. --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal completely. Supposing someone didn't want to edit text to be able to upload an image? they'd be contributing, and it'd be great.--Serviam (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sorry there's a higher hurdle for image contribution. I used to patrol recent images for copyvios, an endless chore that I gave up on. The copyvio problem far exceeds the alleged problem of difficulty for average users to upload free images. Tempshill (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- IMHO almost all photographs with correct Exif metadata are valid self-made photos, almost all claimed "self-made" photos without metadata (and especially of small sizes) are copyvios. Most images picked up from elsewhere does not have metadata but you need some clue to find what is suitable for us and what is not. Can we only allow self-made photographs with valid exifs and require autoconfirmation for all non-self-made staff. That way we decrease the amount of copyvio and would not hurt photographers just who want to donate their photographs not to edit wikipedia. Further maybe just make the lack of valid metada and small image sizes to be a criterion of speedy deletion for self-made photos? Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Exif data would be a pain the neck to create, so the casual copiers wouldn't bother. Just leave some loophole for good faith editors who don't necessarily wish to release the private information contained in full Exif data, such as date, or who don't retain it during image editing. Perhaps some better control of the Exif template would address that, allowing users to add or delete information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- While absence of exif data may be a useful heuristic in determining which images need more attention, trying to ban uploads of self-made photographs without exif data (either directly or through speedy deletion) IMO is an incredibly bad idea. I've only uploaded two photographs, one has exif data and the other lost it somewhere in the image editing process; a third photographic image I uploaded is a combination of my photograph and another person's, and that one has no exif data either.
- If Wikipedia decides to block uploading of files without exif data, it will probably not be long before someone comes up with an easy-to-use tool to add exif data to any jpeg; in fact, I just copied the exif data from one image to the other in 3 steps using exiv2. Anomie⚔ 12:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair, free images should generally be uploaded to Commons, and Wikipedian-produced images should generally be free. The only big issue is with fair use images, and those require rigorous review. So I can understand this change. Dcoetzee 23:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
make folding subsections common
In short, folding provides the illusion of succinct while preserving thorough.
Many times I have heard of information important in context stuck between a rock and a hard place. It does not merit an article in it's own right, but makes the main article messy and long winded. The simplest solution would be to fold the offending information into a subsection.
In my opinion, there is not enough technical material available on wikipedia. Technical details are prefect candidates for folding subsections. Such a technique would hide the nitty gritty details from the uninterested majority.
I have seen folding used to great effect on other sites. It promotes a sense of sleek modernity. If implemented correctly, I see no reason why this would be a stylistic mistake for wikipedia.
68.144.80.168 (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that this is tied to similar issue, in that such sections should be automatically expanded in the printed version of the page, which I am explored at WP:VPT; if we want to allow more collapsible sections within the display version, we need a simple-stupid method for making these visible in the printed page or otherwise have tight restrictions when these can be used. However, more in general, remember WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information; it may be useful to have these but also may be excessive. I'm not ruling this out, just making sure this doesn't lead to overloading pages with tons of rolled-up tables hiding excessive facts and figures. --MASEM 21:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think this might be relevant: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Scrolling lists. Would similar concerns apply to collapsible sections in articles? It seems like we usually avoid these kinds of trick in article pages (while we don't mind so much in auxiliary pages). --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 21:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we all know that there is a qualitative difference between information appropriate for folding and information appropriate for lists.68.144.80.168 (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I must admit I did not consider the printing problem. I would like to say that if information is unimportant enough to fold then it shouldn't appear in a standard printout. 68.144.80.168 (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- You may be right about the scrolling lists problem. I don't think it will face problems quite as severe though. 68.144.80.168 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- ask a programmer 68.144.80.168 (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It occurs to me that my proposal may have come across as a bit strong. For clarification: I expect there to only be about 1 or 2 good candidate uses of this technique per large article. 68.144.80.168 (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- 1 or 2 per page? Ugh, no. 1 or 2 per all of Wikipedia maybe. What's the point of randomly hiding information? If it's relevant enough to be in the article there's no reason to hide it, and if it's not then it should be removed rather than hidden. BTW, most of the concern with page length I've seen is about bytes, not lines, and this will do nothing to solve that problem. Anomie⚔ 00:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
There's potential accessibility problems as well. Javascript support is not consistent in all browsers and it could cause issues with screen readers and printed versions. Mr.Z-man 21:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Everything2
Hi, I don't know if this is the right place to ask this but anyway, are we allowed to cite the website everything2[1], since that is almost wiki-like itself? I don't know if that would be a reliable source or not. Any ideas? Deamon138 (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't a reliable source, no. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay thanks for the help. Deamon138 (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The Croatian Wikipedia Incident
Hello. I am not aware if this is the precise page to post things such like this, but I am sure someone will be able to point me towards the right direction, should I be wrong.
I am a contributor of the Croatian Wikipedia known there as User:NI. I am writing here a complaint regarding a very unfortunate near-scandal which is erupting at the Wikipedia in Croatian language, as a last resort to the try to solve the ongoing problems. I am aware that this might not be an act of good faith towards the fellow-Croatian wikipedians in question, but abuse of the Wikipedia is that which it is => abuse. I shall try to be as concise and exact as possible.
Extended content
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
It all started when I created the Bokeljski Srbi article, an article on the Serbs from the Bay of Kotor. Within moments it was deleted. I have originally assumed that it was a software error, so I recreated and rewrote the article. It took only seconds before it was again deleted, and this time locked in an effort to prevent any possibility of recreation in the future. I have discovered that the administrator that deleted it was SpeedyGonsales, however he left the summary completely blank, leaving in ignorance anyone who would want to write an article and become wondered why he or she is prevented from doing so. I will know translate excerpts from the talk pages of this administrator, Ante Perkovic and myself; so that anyone willing to assist will be able to jump to conclusions by him/herself. Bokeljski Srbi What seems to be the problem? --NI (razgovor) 15:59, 21. lipanj 2008. (CEST)
A short contact with another administrator, Sombrero, follows (I took the standard procedure of contacting another administrator, before approaching the Village Pump): Sombrero, SpeedyGonsales has repeatedly reverted this change of mine, and subsequently protected the article in order to prevent me from editing it, but I consider my edits justified. As the matter on the talk page (of the referred administrator) still isn't resolved, I am withholding myself from editing the article in order to evade an edit war. --NI (razgovor) 18:43, 23. lipanj 2008. (CEST)
Another with an ordinary User by the name of Zeljko: I will answer you...but first you need to stop harassing Ante and Speedy...I would not let you do that, and it needs sanctioning [..] For further on wait for two weeks, and leave our administrators alone. Greetings on another occasion, when you perhaps liberate yourself from GreaterSerbian pretensions. --Zeljko (razgovor) 10:55, 25. lipanj 2008. (CEST)
And finally, the one with the administrator that blocked me, Ante Perkovic: Regarding the wikilinks, I think you have not understood me. The article Bokelji leads to the Bokelji on other Wikipedias, but so does the Bokeljski Hrvati. I do not know if such between-wikilinks are regulated by some specific rule (if I am wrong, please enlighten me), but I am convinced that such an occasion is to be found nowhere, on the Croatian Wikipedia or the others. Cheers, --NI (razgovor) 19:28, 23. lipanj 2008. (CEST)
Now, what followed after this post of mine, was a two-week block from Ante Perkovic. It happened right while I was preparing to head over to the Croatian Village Pump and introduce the broader Croatian Wikimedian community to our dispute(s). In the summary he wrote:
First of, the event came as a huge shock to me. I then, according to standard procedure, attempted to contact the administrator that blocked me, but prevented from doing so over at the Croatian Wikipedia, I came here, to the English Wikipedia, where Ante Perkovic is an active user. I wrote the following: Ante, why have you blocked me from the Croatian Wikipedia? You have cut me right in the process of accumulation of sources and references for the Creation of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes article, and which are of crucial value. This is not related to the Bokelji. As for the Bokelji, I assume you had good intentions when you did this, in order to grant Zeljko the needed time to acquire sources for the Bokeljski Hrvati article within the determined time period, but all I am trying to do is save him from worthless effort. The first thing we must solve is the article's very existence in the Croatian Wikipedia, because it is against the valid rules and guidelines of the (Croatian) Wikipedia. In case the article gets deleted, the entire work of Zeljko or anyone else would be flushed down the toilette. Kind regards, --NICrneGore (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Ante Perkovic's first response to this was an immediate & numb reversion of my edit to his talk page in here. Then I wrote a very short message: Now you are really not acting very nicely. What seems to be the problem? --NICrneGore (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
|
I am very much aware that all the little Wikipedias cannot be managed all the time because of their small size and that they are prone to falling under authoritarian control or regime of one course, but if I am not mistaken, there must be some means, some mechanism which exists whenever such possibly exceedingly deep administrator irresponsibility erupts on the Wikipedia. It is to my personal opinion that the double standards used on Croats and Serbs, from the controversy originating in my discussion with SpeedyGonsales, are indeed true and are completely outrageous and unacceptable. It is also worthwhile to point out that it is the duty of the administrator that deletes an article, locks it, or even bans its recreation after deletion, to give the correct and fundamental justification / explanation for his/her acts; and as we can see to the up (mind the discussion with Zeljko, which seems to be a case of trolling), the happenings so far are a very sharp assault on logic itself. Regarding the wiki links, they represent yet another grave breach of Wikipedia's policy. As for the two-week block with a highly uncivil tone and possibly assuming bad faith himself (Ante Perkovic), I uphold that it was completely uncalled for and unjustifiable, possibly another misuse of administration rights.
