This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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
Many articles use further reading sections with links to different pages and this is pretty much the same as the WP:External links and it becomes a headache to decide which link goes where. It also looks like a mess sometimes on the article with all these sections. it could even confuse the readers.
What I propose is this: If the recommended further reading section cites to a book or an article, or essay or website or whatever, but no link exists, then we can put it in further reading. But if it is a linked work, not counting a preview, then they should be made to go in external links.
Otherwise we have too many sections with links, when they can all be put together if there is a link, and previews don't count. If the full material is there, then the link can just go in external links section but only provided it's the full material.
Proposed-- Taeyebar 00:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
If you really want to definitely remove one of the two sections you should first rename "Further reading" into "Further information", or something similar. But that is not what excites me much. I am more interested on another change, which can be seen in the German Wiki, i.e. the moving of "References" section to the very bottom of the page, sot that the sequence will be:
The reason for this reshuffling is quite self-explanatory. Carlotm ( talk) 02:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I slightly share the concern. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST: re}} ( Talk) 17:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't really support re-shuffling. I just think if 'further reading' has linked articles/websites/e-books then we can just put them in external links, because it's essentially the same thing.-- Taeyebar 18:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
This seems to ignore an important point that the "External links section should be kept to a minimum". A couple of links is OK, but I've seen articles with more than 30 External Links, one of which I edited down to ten or so. Why change something that works? For example, an obscure article named Hanny's_Voorwerp that I've edited has 3 External links and 7 Further Reading links, many of which are internal Wiki links. What is accomplished by moving these 7 FR links? If an editor sees messy links in FR then tidy or update them. As mentioned above, it's the links themselves that cause the spam, not the section itself. Richard Nowell ( talk) 08:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't remember where I heard this recommendation, but I've generally treated 'Further Reading' contents as being potential references in that they either extend the article content or articulate the content in a usefully different fashion. If, in fact, a 'Further Reading' item were used as a reference, it should be removed from that section. I've very seldom added to 'External Links' and would generally consider such to be not suitable for use as references, though they would also extend the article's content space. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, somebody already linked it above on the thread.-- Taeyebar 23:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
What could be improved upon in a specific Further Reading section, such as in the article Citizen science? All the titles are externally linked. Richard Nowell ( talk) 17:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC regarding (1) the streamlining of the pending changes reviewing process and (2) the proposed protection of certain articles with Level 1 Pending Changes protection. Please do not comment here—your support or opposition to the proposals should be indicated in the relevant sections, and general discussion should be occur in the "General discussion" section at the bottom of the RfC page. Thank you. Biblio ( talk) Reform project. 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Considering that the wikipedia page for notability links to it for military personnel, should it be officially declared a notability guideline? It is currently only an essay. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
For the English-language Wikipedia, should we use American spelling, British spelling, or both?
(If both, is it obvious that in any given article only one spelling should be used?) Bh12 ( talk) 01:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you.
Self-nominations for the 2016 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 6 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 00:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. I wrote the following proposal here two years ago, but I'm copying it here as it's something supposed for the whole Wikipedia and not only a certain article:
Hi, I wanted you to notice the fact that on the Spanish Wikipedia we've reached a consensus that we can create separate articles for cover versions if they meet the general policies. I think that's so useful, and even more in such famous songs like this one, wich have been covered many times, some of which are notable enough so a separate article can be written. We avoid having multiple infoboxes, which are there, in fact, for very different things: the " Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" cover by the Flaming Lips and Miley Cyrus have a lot of differences in many senses from the Beatles songs (year, or decade, genre, performers, composers of some elements, critical reception, commercial reception, singles chronology, Wikipedia categories, etc.). Not to mention that many readers can find themselves confused by an article of the Beatles that eventually can end up talking extensively about Miley Cyrus. So, in Spanish we have the original Beatles song and the cover version. I think that it should be considered for the English edition :) -- Jorge ( talk) 04:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Is there a policy about league seasons of a national championship? I haven't find anything in Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Xaris333 ( talk) 11:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Please see and discuss the proposal here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi.
