This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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
April Fools' Day has been a constant point of contention on Wikipedia. Everyone goes overboard on vandalism, and discussions on whether to play jokes on the encyclopedia on this day have occurred time and time again. While it may be fun, it ends up hurting legitimate users, places extra stress on vandalism fighters, and compromises the integrity of the encyclopedia. If this isn't resolved, I feel this will need to go to ArbCom, since these kinds of discussions happen every year.
The key question here is, should we tolerate jokes and hoaxes on April Fools' Day, even if they may be disruptive? — DragonLord( talk/ contribs) 18:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
That is just a short list of my ideas. Anyone else have any more to consider? nerd fighter 20:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
What is the policy on exactly what to do with dead links? I know Template:Dead link exists, but it gets tucked away into the reference where no one sees it and hardly ever tries to fix the problem. I'm seeing the "dead links" in two different ways:
That latter one is extremely pessimistic and violates WP:AGF, but it is also the most realistic. I for one wouldn't trust using a Wikipedia article for a school project if I can't access the original references. You can't just blindly trust a dead link. I find that practice naive. That's why I believe they should be replaced immediately, either by researching all over again or by using the Wayback machine.
However, what do we do if there is no readily available replacement? Is there any policy that prohibits me from removing a dead link and replacing the sentence with a [citation needed] tag? Feed back ☎ 09:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
It appears that editors seem to be confusing "links" with "citations". Not all links are citations, and not all citations need to be linked in order to be considered reliable. In many towns throughout the world, there are these buildings called libraries, and they contain these collections of bound paper called books. Not all books are available online due to copyright reasons, yet the information contained in many of them is generally considered reliable. WTF? ( talk) 18:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Snapshots usually become available more than 6 months after they are archived, or in some cases, even later, 24 months or longer.This is why we wait for 2 years before removing so-called dead links. 64.40.54.208 ( talk) 00:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Feedback, Here are your statements above:
Here's what we're asking:
As far as I can tell, your answer to the above is probably going to sound a lot like "well, I went to my favorite web search engine with a couple of keywords, and I didn't find anything in less than an hour, so that proves that nobody with better skills or better resources will be able to find it either." WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what project page this goes on but I figure here's best for now.
Two weeks ago I moved "Burnin' (Daft Punk song)" to " Burnin' (instrumental)" and "Aerodynamic (song)" to " Aerodynamic (instrumental)" as both are instrumental compositions rather than songs with vocal tracks, and other such electronic compositions with no lyrical accompanyment on the project are also denoted as instrumentals (ex. Popcorn (instrumental), Frankenstein (instrumental)).
It turns out that in the past 48 hours both had been moved, the former without any discussion or reason as to why (certainly no summary), and the latter with the summary "Congratulations, you have spectacularly failed to understand Daft Punk." I reverted the move reverts and posted on the two movers' talk pages that (essentially) songs must have lyrics and these are very clearly denoted in the articles as instrumentals.
While it may have been wrong for me to move the pages back, where should the pages ideally be located?— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 11:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
When administrators block users for the first time, it is usually for 31 hours. Why 31 hours and not something like 24 hours? — DragonLord( talk/ contribs) 01:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
A RfC has started at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13: Abandoned Articles for creation submissions discussing a proposed new speedy deletion criterion for rejected and long since abandoned Articles for Creation submissions. This would generate an initial deletion of some 50,000 pages, and then a daily dose of give or take 100 pages (wild stab at the actual numbers, not a scientific report here). Fram ( talk) 13:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I feel that WP:BEANS is important enough to merit guideline status—from what I can tell, it is frequently cited, there is a consensus of agreement with this essay, and I have not seen an argument against it. Should this upgrade be done? — DragonLord( talk/ contribs) 02:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Request withdrawn — DragonLord( talk/ contribs) 04:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone explain why there seems to be a convention, in giving names in Russian in WP, of placing accents on letters? E.g. in Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, the Cyrillic name is given thus: Пётр Ильи́ч Чайко́вский. This is incorrect, as the accents on 'и' and 'о' do not exist in Russian orthography. I see that this practise informs the reader where the stress in each word lies; but anyone transcribing the Cyrillic from this (or other) articles would in fact be wrong, and Wikipedia is therefore giving incorrect information. (In fact, in this particular case,the letter 'ё' would also be normally be written as 'е' as well, but let's leave that to one side).
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia) gives the example correctly,without stress accents:
So why do all virtually all articles with Russian names contain stress accents, without making it clear that these are not part of the orthography? Am I missing some other guideline on use of Cyrilic? Should not the non-orthographic status of these stress accents be made very clear to readers not familiar with Russian? If you want to give the stress, there are other, less confusing, ways of dong this.Thanks, -- Smerus ( talk) 06:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
First can I gently remind Incnis Mrsi of the protocol WP:AGF. I can seen no reason - other than perhaps because s/he is not a native English speaker - that s/he should accuse me of attempting to 'fool' WP readers. Had that been my intention I would hardly have started this thread. Perhaps it is because Incnis Mrsi is a native Russian reader that s/he misundertands the issue I have raised. I will try once more to make it very clearly. I would also point out that my query does not relate to Hebrew, so that this red herring can be laid aside; only I will mention here, what I am sure Incnis Mrsi very well understands, that the roles of dagesh and dots in letters in Ivrit are very different from the stress accents added to Russian which are the subject of this thread.
This is English WP. Readers to who come to English WP - say to read the article on Tchaikovsky - will find a variety of information in the lead about the name of the article subject. Typically, where the subject is Russian, this will be in English, followed by the name in and IPA version and in Cyrillic. The IPA vrsion will come with stress marks indicating where the accentcomes on each word. Typically, in English Wiipedia, the name in Cyrillic script will follow, with accents upon the stressed syllable(s). I think that Incnis Mrsi will agree with me that these stresses are not reproduced in normal printed or handwritten Russian. It is true that the accents on the Cyrillic will assist any Cyrillic-reading user to identify where stresses occur - but in doing so, they only duplicate what is already indicated in the IPA. The danger is that a non-Cyrillic-reading user may assume that these accents are integral to the correct usage in printed and written Russian (like, for exmaple, é is in French, or ö is in German); and may therefore cite elasewhere (in an essay, or elsewhere on the internet for example) the 'stressed' Cyrillic version as the standard usage Cyrillic version. In this way, Wikipedia would be encouraging what is, at least, a serious misapprehension, and could be construed as misinformation. For this reason, it would be better (if indications of stress additional to IPA are though to be required), to provide a stressed version of the English form of the name, rather than to add stresses (without explaining their status to non-Cyrillic readers) to the Cyrillic form.
Ясно? -- Smerus ( talk) 08:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, now we are agreed on the meaning of the query, what about an answer? That is, to correct (for clarity) my initial sentence in this thread, 'Can someone explain why there seems to be a convention, in giving names in Russian Cyrillic script in English WP, of placing accents on the Cyrillic syllables, (rather than relying on the IPA transcription, or providing an accented English version)?'-- Smerus ( talk) 09:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC) I note by the way that the accented form in the Russiain language is standard in the lead sentence of Russian Wikipedia articles - although it is not the practice in English Wikipedia to accent the English-language version of the name in the lead. Why do we appear to have adopted the Russian WP procedure for English Wkipedia articles on Russian topics (and for those articles alone?) There appears to be no rationale for this. -- Smerus ( talk) 11:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
It is a common error for non Russians to assume that 'й' is an accented version of 'и' This is not the case but often taught by some non Russian teachers of the language. They are distinct letters of the Russian alphabet, the former being the 11th letter of the alphabet ant the latter the 10th. The letter 'й' is pronounced 'y' as in 'yew and 'и' is pronounced 'ee' as in 'meet'. The cyrillic alphabet officially has 33 letters (21 consonants, 11 vowels plus two extra characters that have no sound of their own), but those teachers that treat 'й' as an accented version of 'и' will tell you that there are only 32 letters. 86.157.172.38 ( talk) 18:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I was going to add (before being summoned away by the wife) that an accute accent is often used in Russian dictianaries and books on the language to show which sylable is stressed. They never appear in normal written Russian as native speakers already know where the stress is. The stress of words is very important because, in Russian, unless a sentence starts with 'who', 'how', 'what', 'where' or 'why' (in Russian obviously), stress is the only way of identifying that you are being asked a question as Russian has no interogative form. In written Russian the question mark at the end of the sentence is the give away. 86.157.172.38 ( talk) 15:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Every once in a while an old, abandoned IP talk page can be found that looks like a draft article. My initial instinct is to just delete them, but with respect to User talk:86.29.138.185 and User talk:86.29.138.63, I wonder whether these include material that we are missing, and should have in the encyclopedia. bd2412 T 02:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Please would someone experienced in the policy of flag icon deployment look at List of gymnasts and determine whether the deployment of national flag icons in many places in the Rhythmic section is within the relevant policy? A note on the article's talk page about your conclusions would be appropriate.
If within policy, is such a deployment recommended?
In either case there is a lack of consistency. Is there an easy method of rendering the various appearances of Country consistent without significant manual effort? Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 09:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Currently we have Wikipedia:TITLEFORMAT#Article_title_format Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(capitalization) MOS:CT#Composition_titles Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#General_rules Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names Wikipedia:Official_names. I am probably missing some others. Also: Category:Wikipedia_naming_conventions It is a complete mess, and anyone can make any point they want because the rules contradict themselves.
Also, as a corollary (meaning it should be discussed independently of consolidating the rules into one place), I think it is time to reexamine the purpose of "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official" "Trademarks that officially begin with a lowercase letter raise several problems because they break the normal capitalization rules of English that trademarks" and "CamelCase are a judgment call." I understand why some people want a hard and fast MOS that applies in all cases, but it is causing issues all over the place. Is restyling trademarks and proper nouns making wikipedia easier to read, or is it making products harder to identify from search engines? Priority number one should be being able to recognize you have the right article, and part of recognition and identification is orthography. IKEA gets capitalized, but Time doesn't. Every article is turning into an "exception" and at that point we need to analyze if the exception has become the rule. Xkcdreader ( talk) 20:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
How long should a caption on a Wikipedia image be? Please help solve a dispute (and clarify the meaning of a guideline) in this discussion. Thank you. - X201 ( talk) 08:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I find it annoying that when a file or template is up for deletion and the notice placed on the file or template page propagates to all pages (in an abbreviated form) to all pages that use the file or template. Why is this done? — DragonLord( talk/ contribs) 01:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Why the hate against Times New Roman??
This change is really pissing me off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capnned ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
In working on the migration of citation templates to use the new Lua module, we've encountered an inconsistency between {{ cite web}} and the other citation templates (e.g. {{ cite book}}, {{ cite news}}, etc.)
The citation templates generally allow one to specify both an original url= and an archiveurl= that is intended to have the same content on an archive site.Example with both url= and archiveurl= |
---|
{{cite news | title = My news | newspaper = The Daily News | url = http://news.com/ | archiveurl = http://foobar.archive.com/ | archivedate = May 25, 2005 | author = Doe, John }} |
Doe, John. "My news". The Daily News. Archived from the original on May 25, 2005. |
When using {{ cite web}}, one can specify archiveurl= without specifying url=. In other words one is allowed to link to an archived copy of the website even if you don't provide a link to the original website. By contrast, all of the other templates consider this to be an error. If you try to link to an archive site without including the original url, you get an error message.
Examples with archiveurl= but no url= | |
---|---|
{{ cite web}} | {{cite web | title = My website | archiveurl = http://foobar.archive.com/ | archivedate = May 25, 2005 | author = Doe, John }} |
Doe, John. "My website". {{
cite web}} : |archive-url= requires |url= (
help); Missing or empty |url= (
help)
| |
{{ cite news}} | {{cite news | title = My news | newspaper = The Daily News | archiveurl = http://foobar.archive.com/ | archivedate = May 25, 2005 | author = Doe, John }} |
Doe, John. "My news". The Daily News. {{
cite news}} : |archive-url= requires |url= (
help)
|
In brief discussions, our small technical group generally feels that the behavior ought to be made consistent across the various templates, but we are of mixed opinions about which case to adopt as the standard. Requiring that the url= field be preserved whenever archiveurl= is present would help maintain information about the originating site, and could be especially important if the archive site ever goes offline. However, retaining the original url= also means indefinitely preserving a link whose content may be dead or changed in such a way as to no longer be relevant. In the case of a long-term dead link, it might make sense to only preserve the archiveurl= and discard the original url=.
So, opinions? Should the original url= be required whenever archiveurl= is present, or not? Dragons flight ( talk) 18:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
|IncludedWorkTitle={{{title|}}}
. I barely looked at the affected markup, but the apparent intent was to apply the same error check to all cite templates. I see no reason for these templates to be different. --
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 19:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)|archiveurl=
must require |url=
. If there's no original URL, it's not an internet archive.
Rjwilmsi 22:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)A source can be good enough to source a citation while not good enough for a statement of fact. There are also materials that can not be used as sources but are still valuable to the article. We have no policy or guideline for this. For clarification: wp:rs has us pretend the material is a source. Such distorted logic is not necessary. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 07:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello!
I would like to propose clarification on a current policy that seems to me to already be de facto in use, but which often leads to arguments. The practice invariably survives if it develops organically, over time, but I have found it to be immediatelty deleted if created in one go, such as happened to me here [1]
My proposal is to clarify usage of historical brand logos. Wikipedia usage shows that old, historical logos are often used in articles –
I am told that, if possible, one should include written information about the logos within the articles they appear in, and I'm all for that!
Often, however, one cannot do this immediately ( WP:REALLIFE :-) or at all, as is the case with the BTK logo, which has been used for around half a century in Bulgaria under the communist regime, but has no info on it, as " brand" was not a concept under totalitarianism. No one even knows who invented it. Hence I cannot, for the minute at least and maybe never, reference the logo, except as merely "having existed". In fact, even many capitalist logos don't ever get discussed anywhere, either. They also merely exist.
In any case, we need to reconsider the way " fair use" is applied in the context of historical logos and designs. Current usage as seen in the above varied examples, including my own vivacom example, do not contradict –
My main argument for supporting and wanting to make official the current situation is that historical logos are often more recognizeable than a current logo.
Yes, Wikipedia's third pillar states that "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute", but there are clearly thousands of copyrighted images available on en:wiki and on Commons, therefore the mere existence of copyrighted images does not infringe on this pillar. However, the fifth pillar is that "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not carved in stone and their content and interpretation can evolve over time", hence why I am writing this proposal.
Finally, my main contention is that people do not merely remove a logo section and flag the image for deletion...but rather to add an "expand section"/"please cite references" template to the logo section, because otherwise a double standard is created.
I would like to underline that my proposal does not aim to sidestep copyright policy. What I am contending is that Wikipedia's already established practice is clearly legal, and I would like jobsworth editors and administrators such as User:Stefan2 and User:B to realize this and not propose that all such copyrighted images be immediately deleted.
I would like to thank you for your attention, and look forward to hearing your opinions!
BigSteve ( talk) 11:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with BigSteve that historical logos are important for identifying the branding and documenting the identity of a company, and that deleting it would be detrimental for understanding the topic. But in order to meet WP:NFCC#8 -to be contextually relevant- the company's article should have a History section; recent or small companies for which history cannot be documented do not merit having their previous logos listed in it.
For long-term companies where their history can be documented, a gallery with a selection of the major logo changes is certainly adequate and contextually significant. Only for the case where there's enough content for a separate section for each period of the company there's a need to separate the logos, one for each section throughout the company's history (see Atlanta Hawks for what I mean). Diego ( talk) 14:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to thank you all for contributing to this topic!, and have read everything in detail. I have had to be away for a few days but will post tomorrow. I'm only writing this note as I know Village Pump discussions sometimes get archived really quickly – so, please, dont :-) BigSteve ( talk) 21:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi again!
I see your arguments, and I guess I will always strive to find some sort of written material about any logos, just to be on the safe side. I would like to answer a few of the points made, however –
On the issue of what piece of information is "critical to the understanding of the subject/topic/article". I agree – old logos are not critical to that…but let’s be frank – the current logo is also not critical to that, either! It is merely an additional piece of info which adds an extra layer of understanding and, equally importantly, adds color to an article – (after all, WP is not meant to be stuffy and b&w, is it) – but no logo is "crucial" to the understanding of any company article. So, if we are to follow NFCC#8 to the letter, we need to get rid of all logos.
I would like to thank Diego, Jheald and WhatamIdoing for your support on this, I thought I would be alone!
One of my main arguments from the start has been, which Diego reiterated, that a historical logo is often better-recognized than a current logo, so even B’s argument that logo inclusion is solely needed to help the reader understand what company is being discussed...doesn't fly – because even the current logo might not recognized by many readers!
So, Masem and B – your arguments on this point are intentionally exaggerated, and you know this!
But my point is – history and being reasonable – i.e. following the spirit of NFCC#8.