I hope anyone will be able to assist. --NICrneGore (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is not the proper place to discuss your issue. Editors and administrators on the English wikipedia have no rights at other language wikipedias and cannot resolve your dispute. You might see if the other wikipedia has something along the lines of WP:ANI (a place to ask for administrator intervention). Also, please note that is is not proper to follow editors around. That is considered wikistalking. In general, before you create an article, gather your facts from reliable sources, giving fair weight to all theories to create an article with a neutral point of view that meets the relevant notability guidelines (sorry to link to only the English guidelines, but I assume there are similar ones on the other wikipedia). I would recommend that during your block you read the policies and guidelines on the Croatian wikipedia so that next time you will know what is acceptable and what is not. Karanacs (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)Most English wikipedia users can't help you. You'd be better off looking for help at the Meta page for requesting help on a particular project; editors with multiproject rights and multilingual abilities are more likely to be active there. GRBerry 20:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a case o wikistalking, as the discussion went on on my personal talk page. Percisely WP:RS and WP:NOTE are the things I rely upon, next to WP:NOR, and there are evidence breaches of these policies.
- Yes thank you, that's actually what I wanted to know. --NICrneGore (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Different projects can have vastly different policies. While original research policies are probably pretty consistent, notability rules and other inclusion standards can vary significantly between projects. What might be a perfectly acceptable article on one project might be able to be speedy deleted on others. Mr.Z-man 22:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, NI. This is not the right place, but since you started it...
- You were blocked for disturbing wikipedia by acting like a spoiled kid with no patience.
- A week ago, we (admins) started a little project of countering systematic croatian bias on croatian wikipedia. For example, here you can see bosnian Croat(!) who asks sources for pro-Croatian parts of the text, so we could have referenced claims, not pro-Croatian essays.
- We have similar situation on Montenegro-related articles, which overemphasise some theories about Montenegro and Red Croatia, but without references. This caused endless discussions on this subject. In order to remove systematic pro-Croatian bias, we decided to ask main pro-Croatian contributor to find references or to remove disputed text. This guy is a bit older, and slow with the computors. He wrote few thousants articles, but learn rules very slow. We teached him how to put references in the articles and gave him 2 weeks to clean the disputed articles. After that, the plan is to remove all the essay-like parts, and to represent claims in the right context, so the reader could distinguish well-known facts from exotic theories of some croatian scientists. The idea is - if we solve this, all other related problems will me much much more easier to solve. So, NI was asked (3 times!) to be patient, and not to bother admins on related problems until we solve the core problem. He didn't wanted to listen.
- So, NI, we decided to block you for 2 weeks so you do not make everyone involved in anty-bias project crazy. If you want to collect references, you know very well that blocking can't stop you and that you can do it here, in your private namespace, and copy it wherever you want later.
- My advice is: learn to be patient and try not to make everyone crazy by constant asking for attenttion. I hope you will learn something from this. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Post on bugzilla plz ty
It would be nice if there was an option at the top of the history page, where we have clicked on 2 radio buttons and pressed the Compare selected versions button, and then we would go back to that point in history, but having 250 older versions to choose to select and 250 newer versions to select. Effectively, a “centering” option from where we are from compared history page, to back to the choosing a number of versions history page. One application of this is when someone gives a link (such as swearing) and then we click on it, but then we want to find a specific user (such as user: kainaw). As you can see, clicking back on the history tab will only return you to the most recent edits, but if we had this option, we would could see when did kainaw reply to User:IntfictExpert, much quicker, and find out when did kainaw reply much sooner with the ctrl+F than without. Post this on bugzilla please thanks (I don’t have an account).68.148.164.166 (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- If I understand you right, you want the option to show "contemporary" history when clicking the History tab from an old revision. This sounds like it could be useful, probably as a Preferences option I would say. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I'll reply on your identical post on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), this doesn't seem to be a policy issue (forgot what page I was on there). --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Notability is not policy policy?
I have run into a situation concerning my participation on wikipedia I am sure you all have encountered as well. That is the fact that countless editors, especially those involved in deletion discussions, cite WP:N as policy. It is however clear that notability is a guideline, not policy. Perhaps we need a policy that simply explains that notability is not a policy. And perhaps we could use that to segue into a policy that defines policies versus guidelines. I can write a draught if nobody else volunteers. Thanks. JeanLatore (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)You can also comment on me here: Wikipedia:Editor_review/JeanLatore
- There already is such a policy, namely WP:PG. And WP:N explicitly says at the top that it's a "notability guideline." Just quote that to them perhaps? Deamon138 (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I tried that, but people seem to weasel around it. JeanLatore (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)You can also comment on me here: Wikipedia:Editor_review/JeanLatore
- You're only complaining because your article is being AfD'd. Notability is not a policy. It is a bar with which to judge the inclusion of content. It is you who are trying to weasel around it by labeling it as not policy. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please try to stay civil sir. But notability is not a policy. So why should I do anything other than to "label" it as such? JeanLatore (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Don't get mad because you got caught. You're just grasping at straws to keep the article from being deleted. There have been countless notability discussions before this. The fact that it is a guideline doesn't change what it is used for. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am not trying to change the guideline of notability. I am just trying to find a better way to educate the masses that notability is indeed a guideline. That's all. JeanLatore (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- The masses already know that. You're making an issue out of nothing. It doesn't matter if it's a guideline, it holds the same weight as it always has. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- That already exists at PG, which explains the difference between policies and guidelines. That said, notability is a pretty widely accepted guideline, and this is something you're going to come across a lot. "Notability is just a guideline", however, is not a good deletion protection argument. It isn't substantive and doesn't really help your stance; the statement of fact that notability is only a suggested guideline to follow rather than hard policy that absolutely has to be followed is not an argument per se, although it can give strength to one if you have it. Celarnor Talk to me 02:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that this is probably the product of a deletion discussion here. Celarnor Talk to me 02:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- The difference between guideline and policy is minimal. What matters is how widely accepted and enforced they are. Policies and guidelines are based on community consensus and actual practice, they don't dictate to the community. Mr.Z-man 02:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- The difference is most certainly not minimal. Policies carry the weight of sanctions and blocks if not followed; a user can get banned for POV pushing; I can't get banned for creating a page about a non-notable band. There's an extensive discussion of the differences between the two somewhere in here. But, yes, they're always open to community discussion and revocation (unless they happen to be one of the ones from the womb of ArbCom). If you see something wrong with notability, bring it forward. Celarnor Talk to me 02:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- No you won't get banned for creating one page about a non-notable band, but you won't get banned for one POV edit either. Try creating a few dozen such articles or repeatedly recreating the same page after someone tells you to stop and see if you can still edit. Intentionally violating most guidelines would be considered disruptive editing. Mr.Z-man 03:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- The difference is most certainly not minimal. Policies carry the weight of sanctions and blocks if not followed; a user can get banned for POV pushing; I can't get banned for creating a page about a non-notable band. There's an extensive discussion of the differences between the two somewhere in here. But, yes, they're always open to community discussion and revocation (unless they happen to be one of the ones from the womb of ArbCom). If you see something wrong with notability, bring it forward. Celarnor Talk to me 02:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I hope that notability always remains a guideline and not a policy; it reminds us that the community can and should be flexible about what should be included in the encyclopedia because of notability concerns. As an example, if a person doesn't meet the letter of WP:BIO but a real consensus of editors feel that there should be a biography here, we keep the article. Contrast this with a policy like verifiability, where we take a hardline approach–no sources = no article. Darkspots (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Is a church an organization?
Is a church considered an "organization" under WP:CSD A7? Specifically, is the article St. Marks Church, Horsham eligible for speedy deletion under that criteria? If not, perhaps churches should be added to the list of things specifically not eligible on Template:Db-a7.Oroso (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- In this particular case, I would say that the article is about the church as a building, not the church as an organisation. In terms of sources, the church is mentioned in the Victoria County History. Based on the 1841 date of founding of the church, it is almost certainly listed in the relevant volume of the Royal Commission of Historical Monuments of England (now merged into English Heritage) – these tend to list all buildings built before 1850. Bluap (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at the article history, the article was created on 7 October 2007. Is there a time limit for speedy deletion? Somehow, it seems unfair that an article could survive for over eight months, and then have someone add a CSD notice to it. Bluap (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've never heard of a time limit: as an admin, if I were presented with an article months or years old that was speedy tagged, I'd investigate its history, and if the article always was eligible for speedy deletion, I'd delete it. But on the context of the question: if it's an article on the congregation, it's a group, but if it's primarily architecture, it's not. Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
New proposed policy on Jimmy Wales' on-wiki authority
See WP:JIMBO. For a rationale for my creation of the page, see its talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
There is now a centralised discussion on the roll, powers, scope and conduct of the Arbitration Committee. Constructive proposals and discussion from the general community are invited. --Barberio (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
After about 2 hours some editors tried to suspend the discussion. I am against that. I commented. What's with that? JeanLatore (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Online versus paper
My denomination has recently placed some of its archives, including the Minutes of Synod — annual publications of the church's top governing body, along with lots of other official data — online, viewable at www.rparchives.org. The other day, I created an article on the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Vernon (because it's on the NRHP), and I used data from some of the Minutes of Synod for the article. All my work was from the printed copies of the Minutes, but in order to make the documents more accessible, I added the rparchives link for the documents, as I know that those files are identical to the actual printed copies. My question is this: as the smallest of the three such documents is 243MB, is it better to have a link like this (since it's so hard to download), or simply go without it? I know that it's not wrong to do this (I'm doing the same thing with another link above, reference #2 in the article), but is it really helpful to link to something that's a quarter of a gigabyte? Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not an unusual size for a PDF. It won't be useful to everyone, but it will be to some. Where's the harm? - Jmabel | Talk 07:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I can't imagine the harm; it's just that many people have told me that they can't access the files because they're so large, so I wondered if there were a point. Thanks for the opinion! Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Devolution
A new policy is under discussion at Wikipedia:Devolution. This is still in the formative stage; comments and discussion sought. Mackensen (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Citation in different article not sufficient
Twice this month I've been reverted after "challenging" information in an article that was only sourced in a different article that was linked to nearby the text I was editing. (To be specific: [2]→[3] and [4]→[5].) The way I see it, if something seems like it needs referencing, it should be done right there in the same article, not in a different article, no matter how prominently linked to — except, perhaps, if the article says something like: "(see Other article)" immediately after the questionable information. Neither of these examples are that explicit (the first relying on a regular running-text wikilink, the second a "main article" link at the top of the section). To support this view, I note that Wikipedia:Summary style#References, citations and external links says, "There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main 'Summary style' article, unless they are required to support a specific point. The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." (emphasis added) To me, this is saying that citations in a different article are not sufficient as sources for information in a given article. But I can't find a more direct statement of this position. If it exists on some other policy page, please point me to it; otherwise, should we consider adding a more explicit policy statement about it to the relevant page(s)? - dcljr (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- We have main articles for the precise purpose of not duplicating information over and over. I agree with those reverts. You're asking for facts on things you need not ask, because there's a helpful link pointing you right to the relevant article where such details are well sourced. These things you request facts for are not things that require specific sources outside their main article. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree, policies on verifiability state that any information that "any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged" should be sourced and wikipedia articles are not reliable third party sources. Of course some information is very obvious (e.g. route 66 is a highway) and need no reference, but once information can seriously be doubted it requires a reference; even if a link to another Wiki article is provided; after all each article need to be assessed on its own quality and not be based on the unknown level of another entry.