Imagine a User:John Doe writes a Wikipedia article. Is he allowed to add the following to the bottom of the article?
==About the author==
This article is written by [ https://www.example.com John Doe], an established expert in the field of XXXXX.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 07:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Since no one "owns" any Wikipedia content, content should not be signed. The exact contributions of all editors are seen with their names on the page history.; if someone's having trouble understanding why we don't allow this, a good way to explain it is that "anyone can edit" could mean that in 30 seconds time the article may be changed to say something with which they profoundly disagree, and do they really want their name attached to it as the author in that case? ‑ Iridescent 09:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I would like to know if anyone has an opinion about discontinuing talk pages (applies only to articles, not templates, categories, etc.) and using the reference desks instead for improvements. Talk pages of articles that are not on many people's watchlists are often not bothered for a long time. Georgia guy ( talk) 19:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a type a rifle (lightweight intermediate cartridge magazine-fed air-cooled semi-automatic rifle with a rotating lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas-operation or long/short stroke piston operation). The originating model of this type of rifle was named "AR-15". AR-15's are still made, by the Colt Manufacturing Company, under that trademarked name.
Very similar rifles are made by some other companies. They are (universally, I gather) referred to as "AR-15's" -- not only informally by gun people in conversation, but in the pages of gun magazines and so forth. There is simply no generic term for these entities -- "AR-15" is the only word for these things. (It's sort of as if there was no term "sports car", only the term "Ferrari" for all sports cars, or whatever.)
In spite of this, Colt Manufacturing defends its trademark, I am given to understand. The fact that (I gather) gun magazine editors etc. don't pay attention to them on this subject indicates they are not defending successfully. But they are trying, and no judge has formally ruled that they have failed and that "AR-15" has falled to the status of a genericized trade mark. De facto it may have (although I question Wikipedia's standing to make that judgement). (FWIW I think no non-Colt manufacturer has gone so far as to use a model name of "AR-15", though; whether other manufactures go so far as writing in their marketing materials "Meet the StreetSweeper, the newest AR-15 from North American Veeblefletzer", I do not know.)
So... how do we refer to these types of a rifles? Can our article about this type of rifle be named AR-15s (a suggested name)? How about AR-15 variants (the current name) or AR-15-type rifles?
I believe that is we had an article listing brands of facial tissue, we could not -- even if we wanted to -- title it Brands of kleenex. Correct? What about Brands of kleenex-like tissue -- maybe that would be OK? This is above my pay grade.
The problem here is there is no alternative term for "AR-15", as there is for "kleenex" (you can say "facial tissue"). (Instead of "AR-15" you can say "lightweight intermediate cartridge magazine-fed air-cooled semi-automatic rifle with a rotating lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas-operation or long/short stroke piston operation" bat that's too long to be useful.)
We certainly want to avoid violating Colt's trademark rights, helping push their valuable trademark toward genericized-trademark status, or position ourselves to be the subject (at least in theory) of a valid cease-and-desist letter. On the the other hand, is there any point to being behind the curve if de facto Colt has really already lost the game?
I see no useful guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks or Wikipedia:Copyrights, nor is the Wikipedia:Copyright problems board the right venue for this, so I ask here for guidance. Herostratus ( talk) 01:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently disputing a speedy deletion of a redirect from 'Fuck Trump' to Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Protests because it's common on protest signage, and noted in the paragraph it's redirected to. If I am in error, I don't understand how a redirect that points to an expression on common signage is a personal attack? Victor Grigas ( talk) 01:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Interested editors can comment on the Deletion process talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 05:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
We probably need some clarification, policy-wise, on how to handle situations like I just found at Category:Establishments in Spain by year. See, "Spain" is not a concept which has existed forever, even historiographically speaking, the earliest one could consider a place called "Spain" would have been the 16th century. Prior to that were places like "Castile" and "Leon", etc. Likewise Category:Establishments in France by year has establishments as early as 365; there weren't even Franks in the area! The Manual of Style specifically notes we should use the name of the place at the time the event occurred, to quote "An article about Junipero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico not the U.S. state of California because the latter entity did not exist at the time of Junipero Serra. The Romans invaded Gaul, not France, and Thabo Mbeki was the president of the Republic of South Africa, not of the Cape Colony." I am not aware of any exception carved out for categories, so, for example, the Ancient Diocese of Toul should NOT be categorized in Category:365 establishments in France but rather in Category:365 establishments in Gaul. I'm also not quite sure where to cross-post this discussion, so if anyone has suggestions for where, or if I should move this to a better page, let me know and I will do so. This page seems to have the wider readership... -- Jayron 32 16:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I noted a discussion about the removal of category of climate denier for people who reject the scientific consensus of climate change. I think it's a pretty accurate term. Is there any way to re-instate it?