Historical logos are just that – parts of a company’s history and the mere discussion of a certain period of a company’s history is enough to reasonably merit passing NFCC#8, as in LA Clippers, Atlanta Hawks.... Any argument to the contrary is not black-and-white, but is just as much opinion as my arguments here – the point is to be reasonable. And, Masem, no, I don’t think this is a "slippery slope argument" – you are using weasel words, because you are not saying why you think it’s a slippery slope argument – the rule I am proposing can be applied quite strictly. Also, Masem, including several historical logos is not equivalent to "including dozens of screenshots of a tv show" – it’s the equivalent of adding a show’s old logo, and you know it! So let’s not use straw men to attempt to win our arguments here, fellas! BigSteve ( talk) 16:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned by the legalistic interpretation of the NFC policy - I have a strong feeling that the current practices at NFC review have expanded beyond what's healthy for the project, and that they're not fully supported by policy either. The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, which I wholeheartedly support, has the goal to maximize free content while building a worthwhile encyclopedia. So many people interpret this as a need to minimize non-free content, but that doesn't follow logically; the requirement is just to limit it in so far doing that improves free content. But excluding non-free content where it provides a proper encyclopedic function does not serve the goal to produce more free content (at least not when such NFC is not replaceable - "modern artworks" which are "hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself"; "a non-free work is needed to discuss a related subject"...)
The NFC policy is not to minimize non-free content - if it were, all non-free content would be simply forbidden; this policy is what allows us to include such educational content in a way that facilitates reuse when a free alternative is impossible, while encouraging creation of free content wherever possible. The strict requirements of license tagging and copyright attribution are strong enough safeguards so that non-free content with an encyclopedic purpose doesn't need to be removed just because; doing so won't improve the availability of free content, and thus that removal hurts the project. I would gladly have a discussion "on principle" to review how the mission is implemented both in policy and in practice, and the interpretations by various "factions" on how to best use NFC. In particular the subjective NFCC#8 is too often used at image deletion discussions to remove content with what I consider a valid functional purpose, and there's no way to achieve a consensus by good-faith editors; current practice offers no ways to compromise in such cases. Diego ( talk) 06:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
"Note that we are talking about the average reader, not a specific type of reader. I can understand that arguing that a reader from Bulgaria may recognize the company more by its old logo than the new one, but that's a very small fraction of our readers."I think this is a dangerously wrong-headed attitude. Just as the internet is the network of networks, so WP is the encyclopedia of encyclopedias -- we're not just a general encyclopedia, we aim to be everybody's encyclopedia, integrating a multitude of specialist encyclopedias. So e.g. WP:ITSLOCAL is not a good deletion argument, and some of our mathematics coverage is frighteningly involved. But if that particular specialist area is what you need to know about, such articles can be fantastically useful. We commit to try to make our articles as accessible as possible, particularly in the leads and early paragraphs, but it is simply not true that they are all pitched at some mythical "average" reader. Instead the question should be how useful we can make our articles to the reader that has been motivated to seek them out. Very often, that will be a reader that may already know a fair amount about the subject, because those are the sort of people who are motivated to come specifically to this article to find out more -- much more so than the mythical average reader. It's those people we should be seeking to satisfy, and for them we should be asking how valuable a particular image is. Jheald ( talk) 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Huh... I always thought that the statement that Wikipedia is a "free" encyclopedia was referring to the fact that users do not need to pay any money to access it (unlike, say Encyclopedia Britannica). Blueboar ( talk) 17:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, there is agreement that galleries of non-free historical logos don't work (in other words, an article like PBS Idents is problematic since few of the logos are presented without context outside of what some editor has described to explain what the logos are - not sufficient). My concern has been that just dropping historical logos without context even outside of galleries can lead to excessive non-free where it is not needed.
I can see that a midpoint here is the case of when a company had undergone a significant identity change, which specifically I'm thinking is pretty much a change in name, or a massive revision in logo identity, from something that has well-established (> 5 years?). The BTC case easily qualifies here, as is the PBS one (from NET to PBS). In such cases, a logo to represent the established identity may be appropriate. There is just reason here as such identity changes from something that has been around that long rarely go unnoticed by third-parties or even the company itself, though it may be initially difficult to find literature to support that, but under good faith, that seems acceptable.
I think there could be a few qualifications on the naming or logo aspect but it should be a clear difference. To use a example , using AT&T's logos [3], there is a clear change from the 1970-1983 logo to the 1983-1996 logo (transition from the phone to the globe image), but not between the 1983-1996 and the more newer logos (same globe, just different weights/spacingetc.) Consensus can decide when those are significant, but there's clear examples what lines are required to draw from.
But I want to stress the point of one unqualified logo use per identity change. I can accept one to show what the company's older identity was , but I have a problem when more than one is used indiscriminately ala the PBS ident page. Without a significant shift in name or identity - eg mostly just updating the logo for newer aesthetics - its hard to justify how this contributes to the company's past identity after the first image. This is no way prevents additional logo images that have clear sourced discussion to be included, just those logos where there is no sourced commentary.
This would 1) prevent non-free logo galleries or the equivalent while 2) still allowing representation of older but well-established identities to be shown while respecting non-free content. Also we should not be afriad to include links to logopedia, a wikia dedicated to tracking logo histories, if that's deemed necessary. Exactly how to codify this, that's a different question but this case would allow the BTS logo to be used on that article, or in the PBS idents, to have one example of the NET period, and a few from the more recent PBS period due to sourced commentary on a few of the logos (eg the head shape being pulled into the newer logos). -- MASEM ( t) 21:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
We should have an image like this in articles like this. We can't claim fair use with the criteria that no free use image is available. If we get an image of the statue licensed by the copyright holder of the statue, or host an image taken where FOP is allowed then they are available. Should I email the Academy for a licensed image before or after we remove the illegal one? Canada has FOP so we can have pages like this with very nice images.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 22:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Can CNN transcript pages be used as reliable sources? Searched Wikipedia but could not find an answer. Here is an example of what I'm referring to: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1304/14/fzgps.01.html 24.90.152.15 ( talk) 02:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
If a user with an obviously offensive username is blocked, their name can still cause offense as it appears in edit histories and search suggestions. I therefore propose that editors blocked for offensive usernames have all their edits over sighted (I doubt someone who chooses an offensive username has much constructive intentions) and their talk and user pages deleted. They can still appeal their block by emailing an admin or Unblock Ticket Request. 84.13.131.123 ( talk) 18:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
In cases where the username is aggressively offensive, but does not meet the standards for oversight, it can still be revision deleted from edit histories. Someguy1221 ( talk) 02:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
A question has come up at WT:AT asking why we use "Sentence case" for our article titles (as opposed to Title Case). So that I can give accurate background information to answer this question, I am trying to find out exactly when we made this decision ... I know it's been the way we have done things since I first joined the project (back in 2006), so any discussions that resulted in our decision would have taken place before then. I assume it was discussed at WP:MOS, but I have not been able to find the discussion in the archives (I am still looking). Of course, we were a bit more free-wheeling in the early days of Wikipedia, it's possible that it was discussed on some other page and then applied to the MOS based on that other discussion. Any help in tracking down the "when" (or early discussions of the "why") would be appreciated. Blueboar ( talk) 13:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
There has been a discussion going on at Talk:William Leveson (mercer)#Requested move There the author is requesting the page be moved to William Leveson (died 1621). So far, three people have weighed in on the discussion and here is a summary of their arguments.
These are the main points, and I will post on that discussion page that I've summarized here in hopes of getting more opinions and building a better consensus. Thank you Technical 13 ( talk) 01:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
At least some articles used to have a rating option at the bottom. This seems to have been eliminated. Where can I find the discussion leading to this change? Kdammers ( talk) 03:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was wanting to start a discussion on possibly having a sitewide policy on pages/sections for music from TV series and/or films. Two specific examples I was thinking about were Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Jackass, with both of these series having quite notable soundtracks. The article for BTVS used to have a page on the music from each episode but was deleted by the following vote- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buffyverse_tracklist
I would say that many of the arguments used for the above deletion actually do not apply and that specific pages for music from tv series and/or films would be completely in line with the purpose of an online encyclopedia. For example, music soundtracks for tv series/films (whether official or unofficial) are notable, they are not 'in universe' as the songs are real-world entities in their own right, they are not 'cruft' since while they play in a show they are not of the show, soundtracks are neither directories nor statistics, and they are relevant for addition to Wikipedia simply because it seems like it would be a fairly common occurance that someone who is watching a movie or tv show might want to know what the name of a song(s) in a given episode might be. To me, examples of 'cruft' would be how many vampires Buffy stakes in each episode, lists of puns made after stakings in each episode, etc. and not a comprehensive soundtrack listing for the series.
IMO the most and/or only compelling argument against adding pages for music from TV series/films would be that there are often no official soundtracks for tv shows as there are for films, however this seems like it would basically be the result of the high costs associated with producing such a soundtrack for an entire series and not due to lack of popular interest. As an example of a double standard in this regard, the page for the movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off has a section on the music from the film even though there was no official soundtrack, so why can't BTVS, Jackass or other TV shows have such a section/page? See- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferris_Bueller%27s_Day_Off#Music
The reason I'm asking for a sitewide policy on this subject is that it would be a shame to do a lot of work on this only to have it deleted at a later date as I was thinking about starting a page on the music from Jackass episodes but don't want to start without knowing whether it would be allowed to stay. Sorry if this isn't the right forum, please feel free to move it to whereever it needs to be if it's in the wrong place. Thanks a bunch.
Further to the discussion about diplomats, now archived here, I have sent five test case articles to Afd:
Would anyone like to comment there? Some people think that ambassadors are automatically notable, even if they are only referenced by government sources. Others are in favour of more rigorous criteria in line with WP:DIPLOMAT (which refers to participation " . . . in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance . . . ") and indeed those for other professions. -- Klein zach 00:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Ignore all rules is not only a Wikipedia policy, it is one of the 5 pillars and is often abused by users and admins trying to make their point. It needs to be clarified.
I recently attempted to update the Ignore all rules policy to reflect the 5 areas that past discussions and comunity consensus have determined to be exempt from the Ignore all rules policy but I was twice reverted. So I am bringing it here for discussion.
Below is what I suggest be added as a new section to the Ignore all rules policy. Nothing here is new and is documented in other places. It just clarifies the policy on the policy page rather than having to go to multiple locations to get additional information. Adding this to the policy will clarify it and potentially eliminate some future confusion.
“ | Past community discussions have identified five areas where it is normally innapropriate to invoke IAR.
|
” |
Any comments about this are encouraged and welcomed to help clarify this policy/pillar. Kumioko ( talk) 14:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Again folks, just to clarify. This isn't changing anything.
All this is doing is documenting what has already been established.
I struck out 1 already per the other comments (althuogh I think it still applies to things like Socking and Copyright violations).
Personally I think the community has already defacto eliminiated it anyway since every time I see it used some admin steps up and says "Oh no, it doesn't apply here because of X, Y and Z".
This is a rewritten cross-post of a topic I have brought up in depth on the OR Policy talk page. It stems from my decision to change a term on the page Irreligion. A source reported a change in an index from 77% to 68%. The source authors erroneously labeled this a decline of "9%", an error that was faithfully repeated in the WP article. Because this was actually an 11.7% decline, I altered the WP article to state that there was a 9 percentage point decline, the correct expression of the meaning of the data in the source.
For me, this raises the problem of how WP editors should deal with translating sources' data or facts into English narrative in WP articles when those source authors offer a different, erroneous expression of the data or facts. This situation does not seem to be covered by existing guidelines on dealing with errors in quoted material or avoiding fourth-wall-breaking editorial commentary on article sources.
On the one hand, using a source's data or facts in a way that, while evidently correct, contradicts the source authors' narrative or analysis carries with it an implied basic criticism of the source. This indirectly undermines both the reliability assumption for the source's inclusion and the convention prohibiting editorial attacks on sources within the article.
On the other hand, for editors to refuse to do this would seem to result in an absurd outcome: a difference in editorial action between two scenarios where logic dictates there ought not to be a difference. Scenario A: a source author publishes a table of data on its own, and the WP editor uses simple and universally understood knowledge to translate that table into English narrative for the WP article. No problem. Scenario B: the same source author publishes the same table accompanied by a commentary that includes a clearly, provably erroneous expression of the meaning of the data. That commentary might even come in a different publication at a different time. Now, suddenly, the WP editor's non-controversial expression of the data is potential OR?
Simply excluding such sources would seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, since there is nothing wrong with the data, and at some point the meaning of such data stops depending on the opinions of those people who initially generated it, right? AdamColligan ( talk) 16:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I was reading this and I thought - well, we all know that Wikipedia is 85% male, we want to change it, and the gendered language is probably one of the things we need to address. Do we have any policy, MoS, or even an essay about good practices when writing in the Wikipedia namespace? As in, do we prefer "his or her", "they", or something else? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The Manual of Style section on gender-neutral language states, "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision."
Are you proposing a change to:
Either gender-neutral language or generic he is acceptable; please use gender-neutral language ONLY where it can be done with clarity and precision; otherwise just use generic he. Georgia guy ( talk) 15:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear already that it will not be possible to agree on a house style. But maybe we do need a guideline stating that "they" and "she" are not wrong and should not be reverted as such, on policy pages at least (in mainsapace, "they" should be used only with caution). Formerip ( talk) 09:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
use Indian English}}
, {{
use dmy dates}}
, etc that are placed in the article to define for that article the style to be used.{{Use her gender}}
, {{Use his gender}}
, {{Use singular they gender}}
...{{he}}
, {{she}}
, {{his}}
, {{her}}
templates that contain {{Gender:{{USERNAME}}
|he|she|they}}
or {{Gender:{{USERNAME}}
|his|her|their}}
as is appropriate.
Technical 13 (
talk) 12:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Wikipedia:Language neutrality ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Since three different people have apparently found this comment of mine so unwelcome that they've invented entirely spurious reasons for removing it (or simply removed it without giving any reasons), I think I must be on to something. So I repeat it here outside any "closed" discussion, in case anyone wishes to address the substance:
I've discovered that policies are not there to be understood, they're there to be manipulated by the in-crowd (and the ability to tell others that they "don't understand" the policy is a key part of that manipulation). Clarity in policy threatens their ability to do that, so will always be vigorously opposed.
This is very much my impression, having seen what happens when I or anyone else takes an incomprehensible bit of policy or guideline and tries to turn it into something that people unfamiliar with it might understand. Those who sit around on these pages are either incapable of seeing how confusing the texts are, or simply don't see that as a fault (indeed, they seem to see it as a virtue). Victor Yus ( talk) 05:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#1 requires that photos be used under a claim of "fair use" only where no free equivalent exists nor could be created. We consider "fair use" photos of most living people to be inherently replaceable but this leads to photos of deceased people - no matter how recently deceased - being uploaded with little or no regard to the possibility of finding a free photo. I have offered a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Required search to satisfy criterion 1 for the recently deceased to require that users desiring to upload a photo of a recently deceased person make a good faith effort to locate or obtain a free photo before uploading a fair use one. Please see that page if you would like to opine on this proposal. -- B ( talk) 04:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
That didn't take long. Published by the academy with no proper copyright notice on the image.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 14:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I suppose it fails "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful." Ryan Vesey 17:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Commons is stating that we can upload Oscar images taken in FOP countries to commons. They claim that WMF legal has weighed in and they don't violate US copyright law. One discussion over there is VP/Copyright, heading 'FOP again'.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 22:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
In this discussion on the Boston Marathon bombings talk page, it was suggested that we need a WP:NOTFBI. I agree, and I've created it, with the suggestion that it be made into a subsection of WP:NOT. It can also be viewed as a special case of WP:OR. -- The Anome ( talk) 10:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I would also add a pointer to WP:NOTNEWS. Blueboar ( talk) 14:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Another facet to be considered in the same breath is that we shouldn't be here to aid in investigations either. In the case of the Boston marathon bombing, I'm writing this after it has been affirmed the FBI have images of the suspected perps but haven't decided if to release these to the public yet. We should not include these images if/when they are released (whether free or non-free), partially on BLP grounds (they are only suspects, not convicted) but more to this point, we are not the FBI's most wanted photo page, we should not be used to distribution information for purposes of getting it to more eyes. EG we are not an Amber alert system nor missing-persons search tool neither. Once convicted, that changes everything, but while investigation continues our role is not to aid in that and only consider inclusion of images if they are encyclopedicly appropriate. -- MASEM ( t) 16:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Chances are, anyone who would actually be unfamiliar enough with Wikipedia to try to use it to aid an official investigation or confuse it with a law enforcement agency would not have read any of our policies, guidelines, or essays. So I'm not seeing the point in adding to the ever increasing bulk of policy-space text by spelling out what is otherwise obvious from existing language and principles, particularly WP:OR and WP:NOTNEWS, that we are "not the FBI". Which is an incredibly oblique way of restating the otherwise clear points that this is an encyclopedia, that we do not publish original research or unverifiable speculation, and that we don't reproduce everything found in the news. Wikipedia is also WP:NOTONLINEDATINGSERVICE, WP:NOTROADSIDEASSISTANCE, and WP:NOTCATERER. Will those eventually become bluelinks as well? postdlf ( talk) 17:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia was designed to be edited by volunteers working as individuals. Our policies are designed round the person making the edits. But for the last few years, there's been a shift from wholly volunteer-led editing to increasingly assignment-led editing. There's a shift of responsibility from the person directly making the edit to the person (or people) directing and supervising them. There's a huge shift of scale, where 900 articles can be edited in the space of a few days. There's a shift of account lifespan down to potentially just minutes. There's a degree of compulsion involved that makes the student do things they wouldn't have considered. This can be good, but can also mean they write beyond their abilities or about topics they know nothing or push a POV they don't actually believe in, etc. There is off-wiki coordination of activities that conflict with our policies on privacy making it hard for editors to review assignments. In my view, our thinking about student, their assignments, and what to do with them is limited by trying to apply existing policy designed for volunteers to these editors and assginments.