- Another issues is that in the showcases I thin the Fact tag for specific unsourced statements would be more useful than the Unsourced:section, as some of the information in the section at hand is indeed not very likely to be challenged; and less so if the background article is well sourced. But that is a minor detail. Arnoutf (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is a very bad idea to depend on a different article to source information. The other article could easily be changed and then there would be no way to verify the information in the current article. If the info should be cited, cite it both places. Karanacs (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Penguin, I understand your point, we're always aiming to be concise, and repeating information is not concise. But this has been argued many times at WT:V and in a variety of contexts, and there's a consensus that no wiki (any wiki) article can be used as the source for another article. The only tool you've got here is the balance between WP:V and WP:POINT: if someone asks you to source something (with an acceptable source, not a wiki page), you have to do it (or else they can remove the material); but if that editor has a habit of asking for things to be sourced that are not "likely to be challenged", whatever that means, and if they're obnoxious enough about it, that's actionable at WP:ANI. I'm not bringing this up to suggest that we start arresting people; I'm saying that that's the only available recourse. WP:V says that you have to provide a cite when challenged. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I mostly agree, but if an editor challenges you knowing that the linked article has citations that support the point he/she is disputing, that editor is already violating WP:POINT. An editor who is aware of a source for a statement should not be challenging that statement because it lacks a citation. Rather, he/she should add the citation him/herself.--Srleffler (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Violating WP:POINT? That seems a bit strong. Not everyone has to fix every problem they notice about an article. Sometimes an editor can simply flag it for others to follow up on. That's perfectly valid. If someone were repeatedly challenging and removing such content, then they might be violating WP:POINT. - dcljr (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I mostly agree, but if an editor challenges you knowing that the linked article has citations that support the point he/she is disputing, that editor is already violating WP:POINT. An editor who is aware of a source for a statement should not be challenging that statement because it lacks a citation. Rather, he/she should add the citation him/herself.--Srleffler (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Penguin, I understand your point, we're always aiming to be concise, and repeating information is not concise. But this has been argued many times at WT:V and in a variety of contexts, and there's a consensus that no wiki (any wiki) article can be used as the source for another article. The only tool you've got here is the balance between WP:V and WP:POINT: if someone asks you to source something (with an acceptable source, not a wiki page), you have to do it (or else they can remove the material); but if that editor has a habit of asking for things to be sourced that are not "likely to be challenged", whatever that means, and if they're obnoxious enough about it, that's actionable at WP:ANI. I'm not bringing this up to suggest that we start arresting people; I'm saying that that's the only available recourse. WP:V says that you have to provide a cite when challenged. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
If it's already well cited in the other article, why not just copy the citation(s)? - Jmabel | Talk 07:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the points made in this discussion, other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. However I feel that OP is misrepresenting the situation somewhat. The first example he provides was a fact that was already sourced. The source beeing an article in the journal Genetics. Unless this journal is not seen as an authorative journal for the topic at hand this should be sufficient sources. The other edits where also not purely a complaint aboutlacking citations, but rather a complaint use of general terms. "Some goverments"... This is covered at WP:weasel. However in this a case might be made that the specifics of which goverments could be better covered in the main article. Taemyr (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Look at the first two diffs more carefully: the Genetics reference is for a completely different fact. - dcljr (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
PROD/AFD
Australia national under-23 football team 2008 Olympic Games campaign is up for AFD currently. As has been noted in the AFD, the article was prodded; the prod was removed, but only twelve days later! Would deletion (without the completion of the days on AFD) be justified under expired-prod grounds? Nyttend (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- No. Although the article could have been deleted before the prod was removed, any editor objecting to a deletion from a prod can request to have the article restored. Articles can be deleted under WP:PROD only when no one disagrees with the deletion. Taemyr (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:N and CSD A7
Does meeting WP:N automatically protect something from being speedy deleted by means of WP:CSD A7? Oroso (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Meeting WP:N does prevent WP:CSD#A7. In fact, as long as the page makes a claim of notability (even without proof), it can't be A7ed. Anomie⚔ 22:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Naming (and referring to) articles about people with initials as their "common" first name
I have a question regarding how Wikipedia references people with initials as their common first name, such as D.J. White. Should the article be named (and referred to) D. J. White or D.J. White? Looking at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Exceptions, it seems to me it should be the former ("D. J. White") based on this text: "Abbreviating names of people: H. G. Wells (not H.G. Wells or HG Wells)" from the wikilink. I am in disagreement with another editor and just want to make sure I am interpreting the convention correctly. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). Generally, Wikipedia uses spaced initials with periods (full stops) for the names of people; however, I cannot find an explicit Manual of Style stating this convention. Bluap (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Neither can I; it seems to be taken for granted. It probably falls under the general rule that full stops in text should always be followed by a space. It makes sense to me.
- Still, a guideline should probably be written, just to clarify things. Would you mind leaving a message at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style? Waltham, The Duke of 07:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the responses. I posted the issue here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Ambiguity regarding references to articles about people with initials in their name — X96lee15 (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- From what I've read so far: There was discussion in December and January about WP:NCP#Middle names and abbreviated names (which previously enforced this convention). In this December edit, we see "Generally, use the most common format of a name" and "Every point/abbreviation is generally followed by a space, unless when that is demonstrably not the way that name is written most often", which would favour the "D.J. White" format (the former quotation currently exists on the page). Since this January edit, there has not been a mention of spaces after punctuation marks. However, despite these major changes, WP:NC(CN) has not changed much since December. I still feel that I'm missing something though... —LOL T/C 03:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for joining this in discussion LOL. The diffs you provide seem to that "D.J. White" would be appropriate, but looking at WP:NAME right now, it looks like it should be "D. J. White".
- The way I see it, the "generally, use the most common format of a name" refers to "should he be called 'DJ White' or 'Dwayne White, Jr.'". In this case, it's obviously "DJ White". The Wikipedia WP:MOS/WP:NAME then comes in and says how that name should be presented, in which case, currently, it is "D. J. White". But that's just my interpretation of the current convention. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I thought "D.J. White" and "D. J. White" were different formats, but I could be being fooled by that word. However, "format" is used extensively throughout the discussion at WT:NCP. Where does WP:NAME favour "D. J. White"? Sorry, I looked at the table of contents and searched for the keywords "punct", "space", "full stop" and "period", but to no avail. —LOL T/C 04:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think the word "format" is used ambiguously in WP:NCP. However, if you continue to read the sentence, then I think it makes it clearer what "format" means. "Generally, use the most common format of a name: if that is with a middle name or an abbreviation, make the Wikipedia article name conform to that format." It doesn't talk about spacing or layout, it talks about whether or not to use an abbreviation. Also, WP:NAME doesn't talk about initials and abbreviations, but the more-specific naming convention page WP:NCP does. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the rest of the sentence clarifies the word because the condition is just an example. From WP:NAME:
- The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
- Wouldn't the general audience look for "D.J. White" or "DJ White" rather than "D. J. White"? The top Google results show this, and display reliable sources (e.g. EPSN, Yahoo!) as well. Anyhow, I feel that I may be misinterpreting both of these policies and I'm only interested in the final result, so I'll try to lurk for now. —LOL T/C 16:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I did not expect my suggestion above to result in a split discussion, but there, it has. Anyway... As I say in the other thread, I do not believe that to include a space or not between two initials changes the way people most commonly refer to the subject. As I see it, "H. G. Wells" and "Herbert George Wells" are different formats; "H. G. Wells" and "HG Wells" are not. This is most eminent in oral mentions of the name, but I daresay it generally has to do with how people remember the name. This is one of the cases where we should follow standard rules on punctuation, and it is common practice to use full stops after initials and to always have spaces after full stops except in acronyms. Publishing houses and news organisations have their house styles and write initials in a consistent way; we should do the same. Waltham, The Duke of 06:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Concrete suggestions worth discussing at an RfC
I know some may be heartily bored by some of the drama recently, but there is some movement towards some concrete improvements occurring here on the RfC on arbcom:
I think if this is discussed now it will be a good outcome of a messy affair, so the more input the better. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Challenged
I am proposing some new text be added to the wp:verify policy on its talk page here. This addresses the often used phrase "material challenged or likely to be challenged" which is referenced as a policy quote over two-thousand times in wikipedia but never actually defined anywhere. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on that page. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
youtube as a citation source
Is there any blanket policy concerning using YouTube as a reliable source? Seems like it would be considered a self published source since anyone can put just about anything up there, though it often the most convenient place at best and the only place at worst to find some material.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- It should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Occasionally, companies and nonprofit organizations put legitimate info up on YouTube and link it from their official websites, because they don't want to pay for the bandwidth. These sources could be quite reliable. I've seen at least one demo video for a published research paper published on YouTube. Dcoetzee 00:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed some TV networks put official promos on YouTube, for example BBC and CBS have YouTube channels . Don't link to unofficial uploads of promos, as they are very likely to be copyvios. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- As already said, it should be handled on a case by case basis. If it's obviously a copyright violation and the uploader had no place putting it up there, then no, don't put it in the article. But otherwise, yes, go right ahead. Celarnor Talk to me 08:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also many record companies put official videos on Youtube, but make sure that you link to the official video uploaded by the official channel. Corvus cornixtalk 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that you should generally not consider YouTube as a reliable source to cite under any circumstances, even if the video is from a reliable source . YouTube users have no standards whatsoever, YouTube is not screened by anybody, and virtually anything can be posted on their site. To add to the YouTube question, I also believe that any other types of media similar to that should be trusted, including blogs. That is my opinion on the topic.