I think wikipedia is less for not having the category. -- Skinnytony1 ( talk) 10:12, 24 November 2016 (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.
I am opening this thread to gain consensus for an edit filter I requested " No emoji's in edit summaries". I have to admit I'm not very good at sponsoring or formatting these types of discussions, so any help in that regards will be appreciated. It's mentioned at the filter request that this topic might require new or changed policy, hence the use of this venue. - Mlpearc ( open channel) 18:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Seems more disruptive and unnecessary than useful or needed- Mlpearc ( open channel) 19:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
somewhat silly, sorry. I am not convinced it's
disruptiveenough to merit any kind of countermeasure, really. And "not needed" is never on its own a reason for anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record, I do like emoji's and use them all the time, on IRC, talk page discussions and texting, I do have issues when used in edit summaries (which are supposed to describe an edit not how you feel, that's what talk pages are for) and I don't like them in usernames either, but I'll bite my tongue on that for now.- Mlpearc ( open channel) 19:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Interested editors may comment on the GA nominations talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 08:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Activity_requirements for a proposed amendment to the bot policy. — xaosflux Talk 19:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
If nobody edited the draft following its creation, a history merge, as I understand it, would be feasible. But what if that's not the case?
It seems like the entire idea of using the draft space is made problematic if they can simply be ignored by someone who sees the available sourcing as sufficient for mainspace. On the other hand, does it really make sense to "penalize" User 2 for not noticing the draft (they're easy to miss if you don't search for them, after all).
The example that led me here is Draft:Ram Point and Ram Point. I disclose these self-consciously, because the whole idea of "credit" for articles is obviously fraught, and that draft is not proud work (after all, it's there because I didn't think it was good enough). The reason I'm pursuing the matter is because what if it weren't a lousy stub -- what if it were a more substantial article I wanted to work on in draftspace for a while before moving it -- but then meanwhile someone else created nearly the same thing? We encourage new users to work in drafts/sandboxes all the time. Students in particular regularly use drafts to collaborate over a period of weeks prior to moving into the mainspace. Also just a matter of principle, because I like the draft space and want people to use it more, but if people don't take into account that notification that appears when they're about to create a page for which a draft exists, then who would want to use it? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Let me extract a rewording from the thread above, since I think I may have been unclear:
In this edit a redirect-to-subsection is converted to a piped subsection redirect. Our guidelines on this state we should prefer the redirect for reasons of maintainability amongst others, so normally it'd be considered counter productive.
However, in this case, the redirect's subsection anchor link (but not the link to the parent article) was broken beforehand, so it could be argued that- on an immediate and purely local level, this was an improvement. On the other hand, fixing things in this way in general is bad overall because it decreases maintainability and negates the reason it was linked via a redirect in the first place.
Clearly, the best solution would be to fix the redirect instead, or to encourage the editor to do things that way.... that isn't in question.
The issue is:- Should editors be discouraged- and even prohibited- from "fixes" like the one above, even if the alternative is that the slightly faulty redirect remains in place instead?
Ubcule ( talk) 19:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
If I am correct, then WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are the first pillar of notability.
Unfortunately many schools, colleges and universities are kept in
WP:AFD with the excuse WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Some schools and universities established less than a year ago. They don't have any third party independent reviews. They fail every criteria of (
WP:GNG)
WP:BASIC.