So I propose Wikipedia:Assignments be developed towards policy. It is very draft at present and may evolve to be worded quite differently. But I think Wikipedia needs a policy to address this new form of editing. Our existing policies don't apply well. Please help draft a new policy to address this. Thank-you, Colin° Talk 10:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Input is requested at Wikipedia:Protection Policy Regarding admins editing through full protection, the policy currently states that admins may "make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus". It does not define what is meant by uncontroversial. Should the word uncontroversial remain, be removed, or be replaced with something more specific? 80.174.78.102 ( talk) 15:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I have closed my own discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate. Please feel free to take any action necessary to modify the closure of my own discussion to make it appear more Kosher.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I have started a discussion at WT:PERM regarding the use and assignment of the account creator flag. I thought I would let the people affected by this know. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 01:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a need for help from someone who speaks a particular language. Something would be nice would be to use the babel box templates to find such a person. Unfortunately, you have to click through a whole bunch of people who have been gone for years to find one person who is still here. I know that this has been discussed for other reasons and has always been shouted down, but for the sake of being able to use the user categories and babel boxen for what they are intended for - finding a user to help you - what would be everyone's thought about auto-deleting or auto-blanking pages of users who have zero edits for some lengthy period of time (like a year)? If the user returns, they are, of course, welcome to have their user page back, but for the sake of being able to find an active user, I think removing pages of inactive users would be a useful thing. -- B ( talk) 23:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
{{PAGENAME}}
for the sortkey.
Anomie
⚔ 13:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment I have on occasion also needed help from a user who speaks a particular language (besides English). I share User:B's sentiment that it can be hard and frustrating to find a person. Long term, Wikipedia's gonna have to do something dormant accounts; they are just accumulating. Jason Quinn ( talk) 22:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Why are people placed into categories at the bottom of pages such as "People from Brooklyn" when they were only born in that location and that's it? For example I myself am "from Brooklyn". I grew up here my entire life and if someone asks me where I'm from I say Brooklyn NY. I was born however in San Diego and moved to Brooklyn when I was a few weeks old. Apparently under Wikipedia's logic I would be a person "from San Diego" even though that makes no sense and I never would tell a person I'm from San Diego.
Another thing I've noticed regarding this issue is a celebrity who grew up say in Texas from 1-25 years old then moves to Brooklyn and has lived there for 2 years. They also get put into the "People from Brooklyn" category even though they're clearly from Texas. Can someone please answer these 2 questions? Thank you very much.
24.193.127.141 ( talk) 04:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Huh, spammers?? Can someone more knowledgable about Wikipedia policy please answer my questions regarding this issue?
Thank You. 24.193.127.141 ( talk) 16:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Moderation guidelines ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
We often hear people cite the "old" proverb that adminship is no big deal. The RfC linked above asks you to objectively say if you believe the Wikipedia community currently treats adminship as if it is no big deal. AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday an editor removed the name of the accused based on WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME.
Just in case you do not know, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security was unable to find evidence of ricin against the accused, and he was subsequently released and all charged dropped as of yesterday. I use the word accused here since the person is no longer considered as a suspect.
Yet, the reference cited includes the name of the accused in the article title and thus appears in the reference list. What should we do about this? SYSS Mouse ( talk) 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:GNL says use gender-neutral language. However, User:Ihardlythinkso supports the use of generic he. We need some discussion on what the consensus is. Georgia guy ( talk) 01:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Have there ever been any discussions in the past on whether to use today-centric language?? This means language centered around the present as if it were the center of time. Let me give an example:
Look at Traditional animation. This term is today-centric. Why. Because now is the time many people who are alive grew up with it but not with computer animation. To today the term might make sense. But in the future (an exact year would be a year like 2055) this term might not make sense any more, because by then most people alive would be people who grew up with both kinds of animation, so the term wouldn't make sense any more. I moved the page to Hand-drawn animation, which is not today-centric (the term would make sense to any time in history, whether now or in 2055.) But then User:Mediran reverted my move. Any analogous article titles anyone would like to bring up?? (Please, no titles of works. Titles of works have to keep their original words; this rule takes priority over all other rules except that we have to use English. New Super Mario Bros., which is the title of a work, should not be moved to something like Super Mario Bros. 2006 because that term would be less today-centric. The game is titled New Super Mario Bros., and will still be titled as such even in 2066.)
I raise this in a neutral manner, save for the sensationalist wording in the heading intended to catch your eye but not preload the discussion, and I do not want to single out any particular pages as an example. There are pros and cons, including:
If these matters are (to be in the future) considered for policy (etc) is there, should there be, a difference between a User page and a User talk page?
Wikipedia is what the community chooses it to be. What does it choose or has it chosen already? Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 16:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
1.There are articles on Wikipedia about different types of bombs. That tell how they are made and what is in them. This is not Encyclopedic content. It falls under What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, how to book. I think all bombs should be in one article and we dont need to tell how each is made.
2. If stuff like this is allowed it should at-least have a warning on it that tells what laws the production, sell, possession, and use breaks in the US and the penalty's for breaking them. As a requirement of wikipedia.
3.
Wikipedia:General disclaimer states:
"Jurisdiction and legality of content
Publication of information found in Wikipedia may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. The Wikipedia database is stored on servers in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law. Laws in your country or jurisdiction may not protect or allow the same kinds of speech or distribution. Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws, and cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws, should you link to this domain or use, reproduce or republish the information contained herein."
Maybe we should warn people of this on these type of pages. If someone uses your edits/infomation in a act of Terrorism or other crime then you could be breaking this law. Found at: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C113B.txt
(click for full text of statute)
|
---|
-CITE-
18 USC Sec. 2339A 01/03/2012 (112-90) -EXPCITE- TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM -HEAD- Sec. 2339A. Providing material support to terrorists -STATUTE- (a) Offense. - Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of section 32, 37, 81, 175, 229, 351, 831, 842(m) or (n), 844(f) or (i), 930(c), 956, 1091, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1751, 1992, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332f, 2340A, or 2442 of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), section 46502 or 60123(b) of title 49, or any offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) (except for sections 2339A and 2339B) or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law. (b) Definitions. - As used in this section - (1) the term "material support or resources" means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials; (2) the term "training" means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge; and (3) the term "expert advice or assistance" means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge. -SOURCE- (Added Pub. L. 103-322, title XII, Sec. 120005(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2022; amended Pub. L. 104-132, title III, Sec. 323, Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1255; Pub. L. 104-294, title VI, Secs. 601(b)(2), (s)(2), (3), 604(b)(5), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3498, 3502, 3506; Pub. L. 107-56, title VIII, Secs. 805(a), 810(c), 811(f), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 377, 380, 381; Pub. L. 107-197, title III, Sec. 301(c), June 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 728; Pub. L. 107- 273, div. B, title IV, Sec. 4002(a)(7), (c)(1), (e)(11), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1807, 1808, 1811; Pub. L. 108-458, title VI, Sec. 6603(a)(2), (b), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3762; Pub. L. 109-177, title I, Sec. 110(b)(3)(B), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 208; Pub. L. 111-122, Sec. 3(d), Dec. 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 3481.)
AMENDMENTS 2009 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111-122 inserted ", 1091" after "956" and substituted ", 2340A, or 2442" for ", or 2340A". 2006 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109-177 struck out "1993," after "1992,". 2004 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108-458, Sec. 6603(a)(2)(B), which directed amendment of this section by inserting "or any offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) (except for sections 2339A and 2339B)" after "section 60123(b) of title 49,", was executed by making the insertion in subsec. (a) after "section 46502 or 60123(b) of title 49," to reflect the probable intent of Congress. Pub. L. 108-458, Sec. 6603(a)(2)(A), struck out "or" before "section 46502". Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108-458, Sec. 6603(b), reenacted heading without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "In this section, the term 'material support or resources' means currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials." 2002 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107-273, Sec. 4002(a)(7), (e)(11), struck out "2332c," after "2332b," and substituted "of an escape" for "or an escape". Pub. L. 107-197 inserted "2332f," before "or 2340A". Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107-273, Sec. 4002(c)(1), repealed amendment by Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 601(b)(2). See 1996 Amendment note below. 2001 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 811(f), inserted "or attempts or conspires to do such an act," before "shall be fined". Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 810(c)(1), substituted "15 years" for "10 years". Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 810(c)(2), which directed substitution of ", and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life." for period, was executed by making the substitution for the period at end of the first sentence to reflect the probable intent of Congress and the intervening amendment by section 805(a)(1)(F) of Pub. L. 107-56. See below. Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 805(a)(1)(F), inserted at end "A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law." Pub. L. 107-56, Secs. 805(a)(1)(A)-(E), struck out ", within the United States," after "Whoever", and inserted "229," after "175,", "1993," after "1992,", ", section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284)," after "2340A of this title", and "or 60123(b)" after "section 46502". Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 805(a)(2), substituted "or monetary instruments or financial securities" for "or other financial securities" and inserted "expert advice or assistance," after "training,". 1996 - Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 604(b)(5), amended directory language of Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 120005(a), which enacted this section. Pub. L. 104-132 amended section generally, reenacting section catchline without change and redesignating provisions which detailed what constitutes offense, formerly contained in subsec. (b), as subsec. (a), inserting references to sections 37, 81, 175, 831, 842, 956, 1362, 1366, 2155, 2156, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, and 2340A of this title, striking out references to sections 36, 2331, and 2339 of this title, redesignating provisions which define "material support or resource", formerly contained in subsec. (a), as subsec. (b), substituting provisions excepting medicine or religious materials from definition for provisions excepting humanitarian assistance to persons not directly involved in violations, and struck out subsec. (c) which authorized investigations into possible violations, except activities involving First Amendment rights. Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 601(s)(2), (3), inserted "930(c)," before "956,", "1992," before "2155,", "2332c," before "or 2340A of this title", and "or an escape" after "concealment". Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 601(b)(2), which directed substitution of "2332" for "2331", "2332a" for "2339", "37" for "36", and "or an escape" for "of an escape" and which could not be executed after the general amendment by Pub. L. 104-132, was repealed by Pub. L. 107-273, Sec. 4002(c)(1). See above. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2002 AMENDMENT Pub. L. 107-273, div. B, title IV, Sec. 4002(c)(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1808, provided that the amendment made by section 4002(c)(1) is effective Oct. 11, 1996. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1996 AMENDMENT Amendment by section 604(b)(5) of Pub. L. 104-294 effective Sept. 13, 1994, see section 604(d) of Pub. L. 104-294, set out as a note under section 13 of this title.-End- |
I am not sure this type of stuff should be on Wikipedia and we need to come to a consensus on it. Theworm777 ( talk) 04:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Masem and Jayron32 are right. Beyond that, on the merits of the supposed legal issue, I see that the statute cited requires that the person giving material support is "knowing or intending" to aid such terrorist activities (i.e., scienter). I would surmise that requires a connection that is a bit more specific than reposting on a public website some information that is already widely available, when at best that information may be useful to some unspecified person attempting a terrorist act of some unspecified kind at some unspecified location at some unspecified time in the future. A map of a city may also be useful to a terrorist. If you personally hand him a map, fully knowing he is going to use it to bomb a bridge and plan his escape route, you may very well be giving him material support. If you simply publish one on the web for all to see, not so much. Google could not be liable for materially aiding terrorists even if the Boston Marathon bombers used Google Maps and Street View to plan every element of their crimes. postdlf ( talk) 19:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
On Template talk:Babel#Families_of_languages I suggest an extension of the Babel system for those who are able to read texts in dialects and related languages even if they have not formally learned them. Please contribute to a solution! DrMennoWolters ( talk) 10:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
An RfC on whether the MOS' Words to watch guideline should contain a paragraph about pejorative language suffered from a rather nondescript introduction and seems to have been largely overlooked. More community input couldn't hurt. Huon ( talk) 13:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I've started rewriting Wikipedia:Rules for Fools based on the April Fools' RFC. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know here. Thanks. — DragonLord( talk/ contribs) 21:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
After failed move requests in Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans and Talk:Chandra Levy#Requested move, how are policies conflicting each other, like WP:CRIME, WP:PRECISION of WP:TITLE? Technical 13 wants titles to be just names of people, but others believe that events are more notable than non-notable people. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
It is relatively rare for an individual to have their notability establshed by a single factor. The notability of almost everyone for whom we have a BLP was established by considering a variety of factors. I don't agree that having something named after one ever confers zero notability.
Several months ago, several individuals from the military history wikiproject, tried to argue for the deletion or renaming of the article on Richard Dixon (USCG), claiming that the Coast Guard heroism medal he was awarded was not a medal at the highest level, like the Victoria Cross or Congressional Medal of Honor. They dismissed that Dixon had his heroism further recognized by been chosen to be the namesake for one of the Coast Guard's recent class of cutters.
So, I disagree that having something named after someone ever confers zero notability. I ask you to think of offering a counter-example -- a naming, mentioned in a WP:Reliable source, which nevertheless, confers zero notability. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
For a variety of reasons some people become notable only after they die, often due to the notability of the circumstances of their death. That is, after they die, because of how they died, the person, not just the event of their death, becomes notable. In such cases the topics of articles about such people is the person in question, and the title should reflect this. Matthew Shepard and Chandra Levy are both examples of this.
As always, what should determine whether a given case falls into this category is coverage by reliable sources. If the material exists in reliable sources about the person, even though it may have appeared only after the person's death, it's there and justifies notability of the person, and an article, titled accordingly. -- B2 C 16:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
This discussion to me is precisely WHY this policy, if there is one, must change. What is more dehumanizing than stating that someone is "only" notable for their death? Either an individual passes WP:NOTABILITY for whatever reason (life, death, flying in a lawnchair) or they do not. To title the ONLY article about the person as sensationalism about Foo is just plain wrong. Montanabw (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Now that the multi-move thing is over, perhaps let's continue discussion here. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I have started a related multi-move RM proposal discussion at Talk:Suicide_of_Kelly_Yeomans#Requested_move. The basis for these moves is dispassionate and based on WP:AT, per the above discussion. -- B2 C 22:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's wait until spooky Halloween comes... -- George Ho ( talk) 05:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not trying to make trouble or anything like that. I just want a straight answer. Are secondary schools meant to be inherently notable enough to bypass the notability guidelines and have their own articles?
If the answer is "Yes", then why is this not reflected in Wikipedia:Notability (No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists.)? -- Atlantima ~✿~ ( talk) 15:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Are secondary schools inherently notable? That depends on your opinion. In most editors' opinions, are secondary schools inherently notable? Evidently yes. Are they almost always kept at AfD? Definitely yes. Is this consensus? Yes, of course it is. After yet another AfD on secondary schools is closed as keep, you cannot argue that consensus has not been reached. The fact is that most editors who express an opinion in AfD discussions believe that these articles are inherently notable. Since AfD, and not some mythical "rules", are our ultimate arbiter on notability, I really fail to see what Atlantima's argument is. It appears he does not like the conclusion that is being reached in AfDs and is trying to argue that these decisions and the opinions that lead to them should be overridden in the name of "rules" (which aren't, of course). Sorry, that is not how Wikipedia works. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
If one looks at it closely, the question is ambiguous.....what do you mean by "inherently notable" with respect to Wikipedia processes? Here are a few possibilities and my thoughts:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with the cited guide-lines that say no category grants notability, but that's a battle to be fought else-where. To the issue of high schools, WhatamIdoing says, "It is also the consensus of the community that if you can't find sources on a typical high school [not a 'pretend high school' that's actually a tiny program or a homeschool], then you're not trying." This might be the consensus, but it is counterfactual. I knew of a number of decent high schools in Ulaanbaatar that have no internet presence and, to the best of my knowledge asking around and looking around in Ulaanbaatar, have no published paper trail. These are, how-ever, definitely significant for Mongolia. I did not add articles for these schools, but I would defend the existence of such articles should they be created with just enough support to show that the school in question is a real high school. Kdammers ( talk) 13:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Your attention is requested to be drawn to the following notice:
A bot is requesting approval at
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BracketBot which will notify users on their talk page.
Due to the nature of the task, wider community attention is requested.