--Ojay123 (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Footnotes/References
You'll see something like
| “ | 2. ^ a b c d e Rosewater, Mark (2002-08-12). "Codename of the Game". Making Magic. Wizards of the Coast. Retrieved 2006-09-25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
|
” |
You see the a b c d? We don't know excactly what a b c d refering to, because the referencer will just appear as:
| “ | Wizards of the Coast also assigns an internal editor[2] to each set. | ” |
What we need is something like:
| “ | Wizards of the Coast also assigns an internal editor[2c] to each set. The different editions of the base set, which have varied in size from 295 to 449 cards, contain cards which have all been printed before, with the exception of Alpha, which was the game's first set. Wizards of the Coast releases Magic cards in expansion packs[2d]. | ” |
As you can see, with out my proposal, you don't know WHERE the letter (a b c d, etc.) is refering to.
Ok, so I have a few limitations, such as the pointed hat\accent\carat\lambda does not look like what it does in <references/> and I could not internal blue link [2], [2c], or [2d].
Please post this on Bugzilla, since I don't haven an account, thanks!68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm really not seeing what the problem is here. The abcd just points out that there are multiple times that this one reference is used in the article. Everything marked [2] is all using the same reference. The letters only appear in the references section so you can click on each one to take you up in the article, and see which parts of the article use that reference. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, this is a misunderstanding rather than a bug. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Um, unless I'm missing something, I believe the last two replies misunderstood the issue the anon user was raising: he was saying that since the note in the text only says [2], if you click down to the footnote as you're reading the article, you won't necessarily know which letter to click on to get you back up to where you were. I've had this problem myself. It's not an issue with single-instance footnotes, which is how someone can get into the habit of clicking down and then back up in the first place. Now when I encounter multiple backlinks in a footnote, I just hit the "back" button because I don't want to try to figure out which backlink to choose. Including the letter, a la [2a], would help to counter this confusion, once people learned that's what it was for. - dcljr (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- "I just hit the 'back' button": doesn't that solve the problem? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not all browsers work the same way. - dcljr (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure all browsers have a "back" button or keystroke. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- However, many of them restrict "Back" behaviour to the page level; following a link to an anchored location on the same page doesn't always count as something you can "Back" out of. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 17:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please name these "many" browsers? All of the browsers I've tested (Firefox 2, IE6, Safari 3.1.1 for windows, lynx 2.8.6rel.4, and w3m 0.5.2) allow you to "back" out of anchors. Anomie⚔ 00:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Some older versions of the same, maybe some minor and/or lightweight browsers; personally I don't consider it a big enough problem to look into it in more detail. :-) No real objection if somebody wants to try and do something about it, though, but I don't know if it's a big deal in terms of the number of such references we have either. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 11:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please name these "many" browsers? All of the browsers I've tested (Firefox 2, IE6, Safari 3.1.1 for windows, lynx 2.8.6rel.4, and w3m 0.5.2) allow you to "back" out of anchors. Anomie⚔ 00:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
k. d. lang
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Capitalisation. Whether or not to capitalize all proper nouns comes up from time to time. The current vote is 3-0 in favor of "k. d. lang" on the talk page. My understanding is that the only current exceptions to capitalizing a proper noun are for a few companies that have a trademark capitalizing the second letter, such as iPod. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your understanding is correct. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Non-capitalisation of "k. d. lang" is perfectly covered by WP:NCP#Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Privacy policy has been marked as a policy
Wikipedia:Privacy policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing to see here ... please keep moving ... the page has and continues to point to Wikimedia:Privacy policy, so it really a sort of soft redirect, but it's now marked as a policy page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Articles about couples, rather than individuals
I came across this stub article today: Andrew Turner (director). It's not very good yet, but the subject will easily pass WP:N. However, fundamentally, the article's about a couple, whose notability seems to be shared. I see no value in creating two parallel articles about them, as their notability comes from their joint business and sporting interests. I'm thinking about proposing a rename to Andrew and Sharon Turner or similar and wondered if there's precedant for this kind of move, or if there's good reason to fork it instead. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- While I am unaware of any moves that would qualify as a precedent for this case, there are a large number of precedents for combining closely linked individuals with no separate notability into a single article. Look at the plethora of articles on musical groups, athletic teams, and comedy duos. The only caveat I would give you is to make sure that appropriate redirects for the individual names are in place after performing the move. --Allen3 talk 13:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- That makes sense to me. I'll hang in here a bit longer to see if there are any dissenting views. Otherwise, my next steps would be to post to the article talk and to WT:FOOTY just to ensure consensus. --Dweller (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
See Category:Married couples for examples, though it looks like some of those articles cover a pairing even when the individuals have separate articles. Probably the only time you'll ever see Sonny and Cher categorized with Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Postdlf (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Lol. I'm convinced. In fact, so convinced, that I'll make the move and then notify. It's easy enough to restore if there's consensus against, but I can't see that coming. --Dweller (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Vernon and Irene Castle seems like a perfect example of when an article should be about the couple as a unit. Corvus cornixtalk 18:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've recently been copyediting Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone, which is about a couple (they each have their own separate article as well). Dcoetzee 06:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Even the Wright brothers have a single article together. Nyttend (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
vd
For the templates, we can direct view , discuss, edit a template via somthing that looks like this:
v • d • e
in a upper left corner of a template. We also need to go directly to the history of the template. So we could have somthing like
v • d • e • h
. Although this might create a bit of ambiguity, cause it could the discussion history, so, I have no idea if there will be use for another proposal:
v • d • e • i • h • u
with, i=add a comment, h=template history, and u=discussion history.
If this requires a change in the program, please post this on Bugzilla (I don't have an account). Thanks!68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is something you should discuss at {{Tnavbar}}. Personally, I think adding such specific links defeats the purpose of quick navigation. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Enacting navigational pop-ups is the easiest method to quickly access the full menu. I believe most people are not interested in the additional options, and would find the suggested extension intrusive. Waltham, The Duke of 06:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, let's keep it simple. The VDE buttons will get you to the template page, you can access all other options from there. Mainspace should not be overly complicated to ease the life of the editor, mainspace should be reader friendly first. Arnoutf (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Enacting navigational pop-ups is the easiest method to quickly access the full menu. I believe most people are not interested in the additional options, and would find the suggested extension intrusive. Waltham, The Duke of 06:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Question from huwiki
Hi! maybe I am on the wrong village pump but I was wondering where I can find the sanctions of breaching the WP:HARASS policy? (Huwiki wants to adopt it.) Thanks, Cassandro (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
See WP:HARASS#Dealing with harassment. Basically, the sanctions are whatever administrator(s) decide is appropriate. We don't have any formal list that says "If you do A, then your punishment is B". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Citations to Wikipedia
I assume citeding a source in Wikipedia for another assertion in Wikipedia is generally deprecated. However, I have a special case I've run into where I would like to get the opinion of other editors. I have been unable to find a policy or guideline in Wikipedia:Reliable sources or Wikipedia:Verifiability or related pages.
What about the situation where a List of... article, which would ordinarily have no citations and merely provide a hyperlinked list of terms to get to other WP articles, has grown over time to become a rather more "sophisticated list." An example where this has occurred is List of private spaceflight companies. The table that has emerged adds some useful information to the list, but the editor who added the table did not cite sources for his/her assertions and noone else has added references over the past ten months.
Question: Assuming the editor built the table from information in the various WP articles, would it be sufficient to source them from WP, perhaps with a date accessed on each cite? Or should the table not exist in a List of ... article at all? Or what? N2e (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Lists may be what you are looking for. In a nutshell, sophisticated lists are good, sourcing from unreliable sources like WP is bad. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- This comes up from time to time at When to cite and Verifiability (WP:V), and details are often worked out at Featured list candidates. Last I checked, we had over 90K disambiguation (DAB) pages, and they're a kind of list, and I don't recall having seen any cites on any of them. But WP:V still reigns supreme: anything in article-space can be challenged, and if you can't provide a source, it can be removed. Of course, if someone starts wandering around DAB pages making random challenges, and they don't respond to dispute resolution, they're setting themselves up for a trip to WP:ANI for completely misunderstanding community standards. So, if a list looks a lot like a DAB page, it probably doesn't need citations, and you might raise some eyebrows for even asking, but if it has material that looks like it needs to be sourced, then it probably needs to be sourced. Is that circular enough? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
See also this 2005 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigational templates#Lists and references
As for DAB pages, they're not articles ("Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace" - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), first sentence). List of... pages are articles ("Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others" - Wikipedia:Lists#Listed items). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the great advice and pointers, everyone. Please also feel free to drop over to the list: List of private spaceflight companies to constructively critique or suggest what should be done to resolve the issues with the tables in that list. N2e (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Francis is correct, but WP:V and WP:POINT are correct, too. If there is material on a DAB page that requires sourcing, then it should be sourced (in which case the page is probably morphing into something that shouldn't be a DAB page) or removed; if a list has the same function as a DAB page, you can challenge the material and force it to be cited or removed, but the consensus, the logic, the community standards that decided that DAB material didn't need to be sourced don't disappear when you click a link. It it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks, it's a duck. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Speedy, Prod, and AFD
I wrote an article last month called "Not sold in stores." Within minutes, an editor had tagged a "speedy delete" on the piece. I contested it. Another editor removed the speedy delete. Then soon yet another editor put a "prod" tag on the article, which was later removed by another editor. Then the article went to AFD and discussed extensively for about a week. The community decided to keep the article.