Whereas some sportsperson who has got media coverage in major newspapers and the articles published discuss the person as a heading (not a passing mention in one line), but editors vote delete as they don't pass individual criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Some of them are junior level players who participate in world championships. Even if they pass WP:GNG, but fail the community set criteria of those particular sports. -- Marvellous Spider-Man 04:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC) .
Issue: There seems to be a wide variation in how the Afd process works. It seems, the only guidelines that are evaluated are the ones that individuals bring up in the discussion. And, the outcome of the discussion is based upon the input from users, some of whom understand the guidelines and others do not. In addition, the decision-making process is sometimes focused on waiting until there is consensus versus weighing the extent to which the applicable guidelines are correctly assessed.
Proposal: Using a checklist, similar in concept to the {{ DYK checklist}}, and based upon the criteria from deletion reason guideline, will help ensure a thorough evaluation of the guidelines for decision-making.
I have drafted a proposed checklist and it would be great to get your input about this or other solutions that would help make the process more effective and balanced.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Currently, guideline 1 is very vague. It goes, "[When an actor] has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions[, they are considered to be notable.] How do we define "multiple"? Some users say it's two, others argue it's (at least) three. Unless that is clearly defined, a majority of AFD discussions regarding actors will remain long winded as to what is clearly defined as "multiple" productions, rather than focusing on the actual notability of the actor. Also, how do we define when a production is considered to be notable? If a page barely has any content ( such as this) on Eng wiki, is that our idea of a notable production? I believe that some clear, non-vague definitions or examples of this particular guideline must be implemented for smoother, quicker AFD discussions. If anyone could come up with a splendidly well defined definition of "multiple" and "notable" productions, that'd be great. -- Sk8erPrince ( talk) 04:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I am in the process of working on creating a bot that cleans up some of the deprecated parameters used in {{ Infobox NFL biography}}. The WP:BRFA ( Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ZackBot 5) has stalled due to a debate over what constitutes a purely cosmetic change. In short, the bot seeks to replace deprecated parameters with their new counterparts:
{{{currentteam}}}
→ {{{current_team}}}
{{{currentposition}}}
→ {{{position}}}
{{{currentpositionplain}}}
→ {{{position}}}
{{{currentnumber}}}
→ {{{number}}}
My view is that this is NOT a purely cosmetic change as it seeks to clean up and improve a template. I also feel that User:Monkbot provides a clear precedent. Others, including BU Rob13 (who suggested I post here), have countered that is simply a cosmetic change and thus violates WP:COSMETICBOT. I am looking for some input from others on their interpretation of this policy. Rob13 please chime in to better explain your side of this. -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Comments are requested at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch
on whether it would be useful to mention "so-called '
protologisms'" in the Manual of Style section on
Neologisms and new compounds – if so, why, and if not, why not? This was the subject of an
earlier discussion on the same page with no clear consensus being reached. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 09:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
At WT:FFD#Insufficient participation in discussions?, I discussed declining or insufficient participation in WP:FFD nominations. However, the discussion went dead for one month. Therefore, I figured that this needs more attention at the VPP. One or two say that files that obviously violate rules have been deleted, despite lack of participation. Maybe I misread things. Anyway, despite being notified by bots, amount of participants is still very low. Is the layout of the page the problem, including adding a nomination? If not, why else would many people not participate? -- George Ho ( talk) 09:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:NJournals is being used at many AfDs as though it is WP:PAG, which it is not. It is a terrible essay in that it claims that simply being indexed and having an impact factor (no mention of what that impact factor must be) is enough to make a journal notable. Any academic reading here will know how ludicrous a standard for notability this is. Unfortunately, it seems that the gatekeepers who are married to this essay will not allow for changes to the essay and continue to insist on using it. It's causing confusion because people think it may be a guideline which it isn't.