930913( Congratulate) 12:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
An RFC has been started at WT:VG/GL regarding whether we should add my character notability proposal. The discussion is at WT:VG/GL#RfC: Time to implement the character notability proposal?. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, all- as mentioned on Commons a few times ( here and here) (but not, as best as I can tell, here) Creative Commons is revising their licenses to produce a new 4.0 version. The changes include a variety of things relevant to WP and other WM projects, most importantly attribution, but also improved translations, database rights, and general improvements in readability. They are nearing their final version, and have asked us for one last round of review and comment. A few relevant links:
Note that this is not a call for comments on the adoption of CC 4.0 for WM projects. That discussion, if it happens, would be after 4.0 has been finalized, so that we're not speculating about the final terms.
Thanks! LVilla (WMF) ( talk) 19:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals#Questioning_the_need_of_portals_when_categories_exist after a user disputed my placement of portals in an article about a film. There doesn't seem to be a lot of traffic on the WP Portals page, so is there a better place to publicize this RFC? WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
More eyes are needed to resolve the issue of whether the non-free image of the painting Nighthawks is appropriate to use over other free available masterpiece images within the article about the Art Institute of Chicago (where it is displayed) given NFC policy. Relevant section is at Talk:Art Institute of Chicago#Deleting valid and important images. -- MASEM ( t) 19:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Categorization ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia, it seems, fairly consistently uses the IPA for pronunciation purposes. I understand why this is the case, as it is fairly standard among linguists, &c. However, I personally find it confusing. Many laypeople, I imagine, have trouble discerning pronunciations from this rather foreign system, and the process of looking it up via Help:IPA, &c, is rather confusing and unintuitive. Often, I am forced to go offsite to dictionaries to figure out the pronunciation of certain words, simply because I cannot figure out IPA. I'm not a total idiot, believe me, but I feel like this system is a bit above the average Wikipedia reader. Why then, does Wikipedia not provide pronunciation respelling in addition to, or to the exclusion of the IPA system? With pronunciation respelling, a commonly used technique by dictionaries, newspapers, &c. it is easy for the average English speaker to discern what is meant. Can someone explain what the policy is regarding pronunciation, if there is one? RGloucester ( talk) 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes, respellings absolutely should be allowed for all articles, period. Only slightly less precise than IPA, and far more legible. Yes. Red Slash 16:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I plan to rewrite Wikipedia:Government to give it the focus of how the community can have more say in rewriting policy pages. The problem now is that such pages are de-facto locked by stalemate and that's why ArbCom has gained so much power. ArbCom has effectively rewritten many of our policies regarding bans and blocks. They set the precedent and then people edit these policy pages to reflect common practice.
To give just one example, consider how we used to deal with topic bans. It used to be the case that topic banned editors could indirectly give notifications about e.g. vanadalized pages they themselves were not allowed to edit. There was never a problem with this, there were no loopholes for topic banned editors to exploit here. But when William was topic banned from the CC pages and he placed notifications about problematic edits on his talk page, he was blocked for doing exactly this. His appeal was rejected, and ArbCom did not seriously engage in the clarification request, instead issuing threats at other non topic banned editors to stop even raising this question.
This has had the effect of redefining the definition of a topic ban, but only a handful of Admins and Arbs where responsible for this, there was never a big community discussion about this with the required 2/3 majority for there to be a large enough consensus to implement a change to the policy page. Instead what happend was that the relvant policy pages where later quietly rewritten to "reflect common practice", which means that you need this huge consensus to change it back to what it was.
Given that this is the way we are de-facto editing the policy pages, I would argue that it is then better to do this in a less stealthy way, via something similar to the previously proposed Wikipedia:Government system? Count Iblis ( talk) 23:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
If we could eliminate the anticanvassing policy and allow groups to organize, we would open the floodgates to content-contributors working together and creating a properly governed encyclopedia. Sadly, that policy is in place, meaning that the most I can discuss on Wikipedia governance is on my talk page privately with other users (or on their talk page). Mentioning it in a public forum merely draws the attention of the warring gangs on this encyclopedia, who would for once unite to strike down any proposal threatening their power.
Beeblebrox, perhaps you would like to read the following for proof that there are more than a few users annoyed at the current state of affairs:
I've been making this new essay that I think will help wikipedia significantly. User:Lucia Black/Wikipedia:Gaming the discussion. Its still in development but it could be great if editors would help contribute to make this essay solid and hopefully "in a nutshell" worthy. Lucia Black ( talk) 01:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
@Chris: That was not a personal attack. You took harder hits from Ryulong and you made no "fair warning". I know when an editor does things out of spite and considers one bad behavior. If you are admitting you are using these tactics, then I can see why you are speaking now in attempt to make it look like its a bad essay. I didn't make this proposed essay just for you. I made it because I can't possibly be the only one dealing with editors evading key issues, not answering key questions, and overall just constantly bring up history.
Hypothetically, Let's just say this essay was made specifically for you. I don't think ANY editor can disagree with most of what the essay presents, except for AndytheGrump (don't worry I'm gonna cover Andy's point and elaborate). And doesn't provide bad info. So all you're saying is "This editor made an essay so that I can't game the consensus building process"
@AndytheGrump, the essay follows the same principle of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, WP:AADD, WP:OWN. All of these are clear essays that help avoid bad behavior or bad discussion tactics, because they explicitly mention the issue at hand when editors use bad tactics in a discussion. WP:GAMING has a section based on "consensus-building" building. The plan is basically to expand it enough to be split in its own essay. I don't think you even read the essay. This essay is to help AVOID evasive/aggresive tactics of discussion. I admit, the opening post may not be clear. But its completely in to benefit other editors. Lucia Black ( talk) 06:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue. You're no saint. The only reason why I'm not listing a long history of your disruptive edits is because my smartphone is too slow. So it would take a couple of days just to find your edits. So I'm not gonna discuss this.
This is about the essay not about you. I will ignore you if you intend to derail the discussion. This is an extension to WP:GAME particularly "Gaming the consensus" section. AndytheGrump would have to challenge all those other articles that help optimizing debate/consensus building. Lucia Black ( talk) 07:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This essay helps editors (or make clever editors) recognize what is considered bad behavior in a discussion. It would make Admins see when an editor attempts to manipulate consensus or makes it difficult to reach one by evading key topics. Why make WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, WP:OWN and WP:AADD. Lucia Black ( talk) 07:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Lucia, my initial reaction to your essay was this: "Eh... another personal essay whining about the fact that other editors didn't accept his/her arguments in a dispute, and does not understand why those arguments were rejected." Now... I assume that was not your intent; I am simply sharing the impression I got when I read it. I share this as constructive criticism, not as a personal attack of any kind.
My response based on that initial reaction would be to point you to
WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT... I think it already deals with most of what you are talking about in your essay.
Blueboar (
talk) 14:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I find this essay key and no wikibreak will keep me from attempting to make this. Why? Because it covers the cheap shots other editors I'm not aware of get away with. It doesn't say anything that automatically assumes bad faith, in fact, its an expansion WP:GAMING. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT can also play a role in this essay aswell. As of now, I'm expanding
But what I don't agree with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is that it implies consensus is right, minority is wrong, so the minority stays that way. So if an editor wants answers to his counter argument (that are relevant to build consensus) and consensus ignores it and brings a completely different point (unrelated to the counterpoint), then it is wrong for the minority to gain some answers. That's what I don't like about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
Also I brought it here so it can be refined. Does anyone here actually disagree with the points this essay brings about? I'm still refining it. Lucia Black ( talk) 18:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
@Martynas: If these issues are obvious, but not obvious. It helps avoid heated debates, because in the end both sides aren't just arguing over eachother but persuade others, and if one editor can't cite an essay to why its an issue, the other editor won't be able to convince the other.
@whatimdoing: Reputation should mean NOTHING when it comes to essay proposals, new innovative ideas that could help optimize wikipedia and even consensus building. If it does, it only proves how shallow editors are and sneaky. That's why my essay trumps that potential anomosity for "reputation"
The whole "you have to answer my question until I'm satisfied with that answer" is also in the proposed essay called "controlling the argument". Or owning the discussion. When editors ignore points other editors made because the other editor didn't give a satisfying answer. There's a difference between getting an answer and getting no answer. And a "liar" would mean someone brought up a claim that isn't true and refuse to answer when being brought to question. So its "lying" intentional.
If an editor asks for "this" and is relevant to consensus, but the other editor instead mentions "that". Then he's not rewarded to building consensus but manipulating consensus. Unless "that" is a good enough reason alone to not even bother answering for "this". You understand? Which I should add a note to my proposed essay. Lucia Black ( talk) 02:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The essay should be expanded and then focussed on giving advice to editors. I think that this essay could be focussed on advice for Admins to help them see through bogus arguments. Count Iblis ( talk) 12:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The Ombudsman Commission is currently holding a request for comment. Currently, the Commission only hears complaints regarding the privacy policy. We propose to change the scope of the Commission to also include hearing complaints about the global Checkuser and m:Oversight policy policies.
For more information please visit the RFC, which can be found at m:Requests for comment/Scope of Ombudsman Commission. Please direct all questions and comments there.
For the Ombudsman Commission,
-- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I want to ask people to go to my [ contributions page] and take a look at all the reverting people have been doing to my edits. There are users outh there that spend their lives invoking every piece of wikipedia policy to revert articles, including "policy 156, section y, part 16". This makes good faith wikipedia editors such as me become discouraged with participating anymore and want to quit. Maybe we should do something to prevent so many reverts over things that, quite frankly, may be minor to the reverters, but major to the adders. Like take a vote over whether an item should be included in the page or not. For example, the Jennifer Lopez and Pitbull edits, I think a shooting nearby is a major enough incident to be included, but others disagree.
I would like to hear your opinions. Thanks for your opinions and God bless all! Antonio Superloco Martin aqui 00:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The orange bar talk notification, OBOD, was turned off by the devs when Echo was launched. A consensus seemed to have developed at WT:Notifications that it should be turned back on because newbies and IPs would otherwise miss warnings. A gadget mimicking this functionality was created with default on. Another user has turned off the default on on the grounds there is not wide enough consensus. Please comment at WT:Notifications#Pseudo OBOD Gadget is live. Spinning Spark 19:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be OTBE'd, since a much more noticeable, bright-red warning now appears when you have messages. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Rules for Fools is a failed proposal, but it has been marked with a banner template as having community consensus. Since my removal of this has been reverted, I have started an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools#Failed proposal. Spinning Spark 14:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
As you can see, the user has provided a reasonable edit summary as to why they removed the section. However, the section is cited and could therefore be considered notable. Wanted to get a second. opinion before I either reject or approve the edit. Oddbodz ( talk) 16:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Some of us would like to upgrade WP:HISTRS from an essay to a guideline. Where do we go to apply for this? It would be really good if someone would work with us on it. A guideline would be particularly useful for resolving disputes that relate to nationalism, where there are competing versions of history. As WP:MEDRS is an invaluable tool for ensuring that we don't inadvertently promote quack cures. Thanks for any advice. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are two discussions concerning changes to the manual of style on anime- and manga-related articles. The discussions can be found WT:MOS-AM#Article content and WT:MOS-AM#Franchise articles. The current wording of the manual of style's article names and disambiguation section regarding separate articles for a franchise (such as Ghost in the Shell and Dragon Ball) is:
In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise, unless:
In one of these discussions regarding article content, a user has expressed concern about not mentioning WP:SPLIT in the MOS. Also, there is some concern about WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as well. However, since this may create a bit of controversy, I suppose more input from the community would not hurt. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Instruction creep? I am wondering when the issue of splitting an article became something that a Style guide should discuss... Is the MOS-AM being used as a one-stop all-purpose catch-all set of "rules" for Anime related articles? Blueboar ( talk) 20:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
My thoughts on this issue: if there is enough reliably sourced material to create a separate article, then it is perfectly acceptable to do so. MOSAM should not and can not prevent this as this is enwiki policy and guidelines. Preventing the creation of viable reliably sourced articles is against everything Wikipedia stands for. I think the original reason MOSAM had that little bit added in was to prevent the creation of gazillions of character pages and individual volume pages for manga (I have a vague recollection of a discussion about that years ago), but I think that can be dealt with via PROD, AFD, and similar methods. Any article which doesn't meet the basic guidelines for inclusion can be deleted. We don't need MOSAM trying to micromanage things for us. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes when I see an article at AfD (only nominated for notability issues) I think I'd like to merge some of the contents to a "parent" article. If I went ahead I would use {{ copied}} on source and destination talk pages. This template commands that the history of the source is not to be deleted so long as the destination article exists. So, I do not want to do this during the AfD discussion because it would put a spanner in the works of deleting the article. However, if I wait and the article is deleted it is too late. What is the best thing to do? Thincat ( talk) 08:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Please go to Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language and read the section titled " Man overboard". User:Frungi thinks that man meaning person (of either gender) is gender-neutral language. Georgia guy ( talk) 18:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
MOS states that: When writing a date, first consider where the event happened and use the time zone there.
However, in some cases, a historical event took place where the time zone in that particular location is different than what is today. That is, the time zone has changed since the event took place. MOS did not make note of this.
Example, 1920 Haiyuan earthquake stated that it hit at local time 20:06:53 (GMT 12:06:53), of which it is expressed modern China time zone, which is GMT +8. However, during Republic of China, China was divided into five time zones. The epicenter is at Haiyuan County, Ningxia Province which at that time is in Kansu-Szechuan Time Zone, which is in GMT +7.
Corresponding article in Chinese Wikipedia noted this fact and recorded in 19:06:53 (GMT+7).
Opinion on this? SYSS Mouse ( talk) 03:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Since early April, there has been a discussion at WikiProject Anime and manga about broadcast schedules. For convenience, I'll summarize the discussion below, or alternatively, please read the link above for the full discussion.
This page in a nutshell: A short background:
The arguments are as follows:
|
In the discussion, it was suggested that a centralized discussion to determine consensus should be started on this page, because the practice is not only limited to anime and Japan, and also because this could affect several articles and projects, not just WP:ANIME. As such, in this case, should the official broadcast date be followed, or should the actual broadcast date be used? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Important Comment - I have personal insight into this matter and I want to offer additional information and exceptions for this RFC. It is frequently common in Asian countries or Asian Publications including Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean publications to refer to dates as X 2 A.M and which would be X+1 to English speakers. An example of this is many Asian countries, a show (theatre, concerts) with a 2:00 AM start time on 5/12/2013 would occur to English speakers at 5/13/2013 2:00 A.M. This is related, at least among the Chinese, that the day begins with the rising of the sun. So in general, a localization of how time is interpreted and under what circumstances are not among just Japanese publications. In these materials the text literally translates to <month> <day> <time> at night. Where English text, even right underneath it, will often say Day of the Week, Month Day <time> a.m. Most English speakers do not understand this, and it is very confusing because both are correct depending on view, but when you convert out of context like Wikipedia does, the dates become incorrect. This issue extends to ALL media and not just anime works; this RFC is very important for that reason. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the easiest way to deal with this is in the text of any affected article: simply state the advertised time, and what it really was per UTC and/or per standard timekeeping, and then go from there. This is not a hard concept. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment - It would be appreciated if we could agree on some kind of standard for airing dates of these after midnight programs. There are cases, where the TV station advertises the airing time in one place in one form, but shows the airing time in another place in another frorm. I provide an example: Chihayafuru TV series; Nippon Television (the original broadcaster) advertises the airing time as (Fri.) 25:58, in Chihayafuru2 web page (here for episode 19), but shows the airing time of the episodes in standard form, (Sat.) 1:58, in its scheduling. What should we do here? Use the advertised time, or use the standard time in the scheduling? NTV has used both forms. What should be written in the infobox for air date of first episode? January 12, 2013 (1:58, the standard time and date listed in the schedule), or January 11, 2013 (25:58, the advertised time and date)? I personally am for using the standard (and correct) time and date in general, ignoring the non-standard advertised forms. Raamin ( talk) 19:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Last year WP:MUSICAL established a strict policy regarding limiting award lists for musical stage productions to only very prestigious awards. Although WP:FILM's policy is not expressly stated, if you look at any WP:FL regarding a movie you will see a fairly exhaustive list of awards that includes everything down to the film critic circle of any major city. Plays are somewhat related to both musicals and films, so it is not unreasonable to consider both policies. This is my first year of involvement in critically praised plays. I am in contentious discussion regarding whether all awards or just the most prestigious awards should be included in play articles. Please contribute your opinion on how WP:THEATRE should set its policy at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Theatre#Award_enumeration.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 08:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Awards that have articles, meet GNG or N should not be removed. While it is preferential that most important ones should be noted first or over lesser ones, but not to exclude them. By doing so, it seems that THEATER is selectively attempting to deny recognizing an award that has already demonstrated notability. Anyone who removes properly sourced information for an award that claims it is non-notable should take a look at Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Lucille Lortel Awards and other such awards while 'second-tier' are still valid and removing them is sort of like removing the Bronze Star Medal from the award list from military personnel in favor of 'higher awards' like Soldier's Medal. No one should remove all traces of an award simply because a higher one has been given. Even just listing the award itself and the year is suitable, but awards with Wikipedia articles or meet N should remain. I'm say WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can be interpreted as covering THEATER's preference issue as it directly conflicts with the purpose and coverage of Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
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
April Fools' Day has been a constant point of contention on Wikipedia. Everyone goes overboard on vandalism, and discussions on whether to play jokes on the encyclopedia on this day have occurred time and time again. While it may be fun, it ends up hurting legitimate users, places extra stress on vandalism fighters, and compromises the integrity of the encyclopedia. If this isn't resolved, I feel this will need to go to ArbCom, since these kinds of discussions happen every year.