My point is that if all new articles to Wikipedia were vetted exactly in the same way we would have less crap on here and a finer, tighter, encyclopedia. Every new article on here should go through the same three-stage "vetting" process. That is my proposal.
A related proposal that I just thought of is that non-admins should be allowed to delete "speedy" or "prod" articles after reaching a certain auto-confirmation level, say like 50 edits.
My "Not sold in stores" article now has the imprimatur of Wikipedia. I am so proud -- and we should evaluate all the articles as carefully and lovingly as we did that one, starting next month. Who do you all (the community) think about that? JeanLatore (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think that is not a good idea, because if everybody were allowed speedy delete you would have run into the fairly big chance that that is just what would have happened with your article; it being speedily deleted, without you even having the time/chance to contest. Arnoutf (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- That (about users having power to delete articles) was just basically a side-thought. My main theme was about the three-step process to evaulate new articles. JeanLatore (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- m:Deletionism vs. m:Inclusionism. Those meta pages give a little further discussion of the philosophies on deleting things. I'm kind of fond of this image as well for giving a visual aid. I don't personally see a reason to go deletion-happy, pointless orphan articles don't really hurt the project, though some of it is obvious garbage. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your vetting process proposal is. At present, in effect, any article can go through such a 3-stage process, and many do. This happens via the scrutiny of Special:Newpages and patrolling. I suppose I'm wondering what exactly you are suggesting. That every article should be created with a speedy delete tag already attached to it? Surely not, that would be awful! Perhaps that every article should be considered by a (renamed?) AfD-like process. It's just not humanly possible given the sheer rate of creation, even once you strip out the speedies and not-yet-challenged PRODs. But do bear in mind that Special:Newpages actually gets quite a lot of attention from both humans and bots, so there is a 'reasonable' degree of scrutiny. Splash - tk 15:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is a perennial proposal about unbundling the tools. –xenocidic (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The main proposal was about the 3-tiered evaluation process. Its great -- should be mandatory. JeanLatore (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Considering the rather less-than-unanimous consensus there was to keep the article in question, I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's "survived the vetting process". It can (and probably will) still be deleted in the future. As Splash says, the process you describe is already the core of the deletion process. Making it mandatory doesn't seem to gain any real benefits, as people will happily recreate fancruft articles every week if required, while users who are adding genuinely valuable stubs may not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Because its still around, dude. Still around=survived. The opposite of getting deleted. Its there. That's where i got that whacky idea, bro. People that re-create articles get blocked and will give up after a few years. JeanLatore (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- The system simply could not handle every single decent new article going all the way through AfD. That process is massively overburdened as it is.
- Better to continue to allow editor discretion regarding which articles should be put through CSD, PROD, or AfD (and, yes, sometimes all three). At this very moment, there are editors with the Wikipedia:New pages patrol who are sifting through all of the new articles. When they find a decent one, they mark it as patrolled. When they find one that needs deleted, they tag it appropriately. It's not a perfect system, but it works fairly well based on the volunteer resources available. — Satori Son 19:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the comments above, that taking every single new article through speedy/prod/afd would pretty much turn away every user creating pages and overburden these processes. –xenocidic (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, it would send a message to contributors -- Stop and think before you write an article. If you do not want this article to go through CSD, Prod, and AFD all in succession, Do not click save. The encyclopedia will be better for it. JeanLatore (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Rubbish. Spartaz Humbug! 20:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Anything that discourages people from trying something at least once is completely antithetical to everything that Wikipedia and wiki philosophy stands for. Being BOLD is one of our most central ideas. You do something first, and if it isn't a good idea, then someone will point out what's wrong with it and you won't do it again; you've learned your lesson from your very own little trial by fire. We have plenty of people who analyze new pages and tag them appropriately or mark them as patrolled if they look okay. The system works fine enough as it is.
- Regarding that individual article, I really think its unlikely that it's unlikely to survive for any extended period of time. This "vetting process" only occurs with articles of questionable value. There's no point in speedy-tagging an article that no one is going to want deleted, just like there's no reason to AfD something no one feels really needs to be deleted. There's just no point; those things are there for when concerns are raised about notability or other issues inherent to the article that can't be repaired by normal editing; they simply aren't the kind of mechanism that you put something through if you don't want that mechanism to act on it. Celarnor Talk to me 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Don't we have a vetting process - it's called AfD? doktorb wordsdeeds 21:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- AfD is not something that every article is meant to go through; it is where people discuss problematic articles. All articles are not problematic; it doesn't follow that all articles need to be discussed in the "Delete/Keep/Merge/Redirect" environment of AfD, which is meant to deal with articles that have irreparable problems and only those articles. Perhaps perennial RFCs on each article are more along the lines of what the OP was thinking. Celarnor Talk to me 21:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Don't we have a vetting process - it's called AfD? doktorb wordsdeeds 21:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
(undent) If we had an infinite number of editors, or an infinite amount of time available from existing editors, then sure, a complete vetting process for each new article would be great. But we get several thousand new articles every day, while the AfD process has roughly 100 new articles begin that process each day. If we increase the AfD workload by at least an order of magnitude, that means less available editing time for other things, and it means that routine "keep" decisions would swamp the number of cases where thorough discussions are important. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- What you're actually saying is: "AFD does not scale" O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not sold in stores (marketing), which is completely unsourced and appears to be OR, should never have had to go to AfD, and likely only passed because there seemed to be consensus to merge rather than delete. Sadly, the closing admin left the merge for someone else to do, and it's really not worth the time. This proposal, similarly, seems to be geared toward wasting more time and effort of good-faith contributors, rather than improving WP content. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just to clarify the above-poster's mischaracterisation of the situation, there simply was no consenus on the AFD for "Not sold in stores." There were 13 firm comments recommending either Keep, Delete, or merge (distinct from the comment comments espousing secondary concerns). Of the 13, only 3 were for delete, 5 were for merge, and 5 were to keep the article. JeanLatore (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- You have counted the !votes correctly, but I was offering my opinion of the consensus. Regardless, my intention was to give people here some insight into who was proposing such a radical change. My apologies if my previous comments made it seem like I was calling you a persistently disrutive troll. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just to clarify the above-poster's mischaracterisation of the situation, there simply was no consenus on the AFD for "Not sold in stores." There were 13 firm comments recommending either Keep, Delete, or merge (distinct from the comment comments espousing secondary concerns). Of the 13, only 3 were for delete, 5 were for merge, and 5 were to keep the article. JeanLatore (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- i am extremley uncomfortable with giving every editor "speedy delete" powers. all it would accomplish is to creat e huge burden for vandalism fighters since the vandal s would have a cool new way to destroy the Projec.t As for the rest of the proposal, I like it except it might be ciscouraging to new users. Unlike a paper encyclopedia, Wikipedia can be endlessly eself-correcting and has an infinite amount of time to improve. The fact that a rubbishy article is create d is not really a bad thing since it will be caught and corected in most instances. There is no real need for a veting mechanism to destory bad articles before they are created since its always better to create and improve an article thatn to try and create a "perfect" article right from the get go (which can not happen since Smith Jones (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Something to be done?
Is there something to be done re: people who try to reset other peoples passwords? It seems like a hazard and I'm not sure what has already been done to stop that? Smith Jones (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Bring em on. JeanLatore (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing can be done about it. It's a bit stupid of these people to try as it sends a password to the registered email account rather than gives a message saying, "Congratulations! You've just reset this user's password! This user's new password is 1234!" but there are cases where one tries to reset one's password legitimately. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Unless the person also has access to your email account, there is no security risk. We can't block people from trying to log in, so there's really nothing we can do about it, its just a minor annoyance. Mr.Z-man 23:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Can an editor's password be reset without that editor's consent? --SMP0328. (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- not yet unless they have your email password (which takes a bit longer to get), but since that Community seems determined to lets this slide then one way somehow a compuer-savvy hacker will find a way to get a sys-op account and wreak some seirous vandalism. Smith Jones (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really see this as an issue. Don't publish the email address that you keep in your preferences, and ensure it has a strong password. –xenocidic (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- If someone can hack your email account, presumably they can hack your Wikipedia account directly as well. The odds of it happening are so low it isn't worth the trouble to do anything about it. And if someone hacks your email, them getting your Wikipedia password is probably the least of your worries. Mr.Z-man 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- not yet unless they have your email password (which takes a bit longer to get), but since that Community seems determined to lets this slide then one way somehow a compuer-savvy hacker will find a way to get a sys-op account and wreak some seirous vandalism. Smith Jones (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Can an editor's password be reset without that editor's consent? --SMP0328. (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Unless the person also has access to your email account, there is no security risk. We can't block people from trying to log in, so there's really nothing we can do about it, its just a minor annoyance. Mr.Z-man 23:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing can be done about it. It's a bit stupid of these people to try as it sends a password to the registered email account rather than gives a message saying, "Congratulations! You've just reset this user's password! This user's new password is 1234!" but there are cases where one tries to reset one's password legitimately. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Merge after AFD
Can someone point me to the template placed on article where the AFD has been closed as merge, please (it says that if the merge is not carried out promptly the article may be renominated)? Smile a While (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- The template is Template:Afd-mergefrom and Template:Afd-mergeto. Davewild (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ah; many thanks. Smile a While (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Featured media, video and audio
I advise to create "Featured media". Its subcategories would be "Featured pictures", "Featured audio" and "Featured video" policy. Putting video just under pictures is not correct in my opinion. Discussions here and here already.--Kozuch (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
How to handle non-English sources in the English Wikipedia?