Thus, I argue for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals).
jps ( talk) 20:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants in the last section there is a discussion of possible notability guidelines for beauty pageant winners following a previous RFC that decided to try to create such. The focus seems to be on starting only with a statement about winners of sub-national contests. We need lots more imput. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines about gender considerations & proper representation on Wikipedia articles? e.g., Are we supposed to present topics in a way that represents men and women equally (when men and women are equal components of the group/population in question)? The question arises in connection with Haredi Judaism, where a few weeks ago I encountered a set of photographs exclusively of men. In discussions of the issue, another editor has claimed that "gender ... considerations do not have any basis in Wikipedia policy and guidelines" [10], and that it's okay to have mostly men in the photographs because "men are the public face of Haredi Judaism". I'd imagine that there are gender considerations in Wikipedia policy; the closest we get that I'm aware of is MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, "seek to depict a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicities". Is there anything else? Or is the other editor correct -- gender considerations don't have any basis in policy? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
...So, is there really any potential downside to proposing language saying that WP should have a form of WP:DUE weight with regard to diversity? ...Obviously within the bounds of RS, but with the expectation that, as an approximation of reality, RS should generally paint a picture of a diverse world, and so if WP does not, it may likely be a problem of editor decision making in relative emphasis. TimothyJosephWood 16:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Initial disclaimer: I am involved in this discussion on the talk page. This is an understandably prickly subject. Diversity is important—doubly so when the article is about a religious sect that values modesty in women. Unfortunately, as Sir Joseph noted in his comments, the fact that Haredi Judaism values women's modesty has resulted in a dearth of images of Haredi women that are both quality and relevant. Consequently, the use of photos of women for diversity's sake alone looks hodgepodge and out of place in the article. A couple of the images are tacked onto spots where they don't seemingly fit the context of the surrounding text or section headings. It's unfortunate and incredibly frustrating for me personally, but I think that, failing a reorganization of the contents of the articleactually not a bad idea..., the re-positioning or removal of these images is due.
Regarding the general question posed to the Village Pump regarding gender guidelines, I think it's useful to highlight Haredi Judaism as a case study. The unique circumstances imposed by the subject matter in this article are why I think a hypothetical guideline on inclusivity by gender is doomed to fail or worsen the encyclopedia. Can we depend on people to use common sense on topics that demand an exception to the guideline? Or will we see people strong-arming diversity at all costs [1] even when it deteriorates the quality of an article? I don't know, but I'm unwilling to find out. I think the guidance in MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE is appropriately broad, and I WP:Avoid instruction creep as a general matter of course. AlexEng( TALK) 02:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Recently there was a discussion on meta at meta:Terms of use/Creative Commons 4.0 about updating the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use for Wikimedia projects to use the updated version of the Creative Commons license, 4.0 instead of 3.0 as currently used.
While reading up on that I noticed that English Wikipedia uses two different descriptions of the copyright license. Anyone contributing to Wikipedia has to "irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". To see this text, go to any place on Wikipedia, click edit or edit source at the top of the screen, then scroll to the bottom above the "save" button. There actually are two text editors - one with source code and one that is WYSIWYG, but both of them prominently feature this text.
The second place is at the bottom of every Wikipedia article. This is much more prominent, because whereas the other place is seen by editors, this place is seen by everyone. Scroll to the bottom of any Wikipedia article and see where it says, "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply."
I find it surprising that there is one sort of text to which editors agree when they make submissions, but another text is presented on all pages for readers. Presumably since everything readers access went through the submission process, the two places should have matching text. However, the reader space only notes the CC license, whereas the submission space requires agreement to dual licensing. I do not know how or why these texts came to be different.
Wikipedia has used the dual licensing system of " Creative Commons plus GNU Free Documentation License" for a long time and I wonder how it came to be that the GFDL license is not presented to Wikipedia readers, whereas the CC license is. Does anyone have any insight on how this came to be? This might be a bigger issue than English Wikipedia but I thought I would ask here first. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I think these statements are correct.
@ Isaacl, RP88, and Hut 8.5: - I am guessing about the 90% number. I think the truth is closer to 99%+, but 90% seems safe and anything less than 51% seems implausible to me. Would any of you doubt the accuracy of any of these statements?
Assuming that these statements are correct, I would like to advocate that the copyright notice change from "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" to that, plus "and the GFDL". I feel that the text for submission should be reconciled with the text for reading. I think that Wikipedia's copyright notice should be aligned with the majority of content, and since the majority of content is dual licensed, then that is how the copyright notice should read. The truth of situation is more complicated, but it is more correct more often to say CC+GFDL than to say CC only.