The key question here is, should we tolerate jokes and hoaxes on April Fools' Day, even if they may be disruptive? — DragonLord( talk/ contribs) 18:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
That is just a short list of my ideas. Anyone else have any more to consider? nerd fighter 20:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
What is the policy on exactly what to do with dead links? I know Template:Dead link exists, but it gets tucked away into the reference where no one sees it and hardly ever tries to fix the problem. I'm seeing the "dead links" in two different ways:
That latter one is extremely pessimistic and violates WP:AGF, but it is also the most realistic. I for one wouldn't trust using a Wikipedia article for a school project if I can't access the original references. You can't just blindly trust a dead link. I find that practice naive. That's why I believe they should be replaced immediately, either by researching all over again or by using the Wayback machine.
However, what do we do if there is no readily available replacement? Is there any policy that prohibits me from removing a dead link and replacing the sentence with a [citation needed] tag? Feed back ☎ 09:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
It appears that editors seem to be confusing "links" with "citations". Not all links are citations, and not all citations need to be linked in order to be considered reliable. In many towns throughout the world, there are these buildings called libraries, and they contain these collections of bound paper called books. Not all books are available online due to copyright reasons, yet the information contained in many of them is generally considered reliable. WTF? ( talk) 18:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Snapshots usually become available more than 6 months after they are archived, or in some cases, even later, 24 months or longer.This is why we wait for 2 years before removing so-called dead links. 64.40.54.208 ( talk) 00:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Feedback, Here are your statements above:
Here's what we're asking:
As far as I can tell, your answer to the above is probably going to sound a lot like "well, I went to my favorite web search engine with a couple of keywords, and I didn't find anything in less than an hour, so that proves that nobody with better skills or better resources will be able to find it either." WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what project page this goes on but I figure here's best for now.
Two weeks ago I moved "Burnin' (Daft Punk song)" to " Burnin' (instrumental)" and "Aerodynamic (song)" to " Aerodynamic (instrumental)" as both are instrumental compositions rather than songs with vocal tracks, and other such electronic compositions with no lyrical accompanyment on the project are also denoted as instrumentals (ex. Popcorn (instrumental), Frankenstein (instrumental)).
It turns out that in the past 48 hours both had been moved, the former without any discussion or reason as to why (certainly no summary), and the latter with the summary "Congratulations, you have spectacularly failed to understand Daft Punk." I reverted the move reverts and posted on the two movers' talk pages that (essentially) songs must have lyrics and these are very clearly denoted in the articles as instrumentals.
While it may have been wrong for me to move the pages back, where should the pages ideally be located?— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 11:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
When administrators block users for the first time, it is usually for 31 hours. Why 31 hours and not something like 24 hours? — DragonLord( talk/ contribs) 01:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
A RfC has started at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13: Abandoned Articles for creation submissions discussing a proposed new speedy deletion criterion for rejected and long since abandoned Articles for Creation submissions. This would generate an initial deletion of some 50,000 pages, and then a daily dose of give or take 100 pages (wild stab at the actual numbers, not a scientific report here). Fram ( talk) 13:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I feel that WP:BEANS is important enough to merit guideline status—from what I can tell, it is frequently cited, there is a consensus of agreement with this essay, and I have not seen an argument against it. Should this upgrade be done? — DragonLord( talk/ contribs) 02:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Request withdrawn — DragonLord( talk/ contribs) 04:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone explain why there seems to be a convention, in giving names in Russian in WP, of placing accents on letters? E.g. in Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, the Cyrillic name is given thus: Пётр Ильи́ч Чайко́вский. This is incorrect, as the accents on 'и' and 'о' do not exist in Russian orthography. I see that this practise informs the reader where the stress in each word lies; but anyone transcribing the Cyrillic from this (or other) articles would in fact be wrong, and Wikipedia is therefore giving incorrect information. (In fact, in this particular case,the letter 'ё' would also be normally be written as 'е' as well, but let's leave that to one side).
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia) gives the example correctly,without stress accents:
So why do all virtually all articles with Russian names contain stress accents, without making it clear that these are not part of the orthography? Am I missing some other guideline on use of Cyrilic? Should not the non-orthographic status of these stress accents be made very clear to readers not familiar with Russian? If you want to give the stress, there are other, less confusing, ways of dong this.Thanks, -- Smerus ( talk) 06:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
First can I gently remind Incnis Mrsi of the protocol WP:AGF. I can seen no reason - other than perhaps because s/he is not a native English speaker - that s/he should accuse me of attempting to 'fool' WP readers. Had that been my intention I would hardly have started this thread. Perhaps it is because Incnis Mrsi is a native Russian reader that s/he misundertands the issue I have raised. I will try once more to make it very clearly. I would also point out that my query does not relate to Hebrew, so that this red herring can be laid aside; only I will mention here, what I am sure Incnis Mrsi very well understands, that the roles of dagesh and dots in letters in Ivrit are very different from the stress accents added to Russian which are the subject of this thread.
This is English WP. Readers to who come to English WP - say to read the article on Tchaikovsky - will find a variety of information in the lead about the name of the article subject. Typically, where the subject is Russian, this will be in English, followed by the name in and IPA version and in Cyrillic. The IPA vrsion will come with stress marks indicating where the accentcomes on each word. Typically, in English Wiipedia, the name in Cyrillic script will follow, with accents upon the stressed syllable(s). I think that Incnis Mrsi will agree with me that these stresses are not reproduced in normal printed or handwritten Russian. It is true that the accents on the Cyrillic will assist any Cyrillic-reading user to identify where stresses occur - but in doing so, they only duplicate what is already indicated in the IPA. The danger is that a non-Cyrillic-reading user may assume that these accents are integral to the correct usage in printed and written Russian (like, for exmaple, é is in French, or ö is in German); and may therefore cite elasewhere (in an essay, or elsewhere on the internet for example) the 'stressed' Cyrillic version as the standard usage Cyrillic version. In this way, Wikipedia would be encouraging what is, at least, a serious misapprehension, and could be construed as misinformation. For this reason, it would be better (if indications of stress additional to IPA are though to be required), to provide a stressed version of the English form of the name, rather than to add stresses (without explaining their status to non-Cyrillic readers) to the Cyrillic form.
Ясно? -- Smerus ( talk) 08:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, now we are agreed on the meaning of the query, what about an answer? That is, to correct (for clarity) my initial sentence in this thread, 'Can someone explain why there seems to be a convention, in giving names in Russian Cyrillic script in English WP, of placing accents on the Cyrillic syllables, (rather than relying on the IPA transcription, or providing an accented English version)?'-- Smerus ( talk) 09:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC) I note by the way that the accented form in the Russiain language is standard in the lead sentence of Russian Wikipedia articles - although it is not the practice in English Wikipedia to accent the English-language version of the name in the lead. Why do we appear to have adopted the Russian WP procedure for English Wkipedia articles on Russian topics (and for those articles alone?) There appears to be no rationale for this. -- Smerus ( talk) 11:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
It is a common error for non Russians to assume that 'й' is an accented version of 'и' This is not the case but often taught by some non Russian teachers of the language. They are distinct letters of the Russian alphabet, the former being the 11th letter of the alphabet ant the latter the 10th. The letter 'й' is pronounced 'y' as in 'yew and 'и' is pronounced 'ee' as in 'meet'. The cyrillic alphabet officially has 33 letters (21 consonants, 11 vowels plus two extra characters that have no sound of their own), but those teachers that treat 'й' as an accented version of 'и' will tell you that there are only 32 letters. 86.157.172.38 ( talk) 18:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I was going to add (before being summoned away by the wife) that an accute accent is often used in Russian dictianaries and books on the language to show which sylable is stressed. They never appear in normal written Russian as native speakers already know where the stress is. The stress of words is very important because, in Russian, unless a sentence starts with 'who', 'how', 'what', 'where' or 'why' (in Russian obviously), stress is the only way of identifying that you are being asked a question as Russian has no interogative form. In written Russian the question mark at the end of the sentence is the give away. 86.157.172.38 ( talk) 15:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Every once in a while an old, abandoned IP talk page can be found that looks like a draft article. My initial instinct is to just delete them, but with respect to User talk:86.29.138.185 and User talk:86.29.138.63, I wonder whether these include material that we are missing, and should have in the encyclopedia. bd2412 T 02:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Please would someone experienced in the policy of flag icon deployment look at List of gymnasts and determine whether the deployment of national flag icons in many places in the Rhythmic section is within the relevant policy? A note on the article's talk page about your conclusions would be appropriate.
If within policy, is such a deployment recommended?
In either case there is a lack of consistency. Is there an easy method of rendering the various appearances of Country consistent without significant manual effort? Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 09:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Currently we have Wikipedia:TITLEFORMAT#Article_title_format Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(capitalization) MOS:CT#Composition_titles Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#General_rules Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names Wikipedia:Official_names. I am probably missing some others. Also: Category:Wikipedia_naming_conventions It is a complete mess, and anyone can make any point they want because the rules contradict themselves.
Also, as a corollary (meaning it should be discussed independently of consolidating the rules into one place), I think it is time to reexamine the purpose of "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official" "Trademarks that officially begin with a lowercase letter raise several problems because they break the normal capitalization rules of English that trademarks" and "CamelCase are a judgment call." I understand why some people want a hard and fast MOS that applies in all cases, but it is causing issues all over the place. Is restyling trademarks and proper nouns making wikipedia easier to read, or is it making products harder to identify from search engines? Priority number one should be being able to recognize you have the right article, and part of recognition and identification is orthography. IKEA gets capitalized, but Time doesn't. Every article is turning into an "exception" and at that point we need to analyze if the exception has become the rule. Xkcdreader ( talk) 20:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
How long should a caption on a Wikipedia image be? Please help solve a dispute (and clarify the meaning of a guideline) in this discussion. Thank you. - X201 ( talk) 08:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I find it annoying that when a file or template is up for deletion and the notice placed on the file or template page propagates to all pages (in an abbreviated form) to all pages that use the file or template. Why is this done? — DragonLord( talk/ contribs) 01:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Why the hate against Times New Roman??
This change is really pissing me off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capnned ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
In working on the migration of citation templates to use the new Lua module, we've encountered an inconsistency between {{ cite web}} and the other citation templates (e.g. {{ cite book}}, {{ cite news}}, etc.)
The citation templates generally allow one to specify both an original url= and an archiveurl= that is intended to have the same content on an archive site.Example with both url= and archiveurl= |
---|
{{cite news | title = My news | newspaper = The Daily News | url = http://news.com/ | archiveurl = http://foobar.archive.com/ | archivedate = May 25, 2005 | author = Doe, John }} |
Doe, John. "My news". The Daily News. Archived from the original on May 25, 2005. |
When using {{ cite web}}, one can specify archiveurl= without specifying url=. In other words one is allowed to link to an archived copy of the website even if you don't provide a link to the original website. By contrast, all of the other templates consider this to be an error. If you try to link to an archive site without including the original url, you get an error message.
Examples with archiveurl= but no url= | |
---|---|
{{ cite web}} | {{cite web | title = My website | archiveurl = http://foobar.archive.com/ | archivedate = May 25, 2005 | author = Doe, John }} |
Doe, John. "My website". {{
cite web}} : |archive-url= requires |url= (
help); Missing or empty |url= (
help)
| |
{{ cite news}} | {{cite news | title = My news | newspaper = The Daily News | archiveurl = http://foobar.archive.com/ | archivedate = May 25, 2005 | author = Doe, John }} |
Doe, John. "My news". The Daily News. {{
cite news}} : |archive-url= requires |url= (
help)
|
In brief discussions, our small technical group generally feels that the behavior ought to be made consistent across the various templates, but we are of mixed opinions about which case to adopt as the standard. Requiring that the url= field be preserved whenever archiveurl= is present would help maintain information about the originating site, and could be especially important if the archive site ever goes offline. However, retaining the original url= also means indefinitely preserving a link whose content may be dead or changed in such a way as to no longer be relevant. In the case of a long-term dead link, it might make sense to only preserve the archiveurl= and discard the original url=.
So, opinions? Should the original url= be required whenever archiveurl= is present, or not? Dragons flight ( talk) 18:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
|IncludedWorkTitle={{{title|}}}
. I barely looked at the affected markup, but the apparent intent was to apply the same error check to all cite templates. I see no reason for these templates to be different. --
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 19:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)|archiveurl=
must require |url=
. If there's no original URL, it's not an internet archive.
Rjwilmsi 22:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)A source can be good enough to source a citation while not good enough for a statement of fact. There are also materials that can not be used as sources but are still valuable to the article. We have no policy or guideline for this. For clarification: wp:rs has us pretend the material is a source. Such distorted logic is not necessary. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 07:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello!
I would like to propose clarification on a current policy that seems to me to already be de facto in use, but which often leads to arguments. The practice invariably survives if it develops organically, over time, but I have found it to be immediatelty deleted if created in one go, such as happened to me here [1]
My proposal is to clarify usage of historical brand logos. Wikipedia usage shows that old, historical logos are often used in articles –
I am told that, if possible, one should include written information about the logos within the articles they appear in, and I'm all for that!
Often, however, one cannot do this immediately ( WP:REALLIFE :-) or at all, as is the case with the BTK logo, which has been used for around half a century in Bulgaria under the communist regime, but has no info on it, as " brand" was not a concept under totalitarianism. No one even knows who invented it. Hence I cannot, for the minute at least and maybe never, reference the logo, except as merely "having existed". In fact, even many capitalist logos don't ever get discussed anywhere, either. They also merely exist.
In any case, we need to reconsider the way " fair use" is applied in the context of historical logos and designs. Current usage as seen in the above varied examples, including my own vivacom example, do not contradict –
My main argument for supporting and wanting to make official the current situation is that historical logos are often more recognizeable than a current logo.
Yes, Wikipedia's third pillar states that "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute", but there are clearly thousands of copyrighted images available on en:wiki and on Commons, therefore the mere existence of copyrighted images does not infringe on this pillar. However, the fifth pillar is that "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not carved in stone and their content and interpretation can evolve over time", hence why I am writing this proposal.
Finally, my main contention is that people do not merely remove a logo section and flag the image for deletion...but rather to add an "expand section"/"please cite references" template to the logo section, because otherwise a double standard is created.
I would like to underline that my proposal does not aim to sidestep copyright policy. What I am contending is that Wikipedia's already established practice is clearly legal, and I would like jobsworth editors and administrators such as User:Stefan2 and User:B to realize this and not propose that all such copyrighted images be immediately deleted.
I would like to thank you for your attention, and look forward to hearing your opinions!
BigSteve ( talk) 11:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with BigSteve that historical logos are important for identifying the branding and documenting the identity of a company, and that deleting it would be detrimental for understanding the topic. But in order to meet WP:NFCC#8 -to be contextually relevant- the company's article should have a History section; recent or small companies for which history cannot be documented do not merit having their previous logos listed in it.
For long-term companies where their history can be documented, a gallery with a selection of the major logo changes is certainly adequate and contextually significant. Only for the case where there's enough content for a separate section for each period of the company there's a need to separate the logos, one for each section throughout the company's history (see Atlanta Hawks for what I mean). Diego ( talk) 14:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to thank you all for contributing to this topic!, and have read everything in detail. I have had to be away for a few days but will post tomorrow. I'm only writing this note as I know Village Pump discussions sometimes get archived really quickly – so, please, dont :-) BigSteve ( talk) 21:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi again!
I see your arguments, and I guess I will always strive to find some sort of written material about any logos, just to be on the safe side. I would like to answer a few of the points made, however –
On the issue of what piece of information is "critical to the understanding of the subject/topic/article". I agree – old logos are not critical to that…but let’s be frank – the current logo is also not critical to that, either! It is merely an additional piece of info which adds an extra layer of understanding and, equally importantly, adds color to an article – (after all, WP is not meant to be stuffy and b&w, is it) – but no logo is "crucial" to the understanding of any company article. So, if we are to follow NFCC#8 to the letter, we need to get rid of all logos.
I would like to thank Diego, Jheald and WhatamIdoing for your support on this, I thought I would be alone!
One of my main arguments from the start has been, which Diego reiterated, that a historical logo is often better-recognized than a current logo, so even B’s argument that logo inclusion is solely needed to help the reader understand what company is being discussed...doesn't fly – because even the current logo might not recognized by many readers!
So, Masem and B – your arguments on this point are intentionally exaggerated, and you know this!
But my point is – history and being reasonable – i.e. following the spirit of NFCC#8.