I ran into a lot of non-English, and therefore, non-verifiable sources for the article Project 921-3. Does the English language WP have any policy about how to handle this? N2e (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, non English sources are allowed (although English sources are preferred). No, non-english sources are not "non-verifiable" as long as they can be accessed by anyone, and the language itself can be learned. Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources is the relevant policy. Davewild (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. That answers the question. N2e (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is substantial evidence that a foreign language is easier to learn than the basics of Quantum Electrodynamics. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. That answers the question. N2e (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion and an RfC at the above link of a proposal to change the language of the current blocking policy (which prohibits blocks whose sole purpose is to cool down an angry user) and to allow "cool-down" blocks under certain circumstances. Wider community input would be appreciated. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Image warnings
Lafayette Jackson Veterans Organization uses a couple of images that I've nominated for deletion. I've followed the instructions of the IFD procedure page, which says "You must inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page as well as notify the discussion pages of articles using that image using {{subst:idw|Image:Image_name.ext}}" The template given, however, is a warning for user talk pages, and as such looks rather odd on the LJVO talk page. Is there any better warning? Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments about no consensus at AFD
Apologies if I've got this in the wrong Village pump, but I debated for a while and thought this was the most appropriate one. Anyway, I've been trying to come up with an alternative solution to the "default keep" of a no consensus result of AFDs, since in reality no consensus isn't a decision for keep. Here's my idea: currently we relist items if there's little discussion to get more consensus, right? Well, why don't we do that with "no consensus" AFDs? I mean, if it's a serious endless argument and after that, well, I'm not sure what we can do there. But I think it would be perfectly reasonable to have at least one shot at getting a consensus by extending an AFD for another five days. Comments? Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 18:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- If there is a low participation at an AFD then a relist to get more opinions can make sense. However we already have difficulty with getting enough people to comment on AFDs and getting even more AFDs being relisted than we already do, will just make AFD more backlogged. Secondly if you still disagree with a no consensus then it is perfectly acceptable to renominate the article for AFD after a reasonable length of time (two to three months is usually fine for a no consensus). If the concerns raised in the first AFD have not been addressed it is more likely that the article will be deleted the second time round. Davewild (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's not always like that, though, with concerns over the article not always being addressed. Sometimes it ends up in a debate over whether something either fits or doesn't fit a guideline, such as this debate where interpretations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the inheritance of notability are in heavy dispute. I believe a relist in these instances can be helpful and trendsetting for any further policy discussions that could be needed at some point. I believe backlogging is a minor concern at this point, since I don't see many articles each day ending in "no consensus", just a few that should be addressed for sure. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 19:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- If it is a policy disagreement that cannot be agreed on in the AFD (especially when there was a reasonable participation as there was on that one) then I think it is better to be discussed on the relevant policy or guideline page. I see no reason to think continued discussion would have led to a definite consensus over an issue where there is such a disagreement between people. Until the community as a whole agrees on the issues discussed in that AFD no consensus's are likely to continue to take place. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- And that's part of what I'm trying to help out with this proposal, because I think that quite a few "no consensus" could possibly be resolved with this proposal. Of course, it's all a matter of opinion, I'm not one to speak for all of Wikipedia. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 19:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- As for that particular dispute that I mentioned, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, since it has nothing to do with this proposal and does not require further disussion here. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 19:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- If it is a policy disagreement that cannot be agreed on in the AFD (especially when there was a reasonable participation as there was on that one) then I think it is better to be discussed on the relevant policy or guideline page. I see no reason to think continued discussion would have led to a definite consensus over an issue where there is such a disagreement between people. Until the community as a whole agrees on the issues discussed in that AFD no consensus's are likely to continue to take place. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's not always like that, though, with concerns over the article not always being addressed. Sometimes it ends up in a debate over whether something either fits or doesn't fit a guideline, such as this debate where interpretations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the inheritance of notability are in heavy dispute. I believe a relist in these instances can be helpful and trendsetting for any further policy discussions that could be needed at some point. I believe backlogging is a minor concern at this point, since I don't see many articles each day ending in "no consensus", just a few that should be addressed for sure. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 19:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- "No consensus" means exactly what it sounds like. "No consensus to change the state of this article" means that we keep it for the time being while we seek further consensus on the matter. Above all else, "no consensus to change" most certainly doesn't mean "consensus to delete", which is a proposal that has been shot down before with regards to BLPs. Usually, in the cases of low participation, the no consensus AfDs do get relisted for an additional five days if the closing admin thinks that further discussion might yield a useful result; if it can't, then it's probably a policy issue and, as it has been pointed out, the appropriate place to discuss those is at the relevant talkpages, not in an AfD specific to a single article. Celarnor Talk to me 20:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Then why do I never see anyone trying to seek further consensus on matters closed as "no consensus"? Maybe if this proposal does not work, then we need to look into making sure we have consensus for such acts, even if it takes more time. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 20:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's because Wikipedia has a bias toward inclusion of articles. Like a tie goes to "keep" rather than delete. Unless something is a CSD candidate, once an article is posted on wikipedia, it is presumed notable, and the only way to delete it is with a strong consensus for delete. Your policy furthermore could be interpreted (and pardon me if this was not your intent) as "sore-loser-ness" in that you propose keeping AFD's open past their expiration to achieve "consensus," where the only resulting change could be to "consenus to delete." JeanLatore (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- People seek further consensus on matters all the time, usually by relisting an article at AFD after an appropriate breathing period. This allows people to step away from the dispute, and gives the nominator a chance to start afresh a statement that reflects the concerns presented in the first AFD. One problem with the debate you link is an inadequate nomination statement, which contains simply a link to a policy with no explanation of why it applies in this case.
- If the closing admin believes that a lack of participation was the problem, he's always free to relist it and frequently will. However, I think most experienced AFD closers will develop a good sense of when more discussion is likely to bring resolution and when it is likely to be wasted energy. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- You've seriously never seen any relisted discussions? One, two, three, four were relisted yesterday ... Celarnor Talk to me 00:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Then why do I never see anyone trying to seek further consensus on matters closed as "no consensus"? Maybe if this proposal does not work, then we need to look into making sure we have consensus for such acts, even if it takes more time. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 20:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
No consensus means no consensus to delete. Article kept by default. No problem with this. II 01:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment No consensus is a valuable procedural check on deletion. "no consensus to delete" only applies if the page does not violate core policies (or foundation issues) and so the benefit of the doubt belongs with the page author. We don't really have a problem with too few pages being deleted at AfD. maintaining the benefit of the doubt allows us to do things like limit debate (five days) and delete pages permanently. Protonk (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:Wikipedia is not a Dictionary issues
Hi. =) This is just a notification that I've attempted to restart discussion at WT:Wikipedia is not a dictionary on the current state of that policy. There is a growing gulf between the actual practice of commentators at AfD and the policy as stated. Please feel free to discuss there. Powers T 13:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the old proposal to Wikipedia:Ombudsmen Committee/archive 1 and created a new version and tried to alleviate the concerns with the first one. I'd appreciate some more views on it before we even consider putting it to the community to decide if we want this or not. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
AFDs to delete multiple related pages
According to WP:AFD, If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately.. However I'm concerned that withing Wikipedia:WikiProject Football there has been a recent trend to try and bulk delete many articles where at least one, if not more of the articles could stand on it's own merits (not necessarily "does stand", but "could stand").
One recent example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Asante where four of the six listed articles had previously survived an earlier AFD. Clearly these should now be discussed individually.
Another recent example is where severn articles about players are proposed for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lascody where one previously survived an AFD, another is the goal keeper of the current US men's soccer team for the Olympics, and a third had a Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column. I feel these should also be discussed indvidually, as there isn't much similiarity between each case.
I realise that it is more efficient to list multiple articles for deletion when it's clear that deletion is the likely outcome. But I'm concerned that when the outcome is less clear, that grouping articles together is more likely result in the lack of a proper review for each article. Nfitz (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Another example today Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overton United F.C. where articles for 9 football teams are being discussed. I note a lack of comments - is there a better place to discuss whether this is appropriate bundling or not? Nfitz (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- WT:AFD? Usually if the pages are substantially different, editors will say so and the nom will either withdraw or be closed early for relisting. Most of the time, however, the issues are basically the same and a SERIOUS congestion and duplication problem is avoided by listing them together. See the Warhammer 40k listings that are up now for a counter example. Finally, I've seen multiple AFD's closed separately (Close one as keep, the rest as delete, etc), so I'm not sure the problem is that large. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- From my experience, unless the articles are nearly identical and have the same problem, a mass AFD will almost always end in a "keep" or "no consensus" even if the articles all should have been deleted but for different reasons. Its almost always best to nominate separately. Mr.Z-man 23:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Moving the search box (again)
Tim Starling has made it possible to move the search box to anywhere in the MediaWiki sidebar. I did a quick test, and took a screenshot of a possible setup. Other possible setups include having it between 'Navigation' and 'Interaction'.