Am I missing something here? Is there a counterpoint to this? Am I wrong on some premise? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Why is CheckUser data kept for such a short time? SPI clerks are sometimes reluctant to take action in the absence of such strong evidence. In that case, the WP:Standard offer is unenforceable. As a result, the community has to repeatedly go through the long tedious process of ejecting troublesome editors it has already ejected before. Can we improve on this? Burninthruthesky ( talk) 09:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikimedia Sites are collaborative, with users writing most of the policies and selecting from amongst themselves people to hold certain administrative rights. These rights may include access to limited amounts of otherwise nonpublic information about recent contributions and activity by other users. They use this access to help protect against vandalism and abuse, fight harassment of other users, and generally try to minimize disruptive behavior on the Wikimedia Sites.
Information about users (like their IP address) is retained for a limited period on Wikimedia Foundation sites. Data retention is limited in this way because incidents or actions that are not current rarely require investigation.
@ Burninthruthesky: The data is kept for such a short period to protect all of our users, sockpuppets and not alike. The only way to be truly safe against things like a subpoena, in which the Wikimedia Foundation would be legally obligated to hand the data over, is to not have the data at all. I believe it is a compromise that must be taken. -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Newspapers in general are considered reliable sources. However, many developing countries have news and media outlets that are state owned, and directly controlled. One of the examples that I see frequently are the Egyptian news outlets in general. Egypt ranks low on the Freedom of Press report, in pretty much every aspect, making it one of the worst. [1] We can also see reports of all media being stifled and made to dance to the regime's tune, being private, or state-owned. [2]
Obviously these sources (newspapers and TV channels) pass the criteria for verifiability, and reliability. And, in the case of state-aligned private media, seemingly fit the independence criterion.
Egypt isn't the only example, but it's the one I'm most familiar with.
In a country or region where press freedom is oppressed, the only voice heard can be the state's. And what little opposing voices heard are usually in the form of unreliable sources, like blogs or social media. So, if an incident happens in that country, and the government orders the media to accuse a group or person, this is what we have in the form of "reliable source", and can be safely edited into Wikipedia. And if the country or incident isn't in the spotlight, it's almost certain there won't be neutral outside reporting or investigation (for example in The Guardian, or WashPo, or any other news outlet), to counter the state's claims.
What's the opinion on such outlets?
while i sympathise with people who have had their rights violated and states should not try to censor people but things like facebook twitter and reddit are not considered reliable sources but neither would countries that have had a history of propaganda also whose social media post would you cite however just because a news source is owned by the state does not by itself make the news source unreliable but if the state is the only news source and the state attacks peoples right to speak no matter how unpopular the opinion than the state source then they are probably engaging in propaganda i am sorry about the human rights violations that happen however a self published blog or social media are not to be included into wikipedia because whose facebook or twitter post would you cite and whose blog would you cite i think in response to your question i belive it is probably better to not put on wikipedia unless you can find relible sources just because this is about an oppressive country actions does not mean you can just throw out the guidelines i do admit this is a complicated question and the ignore all rules is relevant to this question here the quote "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." i have never encountered any wikipedia policy on what to do in this situation-- Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 03:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC) /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
This concerns the criteria for inclusion for Category:Trump administration cabinet members and Template:Trump cabinet.
One editor removed Ben Carson despite this announcement, setting off a bit of an edit war.
So, what is the criteria for inclusion? When Trump announces a choice? When he submits his choice to congress? When the choice is confirmed? Is is possible to be confirmed before the inauguration, and if so are those confirmed choices excluded from our cat and template until the inauguration?