Historical logos are just that – parts of a company’s history and the mere discussion of a certain period of a company’s history is enough to reasonably merit passing NFCC#8, as in LA Clippers, Atlanta Hawks.... Any argument to the contrary is not black-and-white, but is just as much opinion as my arguments here – the point is to be reasonable. And, Masem, no, I don’t think this is a "slippery slope argument" – you are using weasel words, because you are not saying why you think it’s a slippery slope argument – the rule I am proposing can be applied quite strictly. Also, Masem, including several historical logos is not equivalent to "including dozens of screenshots of a tv show" – it’s the equivalent of adding a show’s old logo, and you know it! So let’s not use straw men to attempt to win our arguments here, fellas! BigSteve ( talk) 16:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned by the legalistic interpretation of the NFC policy - I have a strong feeling that the current practices at NFC review have expanded beyond what's healthy for the project, and that they're not fully supported by policy either. The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, which I wholeheartedly support, has the goal to maximize free content while building a worthwhile encyclopedia. So many people interpret this as a need to minimize non-free content, but that doesn't follow logically; the requirement is just to limit it in so far doing that improves free content. But excluding non-free content where it provides a proper encyclopedic function does not serve the goal to produce more free content (at least not when such NFC is not replaceable - "modern artworks" which are "hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself"; "a non-free work is needed to discuss a related subject"...)
The NFC policy is not to minimize non-free content - if it were, all non-free content would be simply forbidden; this policy is what allows us to include such educational content in a way that facilitates reuse when a free alternative is impossible, while encouraging creation of free content wherever possible. The strict requirements of license tagging and copyright attribution are strong enough safeguards so that non-free content with an encyclopedic purpose doesn't need to be removed just because; doing so won't improve the availability of free content, and thus that removal hurts the project. I would gladly have a discussion "on principle" to review how the mission is implemented both in policy and in practice, and the interpretations by various "factions" on how to best use NFC. In particular the subjective NFCC#8 is too often used at image deletion discussions to remove content with what I consider a valid functional purpose, and there's no way to achieve a consensus by good-faith editors; current practice offers no ways to compromise in such cases. Diego ( talk) 06:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
"Note that we are talking about the average reader, not a specific type of reader. I can understand that arguing that a reader from Bulgaria may recognize the company more by its old logo than the new one, but that's a very small fraction of our readers."I think this is a dangerously wrong-headed attitude. Just as the internet is the network of networks, so WP is the encyclopedia of encyclopedias -- we're not just a general encyclopedia, we aim to be everybody's encyclopedia, integrating a multitude of specialist encyclopedias. So e.g. WP:ITSLOCAL is not a good deletion argument, and some of our mathematics coverage is frighteningly involved. But if that particular specialist area is what you need to know about, such articles can be fantastically useful. We commit to try to make our articles as accessible as possible, particularly in the leads and early paragraphs, but it is simply not true that they are all pitched at some mythical "average" reader. Instead the question should be how useful we can make our articles to the reader that has been motivated to seek them out. Very often, that will be a reader that may already know a fair amount about the subject, because those are the sort of people who are motivated to come specifically to this article to find out more -- much more so than the mythical average reader. It's those people we should be seeking to satisfy, and for them we should be asking how valuable a particular image is. Jheald ( talk) 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Huh... I always thought that the statement that Wikipedia is a "free" encyclopedia was referring to the fact that users do not need to pay any money to access it (unlike, say Encyclopedia Britannica). Blueboar ( talk) 17:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, there is agreement that galleries of non-free historical logos don't work (in other words, an article like PBS Idents is problematic since few of the logos are presented without context outside of what some editor has described to explain what the logos are - not sufficient). My concern has been that just dropping historical logos without context even outside of galleries can lead to excessive non-free where it is not needed.
I can see that a midpoint here is the case of when a company had undergone a significant identity change, which specifically I'm thinking is pretty much a change in name, or a massive revision in logo identity, from something that has well-established (> 5 years?). The BTC case easily qualifies here, as is the PBS one (from NET to PBS). In such cases, a logo to represent the established identity may be appropriate. There is just reason here as such identity changes from something that has been around that long rarely go unnoticed by third-parties or even the company itself, though it may be initially difficult to find literature to support that, but under good faith, that seems acceptable.
I think there could be a few qualifications on the naming or logo aspect but it should be a clear difference. To use a example , using AT&T's logos [3], there is a clear change from the 1970-1983 logo to the 1983-1996 logo (transition from the phone to the globe image), but not between the 1983-1996 and the more newer logos (same globe, just different weights/spacingetc.) Consensus can decide when those are significant, but there's clear examples what lines are required to draw from.
But I want to stress the point of one unqualified logo use per identity change. I can accept one to show what the company's older identity was , but I have a problem when more than one is used indiscriminately ala the PBS ident page. Without a significant shift in name or identity - eg mostly just updating the logo for newer aesthetics - its hard to justify how this contributes to the company's past identity after the first image. This is no way prevents additional logo images that have clear sourced discussion to be included, just those logos where there is no sourced commentary.
This would 1) prevent non-free logo galleries or the equivalent while 2) still allowing representation of older but well-established identities to be shown while respecting non-free content. Also we should not be afriad to include links to logopedia, a wikia dedicated to tracking logo histories, if that's deemed necessary. Exactly how to codify this, that's a different question but this case would allow the BTS logo to be used on that article, or in the PBS idents, to have one example of the NET period, and a few from the more recent PBS period due to sourced commentary on a few of the logos (eg the head shape being pulled into the newer logos). -- MASEM ( t) 21:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
We should have an image like this in articles like this. We can't claim fair use with the criteria that no free use image is available. If we get an image of the statue licensed by the copyright holder of the statue, or host an image taken where FOP is allowed then they are available. Should I email the Academy for a licensed image before or after we remove the illegal one? Canada has FOP so we can have pages like this with very nice images.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 22:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Can CNN transcript pages be used as reliable sources? Searched Wikipedia but could not find an answer. Here is an example of what I'm referring to: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1304/14/fzgps.01.html 24.90.152.15 ( talk) 02:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
If a user with an obviously offensive username is blocked, their name can still cause offense as it appears in edit histories and search suggestions. I therefore propose that editors blocked for offensive usernames have all their edits over sighted (I doubt someone who chooses an offensive username has much constructive intentions) and their talk and user pages deleted. They can still appeal their block by emailing an admin or Unblock Ticket Request. 84.13.131.123 ( talk) 18:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
In cases where the username is aggressively offensive, but does not meet the standards for oversight, it can still be revision deleted from edit histories. Someguy1221 ( talk) 02:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
A question has come up at WT:AT asking why we use "Sentence case" for our article titles (as opposed to Title Case). So that I can give accurate background information to answer this question, I am trying to find out exactly when we made this decision ... I know it's been the way we have done things since I first joined the project (back in 2006), so any discussions that resulted in our decision would have taken place before then. I assume it was discussed at WP:MOS, but I have not been able to find the discussion in the archives (I am still looking). Of course, we were a bit more free-wheeling in the early days of Wikipedia, it's possible that it was discussed on some other page and then applied to the MOS based on that other discussion. Any help in tracking down the "when" (or early discussions of the "why") would be appreciated. Blueboar ( talk) 13:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
There has been a discussion going on at Talk:William Leveson (mercer)#Requested move There the author is requesting the page be moved to William Leveson (died 1621). So far, three people have weighed in on the discussion and here is a summary of their arguments.
These are the main points, and I will post on that discussion page that I've summarized here in hopes of getting more opinions and building a better consensus. Thank you Technical 13 ( talk) 01:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
At least some articles used to have a rating option at the bottom. This seems to have been eliminated. Where can I find the discussion leading to this change? Kdammers ( talk) 03:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was wanting to start a discussion on possibly having a sitewide policy on pages/sections for music from TV series and/or films. Two specific examples I was thinking about were Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Jackass, with both of these series having quite notable soundtracks. The article for BTVS used to have a page on the music from each episode but was deleted by the following vote- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buffyverse_tracklist
I would say that many of the arguments used for the above deletion actually do not apply and that specific pages for music from tv series and/or films would be completely in line with the purpose of an online encyclopedia. For example, music soundtracks for tv series/films (whether official or unofficial) are notable, they are not 'in universe' as the songs are real-world entities in their own right, they are not 'cruft' since while they play in a show they are not of the show, soundtracks are neither directories nor statistics, and they are relevant for addition to Wikipedia simply because it seems like it would be a fairly common occurance that someone who is watching a movie or tv show might want to know what the name of a song(s) in a given episode might be. To me, examples of 'cruft' would be how many vampires Buffy stakes in each episode, lists of puns made after stakings in each episode, etc. and not a comprehensive soundtrack listing for the series.
IMO the most and/or only compelling argument against adding pages for music from TV series/films would be that there are often no official soundtracks for tv shows as there are for films, however this seems like it would basically be the result of the high costs associated with producing such a soundtrack for an entire series and not due to lack of popular interest. As an example of a double standard in this regard, the page for the movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off has a section on the music from the film even though there was no official soundtrack, so why can't BTVS, Jackass or other TV shows have such a section/page? See- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferris_Bueller%27s_Day_Off#Music
The reason I'm asking for a sitewide policy on this subject is that it would be a shame to do a lot of work on this only to have it deleted at a later date as I was thinking about starting a page on the music from Jackass episodes but don't want to start without knowing whether it would be allowed to stay. Sorry if this isn't the right forum, please feel free to move it to whereever it needs to be if it's in the wrong place. Thanks a bunch.
Further to the discussion about diplomats, now archived here, I have sent five test case articles to Afd:
Would anyone like to comment there? Some people think that ambassadors are automatically notable, even if they are only referenced by government sources. Others are in favour of more rigorous criteria in line with WP:DIPLOMAT (which refers to participation " . . . in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance . . . ") and indeed those for other professions. -- Klein zach 00:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Ignore all rules is not only a Wikipedia policy, it is one of the 5 pillars and is often abused by users and admins trying to make their point. It needs to be clarified.
I recently attempted to update the Ignore all rules policy to reflect the 5 areas that past discussions and comunity consensus have determined to be exempt from the Ignore all rules policy but I was twice reverted. So I am bringing it here for discussion.
Below is what I suggest be added as a new section to the Ignore all rules policy. Nothing here is new and is documented in other places. It just clarifies the policy on the policy page rather than having to go to multiple locations to get additional information. Adding this to the policy will clarify it and potentially eliminate some future confusion.
“ | Past community discussions have identified five areas where it is normally innapropriate to invoke IAR.
|
” |
Any comments about this are encouraged and welcomed to help clarify this policy/pillar. Kumioko ( talk) 14:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Again folks, just to clarify. This isn't changing anything.
All this is doing is documenting what has already been established.
I struck out 1 already per the other comments (althuogh I think it still applies to things like Socking and Copyright violations).
Personally I think the community has already defacto eliminiated it anyway since every time I see it used some admin steps up and says "Oh no, it doesn't apply here because of X, Y and Z".
This is a rewritten cross-post of a topic I have brought up in depth on the OR Policy talk page. It stems from my decision to change a term on the page Irreligion. A source reported a change in an index from 77% to 68%. The source authors erroneously labeled this a decline of "9%", an error that was faithfully repeated in the WP article. Because this was actually an 11.7% decline, I altered the WP article to state that there was a 9 percentage point decline, the correct expression of the meaning of the data in the source.
For me, this raises the problem of how WP editors should deal with translating sources' data or facts into English narrative in WP articles when those source authors offer a different, erroneous expression of the data or facts. This situation does not seem to be covered by existing guidelines on dealing with errors in quoted material or avoiding fourth-wall-breaking editorial commentary on article sources.
On the one hand, using a source's data or facts in a way that, while evidently correct, contradicts the source authors' narrative or analysis carries with it an implied basic criticism of the source. This indirectly undermines both the reliability assumption for the source's inclusion and the convention prohibiting editorial attacks on sources within the article.
On the other hand, for editors to refuse to do this would seem to result in an absurd outcome: a difference in editorial action between two scenarios where logic dictates there ought not to be a difference. Scenario A: a source author publishes a table of data on its own, and the WP editor uses simple and universally understood knowledge to translate that table into English narrative for the WP article. No problem. Scenario B: the same source author publishes the same table accompanied by a commentary that includes a clearly, provably erroneous expression of the meaning of the data. That commentary might even come in a different publication at a different time. Now, suddenly, the WP editor's non-controversial expression of the data is potential OR?
Simply excluding such sources would seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, since there is nothing wrong with the data, and at some point the meaning of such data stops depending on the opinions of those people who initially generated it, right? AdamColligan ( talk) 16:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I was reading this and I thought - well, we all know that Wikipedia is 85% male, we want to change it, and the gendered language is probably one of the things we need to address. Do we have any policy, MoS, or even an essay about good practices when writing in the Wikipedia namespace? As in, do we prefer "his or her", "they", or something else? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The Manual of Style section on gender-neutral language states, "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision."
Are you proposing a change to:
Either gender-neutral language or generic he is acceptable; please use gender-neutral language ONLY where it can be done with clarity and precision; otherwise just use generic he. Georgia guy ( talk) 15:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear already that it will not be possible to agree on a house style. But maybe we do need a guideline stating that "they" and "she" are not wrong and should not be reverted as such, on policy pages at least (in mainsapace, "they" should be used only with caution). Formerip ( talk) 09:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
use Indian English}}
, {{
use dmy dates}}
, etc that are placed in the article to define for that article the style to be used.{{Use her gender}}
, {{Use his gender}}
, {{Use singular they gender}}
...{{he}}
, {{she}}
, {{his}}
, {{her}}
templates that contain {{Gender:{{USERNAME}}
|he|she|they}}
or {{Gender:{{USERNAME}}
|his|her|their}}
as is appropriate.
Technical 13 (
talk) 12:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Wikipedia:Language neutrality ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Since three different people have apparently found this comment of mine so unwelcome that they've invented entirely spurious reasons for removing it (or simply removed it without giving any reasons), I think I must be on to something. So I repeat it here outside any "closed" discussion, in case anyone wishes to address the substance:
I've discovered that policies are not there to be understood, they're there to be manipulated by the in-crowd (and the ability to tell others that they "don't understand" the policy is a key part of that manipulation). Clarity in policy threatens their ability to do that, so will always be vigorously opposed.
This is very much my impression, having seen what happens when I or anyone else takes an incomprehensible bit of policy or guideline and tries to turn it into something that people unfamiliar with it might understand. Those who sit around on these pages are either incapable of seeing how confusing the texts are, or simply don't see that as a fault (indeed, they seem to see it as a virtue). Victor Yus ( talk) 05:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#1 requires that photos be used under a claim of "fair use" only where no free equivalent exists nor could be created. We consider "fair use" photos of most living people to be inherently replaceable but this leads to photos of deceased people - no matter how recently deceased - being uploaded with little or no regard to the possibility of finding a free photo. I have offered a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Required search to satisfy criterion 1 for the recently deceased to require that users desiring to upload a photo of a recently deceased person make a good faith effort to locate or obtain a free photo before uploading a fair use one. Please see that page if you would like to opine on this proposal. -- B ( talk) 04:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
That didn't take long. Published by the academy with no proper copyright notice on the image.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 14:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I suppose it fails "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful." Ryan Vesey 17:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Commons is stating that we can upload Oscar images taken in FOP countries to commons. They claim that WMF legal has weighed in and they don't violate US copyright law. One discussion over there is VP/Copyright, heading 'FOP again'.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 22:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
In this discussion on the Boston Marathon bombings talk page, it was suggested that we need a WP:NOTFBI. I agree, and I've created it, with the suggestion that it be made into a subsection of WP:NOT. It can also be viewed as a special case of WP:OR. -- The Anome ( talk) 10:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I would also add a pointer to WP:NOTNEWS. Blueboar ( talk) 14:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Another facet to be considered in the same breath is that we shouldn't be here to aid in investigations either. In the case of the Boston marathon bombing, I'm writing this after it has been affirmed the FBI have images of the suspected perps but haven't decided if to release these to the public yet. We should not include these images if/when they are released (whether free or non-free), partially on BLP grounds (they are only suspects, not convicted) but more to this point, we are not the FBI's most wanted photo page, we should not be used to distribution information for purposes of getting it to more eyes. EG we are not an Amber alert system nor missing-persons search tool neither. Once convicted, that changes everything, but while investigation continues our role is not to aid in that and only consider inclusion of images if they are encyclopedicly appropriate. -- MASEM ( t) 16:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Chances are, anyone who would actually be unfamiliar enough with Wikipedia to try to use it to aid an official investigation or confuse it with a law enforcement agency would not have read any of our policies, guidelines, or essays. So I'm not seeing the point in adding to the ever increasing bulk of policy-space text by spelling out what is otherwise obvious from existing language and principles, particularly WP:OR and WP:NOTNEWS, that we are "not the FBI". Which is an incredibly oblique way of restating the otherwise clear points that this is an encyclopedia, that we do not publish original research or unverifiable speculation, and that we don't reproduce everything found in the news. Wikipedia is also WP:NOTONLINEDATINGSERVICE, WP:NOTROADSIDEASSISTANCE, and WP:NOTCATERER. Will those eventually become bluelinks as well? postdlf ( talk) 17:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia was designed to be edited by volunteers working as individuals. Our policies are designed round the person making the edits. But for the last few years, there's been a shift from wholly volunteer-led editing to increasingly assignment-led editing. There's a shift of responsibility from the person directly making the edit to the person (or people) directing and supervising them. There's a huge shift of scale, where 900 articles can be edited in the space of a few days. There's a shift of account lifespan down to potentially just minutes. There's a degree of compulsion involved that makes the student do things they wouldn't have considered. This can be good, but can also mean they write beyond their abilities or about topics they know nothing or push a POV they don't actually believe in, etc. There is off-wiki coordination of activities that conflict with our policies on privacy making it hard for editors to review assignments. In my view, our thinking about student, their assignments, and what to do with them is limited by trying to apply existing policy designed for volunteers to these editors and assginments.