— Werdna • talk 02:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just so you know, we often get requests such as this... ie. moving the search box up higher if possible. It would be a good idea to weigh that into any decision to change it (it would be better for us to do so
:-)). Cbrown1023 talk 02:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)- Tim Starling has made it possible, not mandatory. It's a MediaWiki message change (see history of MediaWiki:Sidebar). — Werdna • talk 02:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- This user script by h2g2bob allows you to re-order those 4 menus any way you like it. I've got it set to toolbox, search, interact, navigate. Very admin-friendly. Works in Firefox, not sure about IE. –xenocidic (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
We're talking about a site-wide change. — Werdna • talk 03:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- The search bar is fine where it is. Although it's nice to have the ability to change its location, I don't see why a change is desirable. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 13:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's hard to find if it's placed under the logo. I would perhaps
supportnot object to moving it to between the Navigation and Interaction boxes but I don't think it's strictly necessary. Powers T 13:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)- I don't have a problem with where it is right now, but I'd say putting it one step up (between nav and interaction) looks slightly better. It's certainly a subjective and minor change, though. ~ mazca t | c 21:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's hard to find if it's placed under the logo. I would perhaps
- The search bar is fine where it is. Although it's nice to have the ability to change its location, I don't see why a change is desirable. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 13:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
RFC on allowing Admin Bots and with what rules for them
Please speak up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots. Thank you. rootology (T) 13:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
BJBot has started damaging a large set of articles we are working on
There's a large set of country-specific drafts (country profiles) in the Wikipedia namespace that are under development with the intent to move them to article space when they are completed. This set of pages is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics, and when complete they will be presented on Lists of basic topics.
The drafts include images of the flags and coats of arms of the countries the pages are about.
However, BJBot has started removing the coats of arms images from the drafts, replacing them with a notice image that includes on its page a warning that if we (the editors working on this addition to Wikipedia) put them back, we'll be banned.
These articles are being developed specifically for article space, and they are specifically about the countries that the coats of arms represent. This falls under fair use. An exemption should be made to the Wikipedia rule that images of this type can't exist in project space. I don't believe the rule should apply to article drafts.
The article drafts that BJBot has hit so far (that I know of) are:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Topical outlines/Draft/Topical outline of Tibet --> see this version
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Topical outlines/Draft/Topical outline of Tokelau
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics/Draft/List of basic Cocos (Keeling) Islands topics
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Topical outlines/Draft/Topical outline of the United Arab Emirates
There are over 250 pages in the set (one for every country in the World), and if the bot hits all of these it will create a lot of work, because we are manually adjusting the size of the coats of arms to match the size of the flags they are paired with. The bot threatens to wreck that work, and has already wrecked some of it.
I fixed one of them, but after reading the ban warning, I wrote to BJBot's operator and got the following response:
- "Non-free images can't be used in the project space, regardless of the intended destination. In the interim you can link the images or wrap them in <nowiki></nowiki> tags." (User talk:Bjweeks)
I requested that he reply on my talk page, but he wasn't even polite enough to do that.
We're trying to attract editors to these pages to participate in their development, and it would help immensely if prospective editors could see how the pages are shaping up. One of the most visually stunning features of the pages are the respective countries' symbols.
Your input concerning our problem would be most appreciated.
The Transhumanist 00:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, Bjweeks is right. You're not supposed to use fair use in any other space than mainspace. Images are not so important that it will do irreparable harm to comment it out in the interim. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I guess just move the articles into mainspace now (mark "under construction") or leave off the images for now. I do agree it's annoying. Perhaps we should allow "work in progress" tags which put off project space deletions for 30 days or something. I don't think there would be a legal impact, but I'm not a lawyer. Hobit (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'd suggest just linking to the image until the article is ready. Just make removing the leading colon a step in moving the article to mainspace. The bot is simply enforcing foundation policy. Resolute 04:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
BJweeks was too nice. Non-free flags and coats of arms are rarely acceptable at English Wikipedia, as a free alternative can normally be drawn using the blazon. (Citing WP:NFCC#1)
Resolute, technically, the restriction to article namespace isn't Foundation policy but English Wikipedia policy, though indeed a very well established one.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree; he was being too nice. We can't have non-free images in anything but the mainspace. It isn't going to cause irreparable harm for you to comply with existing policy and either comment it out in the meantime to keep it from rendering, or move it into the mainspace and work on it there, or create your own copy with a blank blazon. Celarnor Talk to me 10:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree entirely. Bots are meant to aid human editing of Wikipedia - Bjweeks' bot isn't doing this. Also once again we are getting tied up in rules and losing sight of what should be our main focus, writing an encyclopaedia. However probably the best solution is to move the articles to the mainspace and work on them there. Cedars (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- They also do things that are too tedious to do manually, such as go through all the non-free images and making sure they aren't being used improperly. Not only is this an encyclopedia, but a free encyclopedia. We could easily just discard WP:NFCC and use whatever images we want wherever we want, but we've chosen to use free content. Mr.Z-man 03:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
For what it is worth, the same basic issue applies to encyclopedic content in Template space. See for example {{New South Wales Police Force}} and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2008/June#Template:New South Wales Police Force use of image. Peet Ern (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Notability - Law enforcement agency
If anyone is interested, there is now a proposal for discussion regarding notability standards for law enforcement agency articles at Wikipedia:Notability (law enforcement agency). Peet Ern (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Ombudsmen Committee formal proposal
Resolvedthis proposal was rejected and has been marked as such.
My fellow Wikipedians, the Ombudsmen Committee proposal page has been expanded, updated and significantly upgraded. On the basis of this RfC and the support of at least two Arbitrators, numerous Administrators and many regular editors, we are proud to formally announce the proposal of an Ombudsmen Committee for community comment and consensus. For seven months this proposal has been discussed, debated, edited and crunched. I hope it meets the demands of the community and only serves to further the for benefit of all Wikipedians. With great hope, Bstone (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea, well developed. Go for it. Arnoutf (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but as it stands right now, I don't see much of a point to it. If it cannot overturn decisions, but merely echoes the conscience of the community, I believe it has no real purpose. —Animum (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Animum. I think I know what you're conveying. The idea is that a uniform, official voice and opinion would hold more power than many individual voices. Being that OmbCom would be official it means ArbCom and other groups which have come to a decision by an irregular process would suffer from the stigma of an official criticism. Is there any way I might be able to obtain your support? Bstone (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- In the way I see things, the community itself is already that official voice. If there's something the Arbitration Committee won't do when the community feels something went wrong, I don't think it will respond any differently to the Ombudsmen Committee. The largest, earliest, and most powerful institution Jimbo put into effect, albeit unintentionally, was the community. If the Arbitration Committee is responsive to its criticisms, there's no need for the Ombudsmen Committee; if not, the Ombudsmen Committee can do nothing more than the collective can. Regards, —Animum (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with the proposal as it stands is in ensuring that the committee would (a) carry appropriate weight and (b) reflect the opinion of the community. I would support giving it a "trial run" of, say, three months, after which it would be possible to reflect on the whole process, to determine whether it is a useful body in principle and to modify its structure as may be necessary. If there was a closely defined trial, I would give full support to the idea. Creating it without some kind of defined experiment is, I think, foolish and I would oppose that at this time. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Animum. I think I know what you're conveying. The idea is that a uniform, official voice and opinion would hold more power than many individual voices. Being that OmbCom would be official it means ArbCom and other groups which have come to a decision by an irregular process would suffer from the stigma of an official criticism. Is there any way I might be able to obtain your support? Bstone (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
May I comment on objections above. While there are no official powers there are two things that may happens. First, an editor who has gotten on the wrong side of ArbCom and is supported by an easily approachable OmbCom may feel much better, and may sit out any punishment more easily to return positively to the project (this in itself is already a huge gain in my view) Secondly, (if the OrbCom committee manages to gain the respect of the community) it may be that an OrbCom judgement may help an editor to appeal to ArbCom and be taken seriously. Of course, ArbCom holds final say, but if a respected OrbCom says something high quality ArbCom members may reconsider their own judgement, likely more than after comments by unspecified community members. These two benefits may exist without any formal authority, and are in my opinion substantial enough to support the idea (just as a sideline, before today, I did not hear anything of this initiative) Arnoutf (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Arnoutf, thank you for the response! You summed it up quite nicely. I sincerely appreciate it. Bstone (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This seems like more bureaucracy with no benefit. The community's consensus should be reflected 10x before something would need to goto something like a Ombudsmen Committee. I just see no reason to further clutter Wikipedia. Beam 20:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- This just seems like an excuse to create a new userbox. John Reaves 20:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Er, I promise I didn't put in 7 months of hard work and lots of collaboration on this in order to get a userbox. Truly, I feel that it's a good thing which can be very very useful for the community. It doesn't add more bureaucracy as it's a completely optional (and by design, non-binding) mechanism. I am sorry you don't see the benefit in it. Bstone (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with with Animum. If it can't do anything about ArbCom's abuses, then there really isn't much of a point. Until it becomes binding on ArbCom, I think it's somewhere between 0.25 and 0.50 on a 10-point usefulness scale. History over the past few months have shown the Committe to be potentially abusive of their power and collectively unresponsive to the community at large. I don't think they'll be any more responsive to some other group of editors representative of the community unless there's some teeth that it can sink into ArbCom from time to time when it steps out of line. Celarnor Talk to me 21:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Are you seriously advocating the theory that, to solve the problems with the Arbitration Committee, a smaller body should be allowed to overrule it? And that will make decisions more representative of the community at large? Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Something needs to be done to put the committee in check; if tweaked enough to make sure that this is representative of the community (i.e, short terms, more responsive to queries and criticism, etc), I think this could be useful for that purpose. Celarnor Talk to me 10:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Second Sam Korn's comment above. Why does this remind me of the AMA? Risker (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sam, did you perhaps read the proposal in full? I am confused why you would think that OmbCom can overrule Arbitration Committee when it is quite clearly stated that that would be specifically not possible. OmbCom is designed to be the conscience of the community, to point out irregularities in process and verdict, but ultimately leave it up to ArbCom or whomever to decide to vacate, reverse or otherwise change their position. Instead of many individual voices of criticism, OmbCom would be an official, unified voice. Universities and governments all have Ombudsmen which do exactly this- introspective, consultative, often critical but always non-binding in opinion. I hope this clears that up. Lastly, OmbCom is absolutely not the AMA nor is it designed to be anything like the AMA. Cheers, Bstone (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, no, I agree. I was replying to Celarnor, who advocates letting the ombudsman make binding decisions. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oops! Sorry, Sam! My fault!! Bstone (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as i can tell the situation is this. This committee will act as an independent body to review actions taken by the committee on a long term timescale, to ensure:
- Clarity
- Consistency
- Fairness
This is especially useful when cases need to be conducted off wiki due to privacy or other issues. The idea is to have a body who's role to continually monitor ARBCOM so that when issues and sweeping statements are made, the community can be provided with a clear and accurate response when one is needed instead the explosion of drama as we have had recently. They speak for the community when a clear voice is needed rather than a shouting mob. This commitee is completely answerable to the community and if the community doesnt like what OMBCOM is doing then it can be scrapped. This isn't a permanent thing like ARBCOM. I think we should give this a try and if it works we have achieved something, if it doesnt work then we get rid of it. Seddσn talk Editor Review 22:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Animum as well. So basically, this is a group of non-arbitrators and non-mediators who can issue official, yet non-binding opinions regarding ArbCom cases that are supposed to reflect the opinion of the community. Its scope is so small and actual authority so minimal, I'm really not convinced that this is worth the extra effort nor that it will actually work in practice. We have a large and varied community, the more people you involve in a discussion, the less likely you are going to be able to get any resolution, so how will OmbCom be able to actually determine what the community's opinion is? Or will this be telling the community what their opinion should be? Mr.Z-man 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Mr.Z-man, and thanks for your opinion. In light of your concerns, might you be willing to provisionally support the OmbCom for a, say, a year? After that period of time the community will give feedback on the OmbCom and determine if it's a project which still merits continuation? Since the OmbCom is owned by the community, the results of that RfC would be binding. Thanks and I look forward to your response as soon as you conveniently can. Bstone (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- To echo what Animum said, if ArbCom is willing to ignore the community, why would they suddenly start listening to OmbCom? For me to support such a large new process, I would have to be convinced that there would be significant benefit somewhere. However, I really don't see a need for this at all. If my understanding is correct, OmbCom is basically to ArbCom what DRV is to XFD. I'm picturing a bunch of "Wahh! ArbCom banned me!" complaints, lots of long screeds about why their sanctions are unfair because they were fighting for The Truth™ and not a very good signal to noise ratio. Also, I'm concerned about the requirements for members. While we technically allow non-admins to become arbitrators, it has yet to happen. The proposed OmbCom would require that we have a sufficient number of non-admins that meet the Foundation's privacy policy and the community trusts with information we don't trust most admins with. So, no, I don't think running this, even for just a "trial" would be beneficial. Mr.Z-man 03:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
So as I interpret this, it is basically user-conduct RfC. But with fewer people participating (in line with many recent proposals which distrust ever-larger proportions of the community and so contradict themselves), and with exactly as many teeth. Which is to say: none at all. Splash - tk 00:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It serves no purpose other than, no offense, to make some people feel important. I'm sorry you wasted your time working on this Bstone but it won't help anyone at all. It will only add another layer of fail. I'm being blunt because it needs to be said: this isn't a good idea, and it isn't helpful. Beam 00:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I realise that people have put a lot of time into this proposal but frankly it looks a complete waste of time - another toothless talking shop and we already have plenty of those. --Allemandtando (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- OK - on further examination, I'll downgrade this from "waste of time" to "terrible idea" - the only people who will get any benefit out of this will be the POV pushers who will engage it's services every time that arbcomm drops the hammer and try to use it to spin out process. Kill this idea, kill it with fire/ --Allemandtando (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I respect greatly the thought, motivation, and effort that went into this proposal, but ultimately I must disagree with it. In my opinion, this is just another layer of bureaucracy with built-in drama-generating mechanisms. Furthermore, I find the proposal to be incomplete: the OmbCom is supposed to represent the consensus of the community, but the proposal defines no mechanism by which that objective is enabled (biennial election is not sufficient for that purpose IMO). I don't believe the minimal extra "oomph" provided by an elected body in voicing the opinion of the masses is worth the inevitable drama that will result. Powers T 12:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is a larger problem with the election process - who is it going to attract? I'm an editor, I edit articles, I have no interest in joining some talking circle when there is editing to be done. Whatever the intentions of the originator - The candidates are all (and let's call a spade a spade) going to be wikilawyers - the sort of people who get excited by the idea of some codified powerless bureaucracy where they can all shout "point of partmentary procedure!" at each other. We got rid of the last wikilawyer clubhouse (AMA) let's not create another. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- As I've said elsewhere I think this is a silly proposal that will do no good. The 12:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC) comment says it really well. —Giggy 15:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I can't see that another forum for bureaucracy and elections and committees and wikipolitics is needed. Another committee means just another forum, not that everybody will suddenly stop arguing. Dean B (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose We do not need more bureaucracy and more paralysis. If anything , the June 2008 ArbCom proposals will do more to help logjams than this. Also, if we do not have a final arbiter, then we will be stuck in an endless loops of appeals. One cannot appeal a Supreme Court decision. ArbCom is our Supreme Court. Increase the members on ArbCom if you will, but there is no appealing ArbCom, other than to Jimbo directly (as tradition). -- Avi (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest that the community itself can overrule Arbcom if it so chooses. We name Arbcom our "supreme court" as a matter of convenience and practicality. However, it can, and will, be changed if its behaviour causes the community to sufficiently demand change. As such, I agree completely that there is no need for an ombudsman or Ombcom. As we saw with the vacated arbcom decision last month, the community already can hold it in check without an unnecessary level of bureaucracy. Resolute 05:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- The community is nimble and responsive, the community is active and involved, the community has direct access to all levels of power. There isn't a role for an ombudsman here. Darkspots (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment My initial leaning here is towards qualified support, but I think the proposal needs some further work. It does seem to me that the proposed committee would perform some of the role of the old AMA. It seems to me some of this is a useful role. Admins and even the occassional Arbcom decision can overreach, and potentially valuable contributors have occassionally received discouragingly unwelcoming treatment over minor and sometimes arguable policy violations. AMA was simply too lawyer-like. One of its biggest problems was that it tended to have the lawyer's ethic of representing anyone, folks with genuine grievances and outright vandals alike. A group able to step in to address perceived overreaching but which has the descretion and judgment to act only in genuinely appropriate cases would be a welcome improvement. That said, I think the proposed role is overstated. Suggest deleting the language about the "conscience of the community" etc. Agree this group would have no more right to call themselves that than Arbcom or the commenters on an RFC or anyone else. Less starry-eyed rhetoric and more realistic (and humble) goals would likely result in greater acceptance and greater success. I think it's important to word the proposal in a way that conveys a sense of savvy and discretion, so that we end up with a committee that isn't easily fooled and doesn't simply muck things up and cry wolf, as the AMA was sometimes prone to do, on behalf of everyone and anyone claiming to be a victim. If the scope is reduced to simply help identify people with meritorious-looking claims who have problems with admins, Arbcom, etc., and if the role is narrowed to be more a mediator/facilitator/neutral but helpful third party than some "conscious of the community" who'se going to be writing 200 page formal reports about what Arbcom did wrong and be creating their own bureacracy, precendents, ideology, manifestos, groupies, and jargon, I think everyone will be a lot better off. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Behaving like the AMA? I can't think of a better reason to oppose this idea. Seriously? How can we expect a small elected cabal to overule the larger also elected cabal? Basically this smells like we don't like the decisions arbcom makes so we will try and come up with some way to negate them. With respect this is a solution looking for a problem and has the prospect of destroying what little dispute resolution process we have. No ta. Spartaz Humbug! 16:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comment here. - Merzbow (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Bstone, you appear to be proposing the creation of a committee - how can you do this when the concept is not even policy yet? I had a look at your userpage, and I can't agree that consensus is forming towards this happening. If anything consensus seems to be going the other way now that more people are becoming aware of it. Policy formation, from what I've seen, is a long process that involves the views of hundreds of users in the same forum and in the same rough time period. You may have been pushing this for several months, but mostly without success. You may have generated interest because of a convenient RfC but that isn't sufficient consensus to form policy. John Smith's (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I couldn't believe it when Bstone said there was a consensus for this when it's quite obvious that if there is any consensus it is AGAINST this idea, without question. Bstone, what do you have to say in your defense? Beam 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I just haven't seen a solid case articulated for this. I'm not sure why we need another committee to put pressure on a committee that's already elected from the community (though formally appointed by Jimbo). - Philippe 21:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Silly. I can't believe this has reared its head again. I remember this from months ago, and then noticed it again recently when Bstone tried to appoint himself chairman of this committee, and was reverted. It should be strongly suggested to Bstone that he stop mucking about with policies. It seems pretty clear he doesn't understand how these things work here. This looks like an exercise in ego rather than a real proposal. Friday (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Superfluous. The community does not require a formal committee to express itself, as this particular thread finely demonstrates. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unnecessary extra layer of drama-generation; solution in search of a problem. Oversight over the ArbCom can be exercised through elections or through the community-based discussion and dispute resolution mechanisms. Sandstein 11:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Because the pump has said "no thanks" - there is now an attempt to ignore what is being said here and spin our wheels with a popular vote - see here --Allemandtando (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- What is this going to accomplish other than more jawboning? Stifle (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)