So I propose Wikipedia:Assignments be developed towards policy. It is very draft at present and may evolve to be worded quite differently. But I think Wikipedia needs a policy to address this new form of editing. Our existing policies don't apply well. Please help draft a new policy to address this. Thank-you, Colin° Talk 10:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Input is requested at Wikipedia:Protection Policy Regarding admins editing through full protection, the policy currently states that admins may "make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus". It does not define what is meant by uncontroversial. Should the word uncontroversial remain, be removed, or be replaced with something more specific? 80.174.78.102 ( talk) 15:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I have closed my own discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate. Please feel free to take any action necessary to modify the closure of my own discussion to make it appear more Kosher.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I have started a discussion at WT:PERM regarding the use and assignment of the account creator flag. I thought I would let the people affected by this know. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 01:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a need for help from someone who speaks a particular language. Something would be nice would be to use the babel box templates to find such a person. Unfortunately, you have to click through a whole bunch of people who have been gone for years to find one person who is still here. I know that this has been discussed for other reasons and has always been shouted down, but for the sake of being able to use the user categories and babel boxen for what they are intended for - finding a user to help you - what would be everyone's thought about auto-deleting or auto-blanking pages of users who have zero edits for some lengthy period of time (like a year)? If the user returns, they are, of course, welcome to have their user page back, but for the sake of being able to find an active user, I think removing pages of inactive users would be a useful thing. -- B ( talk) 23:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
{{PAGENAME}}
for the sortkey.
Anomie
⚔ 13:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment I have on occasion also needed help from a user who speaks a particular language (besides English). I share User:B's sentiment that it can be hard and frustrating to find a person. Long term, Wikipedia's gonna have to do something dormant accounts; they are just accumulating. Jason Quinn ( talk) 22:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Why are people placed into categories at the bottom of pages such as "People from Brooklyn" when they were only born in that location and that's it? For example I myself am "from Brooklyn". I grew up here my entire life and if someone asks me where I'm from I say Brooklyn NY. I was born however in San Diego and moved to Brooklyn when I was a few weeks old. Apparently under Wikipedia's logic I would be a person "from San Diego" even though that makes no sense and I never would tell a person I'm from San Diego.
Another thing I've noticed regarding this issue is a celebrity who grew up say in Texas from 1-25 years old then moves to Brooklyn and has lived there for 2 years. They also get put into the "People from Brooklyn" category even though they're clearly from Texas. Can someone please answer these 2 questions? Thank you very much.
24.193.127.141 ( talk) 04:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Huh, spammers?? Can someone more knowledgable about Wikipedia policy please answer my questions regarding this issue?
Thank You. 24.193.127.141 ( talk) 16:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Moderation guidelines ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
We often hear people cite the "old" proverb that adminship is no big deal. The RfC linked above asks you to objectively say if you believe the Wikipedia community currently treats adminship as if it is no big deal. AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday an editor removed the name of the accused based on WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME.
Just in case you do not know, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security was unable to find evidence of ricin against the accused, and he was subsequently released and all charged dropped as of yesterday. I use the word accused here since the person is no longer considered as a suspect.
Yet, the reference cited includes the name of the accused in the article title and thus appears in the reference list. What should we do about this? SYSS Mouse ( talk) 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:GNL says use gender-neutral language. However, User:Ihardlythinkso supports the use of generic he. We need some discussion on what the consensus is. Georgia guy ( talk) 01:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Have there ever been any discussions in the past on whether to use today-centric language?? This means language centered around the present as if it were the center of time. Let me give an example:
Look at Traditional animation. This term is today-centric. Why. Because now is the time many people who are alive grew up with it but not with computer animation. To today the term might make sense. But in the future (an exact year would be a year like 2055) this term might not make sense any more, because by then most people alive would be people who grew up with both kinds of animation, so the term wouldn't make sense any more. I moved the page to Hand-drawn animation, which is not today-centric (the term would make sense to any time in history, whether now or in 2055.) But then User:Mediran reverted my move. Any analogous article titles anyone would like to bring up?? (Please, no titles of works. Titles of works have to keep their original words; this rule takes priority over all other rules except that we have to use English. New Super Mario Bros., which is the title of a work, should not be moved to something like Super Mario Bros. 2006 because that term would be less today-centric. The game is titled New Super Mario Bros., and will still be titled as such even in 2066.)
I raise this in a neutral manner, save for the sensationalist wording in the heading intended to catch your eye but not preload the discussion, and I do not want to single out any particular pages as an example. There are pros and cons, including:
If these matters are (to be in the future) considered for policy (etc) is there, should there be, a difference between a User page and a User talk page?
Wikipedia is what the community chooses it to be. What does it choose or has it chosen already? Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 16:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
1.There are articles on Wikipedia about different types of bombs. That tell how they are made and what is in them. This is not Encyclopedic content. It falls under What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, how to book. I think all bombs should be in one article and we dont need to tell how each is made.
2. If stuff like this is allowed it should at-least have a warning on it that tells what laws the production, sell, possession, and use breaks in the US and the penalty's for breaking them. As a requirement of wikipedia.
3.
Wikipedia:General disclaimer states:
"Jurisdiction and legality of content
Publication of information found in Wikipedia may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. The Wikipedia database is stored on servers in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law. Laws in your country or jurisdiction may not protect or allow the same kinds of speech or distribution. Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws, and cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws, should you link to this domain or use, reproduce or republish the information contained herein."
Maybe we should warn people of this on these type of pages. If someone uses your edits/infomation in a act of Terrorism or other crime then you could be breaking this law. Found at: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C113B.txt
(click for full text of statute)
|
---|
-CITE-
18 USC Sec. 2339A 01/03/2012 (112-90) -EXPCITE- TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM -HEAD- Sec. 2339A. Providing material support to terrorists -STATUTE- (a) Offense. - Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of section 32, 37, 81, 175, 229, 351, 831, 842(m) or (n), 844(f) or (i), 930(c), 956, 1091, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1751, 1992, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332f, 2340A, or 2442 of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), section 46502 or 60123(b) of title 49, or any offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) (except for sections 2339A and 2339B) or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law. (b) Definitions. - As used in this section - (1) the term "material support or resources" means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials; (2) the term "training" means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge; and (3) the term "expert advice or assistance" means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge. -SOURCE- (Added Pub. L. 103-322, title XII, Sec. 120005(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2022; amended Pub. L. 104-132, title III, Sec. 323, Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1255; Pub. L. 104-294, title VI, Secs. 601(b)(2), (s)(2), (3), 604(b)(5), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3498, 3502, 3506; Pub. L. 107-56, title VIII, Secs. 805(a), 810(c), 811(f), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 377, 380, 381; Pub. L. 107-197, title III, Sec. 301(c), June 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 728; Pub. L. 107- 273, div. B, title IV, Sec. 4002(a)(7), (c)(1), (e)(11), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1807, 1808, 1811; Pub. L. 108-458, title VI, Sec. 6603(a)(2), (b), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3762; Pub. L. 109-177, title I, Sec. 110(b)(3)(B), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 208; Pub. L. 111-122, Sec. 3(d), Dec. 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 3481.)
AMENDMENTS 2009 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111-122 inserted ", 1091" after "956" and substituted ", 2340A, or 2442" for ", or 2340A". 2006 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109-177 struck out "1993," after "1992,". 2004 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108-458, Sec. 6603(a)(2)(B), which directed amendment of this section by inserting "or any offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) (except for sections 2339A and 2339B)" after "section 60123(b) of title 49,", was executed by making the insertion in subsec. (a) after "section 46502 or 60123(b) of title 49," to reflect the probable intent of Congress. Pub. L. 108-458, Sec. 6603(a)(2)(A), struck out "or" before "section 46502". Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108-458, Sec. 6603(b), reenacted heading without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "In this section, the term 'material support or resources' means currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials." 2002 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107-273, Sec. 4002(a)(7), (e)(11), struck out "2332c," after "2332b," and substituted "of an escape" for "or an escape". Pub. L. 107-197 inserted "2332f," before "or 2340A". Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107-273, Sec. 4002(c)(1), repealed amendment by Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 601(b)(2). See 1996 Amendment note below. 2001 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 811(f), inserted "or attempts or conspires to do such an act," before "shall be fined". Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 810(c)(1), substituted "15 years" for "10 years". Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 810(c)(2), which directed substitution of ", and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life." for period, was executed by making the substitution for the period at end of the first sentence to reflect the probable intent of Congress and the intervening amendment by section 805(a)(1)(F) of Pub. L. 107-56. See below. Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 805(a)(1)(F), inserted at end "A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law." Pub. L. 107-56, Secs. 805(a)(1)(A)-(E), struck out ", within the United States," after "Whoever", and inserted "229," after "175,", "1993," after "1992,", ", section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284)," after "2340A of this title", and "or 60123(b)" after "section 46502". Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 805(a)(2), substituted "or monetary instruments or financial securities" for "or other financial securities" and inserted "expert advice or assistance," after "training,". 1996 - Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 604(b)(5), amended directory language of Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 120005(a), which enacted this section. Pub. L. 104-132 amended section generally, reenacting section catchline without change and redesignating provisions which detailed what constitutes offense, formerly contained in subsec. (b), as subsec. (a), inserting references to sections 37, 81, 175, 831, 842, 956, 1362, 1366, 2155, 2156, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, and 2340A of this title, striking out references to sections 36, 2331, and 2339 of this title, redesignating provisions which define "material support or resource", formerly contained in subsec. (a), as subsec. (b), substituting provisions excepting medicine or religious materials from definition for provisions excepting humanitarian assistance to persons not directly involved in violations, and struck out subsec. (c) which authorized investigations into possible violations, except activities involving First Amendment rights. Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 601(s)(2), (3), inserted "930(c)," before "956,", "1992," before "2155,", "2332c," before "or 2340A of this title", and "or an escape" after "concealment". Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 601(b)(2), which directed substitution of "2332" for "2331", "2332a" for "2339", "37" for "36", and "or an escape" for "of an escape" and which could not be executed after the general amendment by Pub. L. 104-132, was repealed by Pub. L. 107-273, Sec. 4002(c)(1). See above. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2002 AMENDMENT Pub. L. 107-273, div. B, title IV, Sec. 4002(c)(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1808, provided that the amendment made by section 4002(c)(1) is effective Oct. 11, 1996. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1996 AMENDMENT Amendment by section 604(b)(5) of Pub. L. 104-294 effective Sept. 13, 1994, see section 604(d) of Pub. L. 104-294, set out as a note under section 13 of this title.-End- |
I am not sure this type of stuff should be on Wikipedia and we need to come to a consensus on it. Theworm777 ( talk) 04:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Masem and Jayron32 are right. Beyond that, on the merits of the supposed legal issue, I see that the statute cited requires that the person giving material support is "knowing or intending" to aid such terrorist activities (i.e., scienter). I would surmise that requires a connection that is a bit more specific than reposting on a public website some information that is already widely available, when at best that information may be useful to some unspecified person attempting a terrorist act of some unspecified kind at some unspecified location at some unspecified time in the future. A map of a city may also be useful to a terrorist. If you personally hand him a map, fully knowing he is going to use it to bomb a bridge and plan his escape route, you may very well be giving him material support. If you simply publish one on the web for all to see, not so much. Google could not be liable for materially aiding terrorists even if the Boston Marathon bombers used Google Maps and Street View to plan every element of their crimes. postdlf ( talk) 19:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
On Template talk:Babel#Families_of_languages I suggest an extension of the Babel system for those who are able to read texts in dialects and related languages even if they have not formally learned them. Please contribute to a solution! DrMennoWolters ( talk) 10:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
An RfC on whether the MOS' Words to watch guideline should contain a paragraph about pejorative language suffered from a rather nondescript introduction and seems to have been largely overlooked. More community input couldn't hurt. Huon ( talk) 13:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I've started rewriting Wikipedia:Rules for Fools based on the April Fools' RFC. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know here. Thanks. — DragonLord( talk/ contribs) 21:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
After failed move requests in Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans and Talk:Chandra Levy#Requested move, how are policies conflicting each other, like WP:CRIME, WP:PRECISION of WP:TITLE? Technical 13 wants titles to be just names of people, but others believe that events are more notable than non-notable people. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
It is relatively rare for an individual to have their notability establshed by a single factor. The notability of almost everyone for whom we have a BLP was established by considering a variety of factors. I don't agree that having something named after one ever confers zero notability.
Several months ago, several individuals from the military history wikiproject, tried to argue for the deletion or renaming of the article on Richard Dixon (USCG), claiming that the Coast Guard heroism medal he was awarded was not a medal at the highest level, like the Victoria Cross or Congressional Medal of Honor. They dismissed that Dixon had his heroism further recognized by been chosen to be the namesake for one of the Coast Guard's recent class of cutters.
So, I disagree that having something named after someone ever confers zero notability. I ask you to think of offering a counter-example -- a naming, mentioned in a WP:Reliable source, which nevertheless, confers zero notability. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
For a variety of reasons some people become notable only after they die, often due to the notability of the circumstances of their death. That is, after they die, because of how they died, the person, not just the event of their death, becomes notable. In such cases the topics of articles about such people is the person in question, and the title should reflect this. Matthew Shepard and Chandra Levy are both examples of this.
As always, what should determine whether a given case falls into this category is coverage by reliable sources. If the material exists in reliable sources about the person, even though it may have appeared only after the person's death, it's there and justifies notability of the person, and an article, titled accordingly. -- B2 C 16:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
This discussion to me is precisely WHY this policy, if there is one, must change. What is more dehumanizing than stating that someone is "only" notable for their death? Either an individual passes WP:NOTABILITY for whatever reason (life, death, flying in a lawnchair) or they do not. To title the ONLY article about the person as sensationalism about Foo is just plain wrong. Montanabw (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Now that the multi-move thing is over, perhaps let's continue discussion here. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I have started a related multi-move RM proposal discussion at Talk:Suicide_of_Kelly_Yeomans#Requested_move. The basis for these moves is dispassionate and based on WP:AT, per the above discussion. -- B2 C 22:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's wait until spooky Halloween comes... -- George Ho ( talk) 05:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not trying to make trouble or anything like that. I just want a straight answer. Are secondary schools meant to be inherently notable enough to bypass the notability guidelines and have their own articles?
If the answer is "Yes", then why is this not reflected in Wikipedia:Notability (No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists.)? -- Atlantima ~✿~ ( talk) 15:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Are secondary schools inherently notable? That depends on your opinion. In most editors' opinions, are secondary schools inherently notable? Evidently yes. Are they almost always kept at AfD? Definitely yes. Is this consensus? Yes, of course it is. After yet another AfD on secondary schools is closed as keep, you cannot argue that consensus has not been reached. The fact is that most editors who express an opinion in AfD discussions believe that these articles are inherently notable. Since AfD, and not some mythical "rules", are our ultimate arbiter on notability, I really fail to see what Atlantima's argument is. It appears he does not like the conclusion that is being reached in AfDs and is trying to argue that these decisions and the opinions that lead to them should be overridden in the name of "rules" (which aren't, of course). Sorry, that is not how Wikipedia works. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
If one looks at it closely, the question is ambiguous.....what do you mean by "inherently notable" with respect to Wikipedia processes? Here are a few possibilities and my thoughts:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with the cited guide-lines that say no category grants notability, but that's a battle to be fought else-where. To the issue of high schools, WhatamIdoing says, "It is also the consensus of the community that if you can't find sources on a typical high school [not a 'pretend high school' that's actually a tiny program or a homeschool], then you're not trying." This might be the consensus, but it is counterfactual. I knew of a number of decent high schools in Ulaanbaatar that have no internet presence and, to the best of my knowledge asking around and looking around in Ulaanbaatar, have no published paper trail. These are, how-ever, definitely significant for Mongolia. I did not add articles for these schools, but I would defend the existence of such articles should they be created with just enough support to show that the school in question is a real high school. Kdammers ( talk) 13:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Your attention is requested to be drawn to the following notice:
A bot is requesting approval at
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BracketBot which will notify users on their talk page.
Due to the nature of the task, wider community attention is requested.
930913( Congratulate) 12:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
An RFC has been started at WT:VG/GL regarding whether we should add my character notability proposal. The discussion is at WT:VG/GL#RfC: Time to implement the character notability proposal?. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, all- as mentioned on Commons a few times ( here and here) (but not, as best as I can tell, here) Creative Commons is revising their licenses to produce a new 4.0 version. The changes include a variety of things relevant to WP and other WM projects, most importantly attribution, but also improved translations, database rights, and general improvements in readability. They are nearing their final version, and have asked us for one last round of review and comment. A few relevant links:
Note that this is not a call for comments on the adoption of CC 4.0 for WM projects. That discussion, if it happens, would be after 4.0 has been finalized, so that we're not speculating about the final terms.
Thanks! LVilla (WMF) ( talk) 19:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals#Questioning_the_need_of_portals_when_categories_exist after a user disputed my placement of portals in an article about a film. There doesn't seem to be a lot of traffic on the WP Portals page, so is there a better place to publicize this RFC? WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
More eyes are needed to resolve the issue of whether the non-free image of the painting Nighthawks is appropriate to use over other free available masterpiece images within the article about the Art Institute of Chicago (where it is displayed) given NFC policy. Relevant section is at Talk:Art Institute of Chicago#Deleting valid and important images. -- MASEM ( t) 19:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Categorization ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia, it seems, fairly consistently uses the IPA for pronunciation purposes. I understand why this is the case, as it is fairly standard among linguists, &c. However, I personally find it confusing. Many laypeople, I imagine, have trouble discerning pronunciations from this rather foreign system, and the process of looking it up via Help:IPA, &c, is rather confusing and unintuitive. Often, I am forced to go offsite to dictionaries to figure out the pronunciation of certain words, simply because I cannot figure out IPA. I'm not a total idiot, believe me, but I feel like this system is a bit above the average Wikipedia reader. Why then, does Wikipedia not provide pronunciation respelling in addition to, or to the exclusion of the IPA system? With pronunciation respelling, a commonly used technique by dictionaries, newspapers, &c. it is easy for the average English speaker to discern what is meant. Can someone explain what the policy is regarding pronunciation, if there is one? RGloucester ( talk) 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes, respellings absolutely should be allowed for all articles, period. Only slightly less precise than IPA, and far more legible. Yes. Red Slash 16:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I plan to rewrite Wikipedia:Government to give it the focus of how the community can have more say in rewriting policy pages. The problem now is that such pages are de-facto locked by stalemate and that's why ArbCom has gained so much power. ArbCom has effectively rewritten many of our policies regarding bans and blocks. They set the precedent and then people edit these policy pages to reflect common practice.
To give just one example, consider how we used to deal with topic bans. It used to be the case that topic banned editors could indirectly give notifications about e.g. vanadalized pages they themselves were not allowed to edit. There was never a problem with this, there were no loopholes for topic banned editors to exploit here. But when William was topic banned from the CC pages and he placed notifications about problematic edits on his talk page, he was blocked for doing exactly this. His appeal was rejected, and ArbCom did not seriously engage in the clarification request, instead issuing threats at other non topic banned editors to stop even raising this question.
This has had the effect of redefining the definition of a topic ban, but only a handful of Admins and Arbs where responsible for this, there was never a big community discussion about this with the required 2/3 majority for there to be a large enough consensus to implement a change to the policy page. Instead what happend was that the relvant policy pages where later quietly rewritten to "reflect common practice", which means that you need this huge consensus to change it back to what it was.
Given that this is the way we are de-facto editing the policy pages, I would argue that it is then better to do this in a less stealthy way, via something similar to the previously proposed Wikipedia:Government system? Count Iblis ( talk) 23:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
If we could eliminate the anticanvassing policy and allow groups to organize, we would open the floodgates to content-contributors working together and creating a properly governed encyclopedia. Sadly, that policy is in place, meaning that the most I can discuss on Wikipedia governance is on my talk page privately with other users (or on their talk page). Mentioning it in a public forum merely draws the attention of the warring gangs on this encyclopedia, who would for once unite to strike down any proposal threatening their power.
Beeblebrox, perhaps you would like to read the following for proof that there are more than a few users annoyed at the current state of affairs:
I've been making this new essay that I think will help wikipedia significantly. User:Lucia Black/Wikipedia:Gaming the discussion. Its still in development but it could be great if editors would help contribute to make this essay solid and hopefully "in a nutshell" worthy. Lucia Black ( talk) 01:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
@Chris: That was not a personal attack. You took harder hits from Ryulong and you made no "fair warning". I know when an editor does things out of spite and considers one bad behavior. If you are admitting you are using these tactics, then I can see why you are speaking now in attempt to make it look like its a bad essay. I didn't make this proposed essay just for you. I made it because I can't possibly be the only one dealing with editors evading key issues, not answering key questions, and overall just constantly bring up history.
Hypothetically, Let's just say this essay was made specifically for you. I don't think ANY editor can disagree with most of what the essay presents, except for AndytheGrump (don't worry I'm gonna cover Andy's point and elaborate). And doesn't provide bad info. So all you're saying is "This editor made an essay so that I can't game the consensus building process"
@AndytheGrump, the essay follows the same principle of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, WP:AADD, WP:OWN. All of these are clear essays that help avoid bad behavior or bad discussion tactics, because they explicitly mention the issue at hand when editors use bad tactics in a discussion. WP:GAMING has a section based on "consensus-building" building. The plan is basically to expand it enough to be split in its own essay. I don't think you even read the essay. This essay is to help AVOID evasive/aggresive tactics of discussion. I admit, the opening post may not be clear. But its completely in to benefit other editors. Lucia Black ( talk) 06:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue. You're no saint. The only reason why I'm not listing a long history of your disruptive edits is because my smartphone is too slow. So it would take a couple of days just to find your edits. So I'm not gonna discuss this.
This is about the essay not about you. I will ignore you if you intend to derail the discussion. This is an extension to WP:GAME particularly "Gaming the consensus" section. AndytheGrump would have to challenge all those other articles that help optimizing debate/consensus building. Lucia Black ( talk) 07:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This essay helps editors (or make clever editors) recognize what is considered bad behavior in a discussion. It would make Admins see when an editor attempts to manipulate consensus or makes it difficult to reach one by evading key topics. Why make WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, WP:OWN and WP:AADD. Lucia Black ( talk) 07:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Lucia, my initial reaction to your essay was this: "Eh... another personal essay whining about the fact that other editors didn't accept his/her arguments in a dispute, and does not understand why those arguments were rejected." Now... I assume that was not your intent; I am simply sharing the impression I got when I read it. I share this as constructive criticism, not as a personal attack of any kind.
My response based on that initial reaction would be to point you to
WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT... I think it already deals with most of what you are talking about in your essay.
Blueboar (
talk) 14:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I find this essay key and no wikibreak will keep me from attempting to make this. Why? Because it covers the cheap shots other editors I'm not aware of get away with. It doesn't say anything that automatically assumes bad faith, in fact, its an expansion WP:GAMING. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT can also play a role in this essay aswell. As of now, I'm expanding
But what I don't agree with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is that it implies consensus is right, minority is wrong, so the minority stays that way. So if an editor wants answers to his counter argument (that are relevant to build consensus) and consensus ignores it and brings a completely different point (unrelated to the counterpoint), then it is wrong for the minority to gain some answers. That's what I don't like about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
Also I brought it here so it can be refined. Does anyone here actually disagree with the points this essay brings about? I'm still refining it. Lucia Black ( talk) 18:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
@Martynas: If these issues are obvious, but not obvious. It helps avoid heated debates, because in the end both sides aren't just arguing over eachother but persuade others, and if one editor can't cite an essay to why its an issue, the other editor won't be able to convince the other.
@whatimdoing: Reputation should mean NOTHING when it comes to essay proposals, new innovative ideas that could help optimize wikipedia and even consensus building. If it does, it only proves how shallow editors are and sneaky. That's why my essay trumps that potential anomosity for "reputation"
The whole "you have to answer my question until I'm satisfied with that answer" is also in the proposed essay called "controlling the argument". Or owning the discussion. When editors ignore points other editors made because the other editor didn't give a satisfying answer. There's a difference between getting an answer and getting no answer. And a "liar" would mean someone brought up a claim that isn't true and refuse to answer when being brought to question. So its "lying" intentional.
If an editor asks for "this" and is relevant to consensus, but the other editor instead mentions "that". Then he's not rewarded to building consensus but manipulating consensus. Unless "that" is a good enough reason alone to not even bother answering for "this". You understand? Which I should add a note to my proposed essay. Lucia Black ( talk) 02:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The essay should be expanded and then focussed on giving advice to editors. I think that this essay could be focussed on advice for Admins to help them see through bogus arguments. Count Iblis ( talk) 12:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The Ombudsman Commission is currently holding a request for comment. Currently, the Commission only hears complaints regarding the privacy policy. We propose to change the scope of the Commission to also include hearing complaints about the global Checkuser and m:Oversight policy policies.
For more information please visit the RFC, which can be found at m:Requests for comment/Scope of Ombudsman Commission. Please direct all questions and comments there.
For the Ombudsman Commission,
-- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I want to ask people to go to my [ contributions page] and take a look at all the reverting people have been doing to my edits. There are users outh there that spend their lives invoking every piece of wikipedia policy to revert articles, including "policy 156, section y, part 16". This makes good faith wikipedia editors such as me become discouraged with participating anymore and want to quit. Maybe we should do something to prevent so many reverts over things that, quite frankly, may be minor to the reverters, but major to the adders. Like take a vote over whether an item should be included in the page or not. For example, the Jennifer Lopez and Pitbull edits, I think a shooting nearby is a major enough incident to be included, but others disagree.
I would like to hear your opinions. Thanks for your opinions and God bless all! Antonio Superloco Martin aqui 00:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The orange bar talk notification, OBOD, was turned off by the devs when Echo was launched. A consensus seemed to have developed at WT:Notifications that it should be turned back on because newbies and IPs would otherwise miss warnings. A gadget mimicking this functionality was created with default on. Another user has turned off the default on on the grounds there is not wide enough consensus. Please comment at WT:Notifications#Pseudo OBOD Gadget is live. Spinning Spark 19:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be OTBE'd, since a much more noticeable, bright-red warning now appears when you have messages. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Rules for Fools is a failed proposal, but it has been marked with a banner template as having community consensus. Since my removal of this has been reverted, I have started an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools#Failed proposal. Spinning Spark 14:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
As you can see, the user has provided a reasonable edit summary as to why they removed the section. However, the section is cited and could therefore be considered notable. Wanted to get a second. opinion before I either reject or approve the edit. Oddbodz ( talk) 16:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Some of us would like to upgrade WP:HISTRS from an essay to a guideline. Where do we go to apply for this? It would be really good if someone would work with us on it. A guideline would be particularly useful for resolving disputes that relate to nationalism, where there are competing versions of history. As WP:MEDRS is an invaluable tool for ensuring that we don't inadvertently promote quack cures. Thanks for any advice. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are two discussions concerning changes to the manual of style on anime- and manga-related articles. The discussions can be found WT:MOS-AM#Article content and WT:MOS-AM#Franchise articles. The current wording of the manual of style's article names and disambiguation section regarding separate articles for a franchise (such as Ghost in the Shell and Dragon Ball) is:
In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise, unless:
In one of these discussions regarding article content, a user has expressed concern about not mentioning WP:SPLIT in the MOS. Also, there is some concern about WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as well. However, since this may create a bit of controversy, I suppose more input from the community would not hurt. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Instruction creep? I am wondering when the issue of splitting an article became something that a Style guide should discuss... Is the MOS-AM being used as a one-stop all-purpose catch-all set of "rules" for Anime related articles? Blueboar ( talk) 20:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
My thoughts on this issue: if there is enough reliably sourced material to create a separate article, then it is perfectly acceptable to do so. MOSAM should not and can not prevent this as this is enwiki policy and guidelines. Preventing the creation of viable reliably sourced articles is against everything Wikipedia stands for. I think the original reason MOSAM had that little bit added in was to prevent the creation of gazillions of character pages and individual volume pages for manga (I have a vague recollection of a discussion about that years ago), but I think that can be dealt with via PROD, AFD, and similar methods. Any article which doesn't meet the basic guidelines for inclusion can be deleted. We don't need MOSAM trying to micromanage things for us. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes when I see an article at AfD (only nominated for notability issues) I think I'd like to merge some of the contents to a "parent" article. If I went ahead I would use {{ copied}} on source and destination talk pages. This template commands that the history of the source is not to be deleted so long as the destination article exists. So, I do not want to do this during the AfD discussion because it would put a spanner in the works of deleting the article. However, if I wait and the article is deleted it is too late. What is the best thing to do? Thincat ( talk) 08:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Please go to Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language and read the section titled " Man overboard". User:Frungi thinks that man meaning person (of either gender) is gender-neutral language. Georgia guy ( talk) 18:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
MOS states that: When writing a date, first consider where the event happened and use the time zone there.
However, in some cases, a historical event took place where the time zone in that particular location is different than what is today. That is, the time zone has changed since the event took place. MOS did not make note of this.
Example, 1920 Haiyuan earthquake stated that it hit at local time 20:06:53 (GMT 12:06:53), of which it is expressed modern China time zone, which is GMT +8. However, during Republic of China, China was divided into five time zones. The epicenter is at Haiyuan County, Ningxia Province which at that time is in Kansu-Szechuan Time Zone, which is in GMT +7.
Corresponding article in Chinese Wikipedia noted this fact and recorded in 19:06:53 (GMT+7).
Opinion on this? SYSS Mouse ( talk) 03:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Since early April, there has been a discussion at WikiProject Anime and manga about broadcast schedules. For convenience, I'll summarize the discussion below, or alternatively, please read the link above for the full discussion.
This page in a nutshell: A short background:
The arguments are as follows:
|
In the discussion, it was suggested that a centralized discussion to determine consensus should be started on this page, because the practice is not only limited to anime and Japan, and also because this could affect several articles and projects, not just WP:ANIME. As such, in this case, should the official broadcast date be followed, or should the actual broadcast date be used? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Important Comment - I have personal insight into this matter and I want to offer additional information and exceptions for this RFC. It is frequently common in Asian countries or Asian Publications including Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean publications to refer to dates as X 2 A.M and which would be X+1 to English speakers. An example of this is many Asian countries, a show (theatre, concerts) with a 2:00 AM start time on 5/12/2013 would occur to English speakers at 5/13/2013 2:00 A.M. This is related, at least among the Chinese, that the day begins with the rising of the sun. So in general, a localization of how time is interpreted and under what circumstances are not among just Japanese publications. In these materials the text literally translates to <month> <day> <time> at night. Where English text, even right underneath it, will often say Day of the Week, Month Day <time> a.m. Most English speakers do not understand this, and it is very confusing because both are correct depending on view, but when you convert out of context like Wikipedia does, the dates become incorrect. This issue extends to ALL media and not just anime works; this RFC is very important for that reason. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the easiest way to deal with this is in the text of any affected article: simply state the advertised time, and what it really was per UTC and/or per standard timekeeping, and then go from there. This is not a hard concept. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment - It would be appreciated if we could agree on some kind of standard for airing dates of these after midnight programs. There are cases, where the TV station advertises the airing time in one place in one form, but shows the airing time in another place in another frorm. I provide an example: Chihayafuru TV series; Nippon Television (the original broadcaster) advertises the airing time as (Fri.) 25:58, in Chihayafuru2 web page (here for episode 19), but shows the airing time of the episodes in standard form, (Sat.) 1:58, in its scheduling. What should we do here? Use the advertised time, or use the standard time in the scheduling? NTV has used both forms. What should be written in the infobox for air date of first episode? January 12, 2013 (1:58, the standard time and date listed in the schedule), or January 11, 2013 (25:58, the advertised time and date)? I personally am for using the standard (and correct) time and date in general, ignoring the non-standard advertised forms. Raamin ( talk) 19:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Last year WP:MUSICAL established a strict policy regarding limiting award lists for musical stage productions to only very prestigious awards. Although WP:FILM's policy is not expressly stated, if you look at any WP:FL regarding a movie you will see a fairly exhaustive list of awards that includes everything down to the film critic circle of any major city. Plays are somewhat related to both musicals and films, so it is not unreasonable to consider both policies. This is my first year of involvement in critically praised plays. I am in contentious discussion regarding whether all awards or just the most prestigious awards should be included in play articles. Please contribute your opinion on how WP:THEATRE should set its policy at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Theatre#Award_enumeration.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 08:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Awards that have articles, meet GNG or N should not be removed. While it is preferential that most important ones should be noted first or over lesser ones, but not to exclude them. By doing so, it seems that THEATER is selectively attempting to deny recognizing an award that has already demonstrated notability. Anyone who removes properly sourced information for an award that claims it is non-notable should take a look at Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Lucille Lortel Awards and other such awards while 'second-tier' are still valid and removing them is sort of like removing the Bronze Star Medal from the award list from military personnel in favor of 'higher awards' like Soldier's Medal. No one should remove all traces of an award simply because a higher one has been given. Even just listing the award itself and the year is suitable, but awards with Wikipedia articles or meet N should remain. I'm say WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can be interpreted as covering THEATER's preference issue as it directly conflicts with the purpose and coverage of Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)