I would note that on 22 November 2008 Hillary Clinton was placed in Category:Obama administration cabinet members [11] and on 19 December 2008 Ron Kirk was placed in the same cat. [12] I didn't check any other names. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I see a mention above about "the RfC"; is there one, and if so, could someone post a link to it? If there is not an RfC (which I doubt is actually needed) but simply this discussion, I would say 1) no one should be in the "Trump administration cabinet members" category until they are nominated, approved by the Senate, and sworn in. That should not have been done 8 years ago either. 2) The suggestion to create a "proposed cabinet members" category is an excellent one, as it should satisfy all the editors who are eager to add "cabinet member" status for a person who simply isn't one yet. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Proposal: empty
Category:Trump administration cabinet members, create
Category:Trump administration proposed cabinet members, fill the proposed cabinet members cat with anyone trump announces as his choice, and move add the names to the cabinet members cat as they are confirmed. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 20:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Edited 23:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
You may be interested in this RfC: Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#RfC:_Hosting_content_from_countries_that_do_not_have_copyright_relations_with_the_U.S.. Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 18:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
According to the MOS for Biographies of living persons, a person's nationality "can be in the lead if relevant to the subject's notability." Similarly it says ethnicity "should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". So when is it relevant? Opinions seem to be all over the map (don't mind the pun) and a great deal of time is wasted on arguments and disruptive editing. Greater clarity could save time and help prevent some disruptive editing.
I propose greater clarity on this MOS guideline, by adding examples of what is and what is not acceptable, preferably using examples of well known people.
Thanks Dig Deeper ( talk) 19:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Dig Deeper, you've incorrectly stated the MOS language regarding nationality. It does not say that nationality "can be in the lead if relevant to the subject's notability" (emphasis yours); that language you quoted from the MOS is instead regarding place of birth or death. The MOS (and overwhelming editor consensus) instead presumes that nationality is the best way to provide "context" for the subject and so should "usually" be in the opening paragraph. You appear to be conflating nationality with ethnicity, and those are two different things. And this is what the MOS says on that: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." (emphasis added) postdlf ( talk) 19:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I was recently involved in an editing dispute at User talk:Bkonrad#Bismarck and Jefferson and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Listing a topic discriminatorily above others over whether Thomas Jefferson and Otto von Bismarck should be treated akin to a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT on their respective dabpages, namely Jefferson (disambiguation) and Bismarck (disambiguation) respectively. When I first came across both Jefferson and Bismarck, I initially thought that the US president and German chancellor were primary redirects in their own right, however I saw the layout as rather strange (as it was different from e.g. Obama (disambiguation)), so I set about rectifying the dab layout. Just before I did so, I noticed that "(disambiguation)" wasn't in the title. I then realised the two statesmen were not primary redirects so I proceeded to move them both down to an appropriate section, so they could be treated like all other entries (without any perceived subjectivity absent a consensus). Soon after though, I was reverted a couple of times by the user aforestated who insisted that they both were undeniably the most sought-after articles on their respective dabpages. If that's his rationale, his mission should be to open a move discussion at both pages to confirm that they both qualify WP:PTOPIC. I have since added Jefferson Davis to Jefferson#top and another user added Bismarck, North Dakota to Bismarck#top (I later added the submarine ship). Just as a disclaimer, I think that adding the most significant entries (notice plural) at the top is totally reasonable, but for a single entry it is wrong and misleading unless it's because of a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT situation (since otherwise it confuses us to believe that e.g. President Jefferson is the established primary topic, even though he isn't). MOS:DABORDER should be revised in my opinion, prohibiting the addition of less than two entries to the lede of a disambiguation page if it is not a primary redirect.-- Nevé – selbert 21:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
A prolific contributor to Wikipedia created a page apparently indented as initial scratchwork that would grow into an article, and when its inappropriateness as an article in that embryonic form was pointed out, moved it into the "Draft" space. Then someone proposed its deletion from the "Draft" space on the grounds that it was advertising. There was in fact no hint of advertising in it; at best the person who proposed speedy deletion was acting without paying attention. Is this an appropriate edit? Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:56, 25 December 2016 (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.
Hypothesis #2:Wikipedia readers want reliably sourced information, as available, for a broad range of topics; including the entrants to Miss America and to Miss USA, each of whom have won notable state-level pageants.
WP:Deletion policy is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow", and as per WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, merger of non-notable topics to suitable targets is accepted policy.
History: Miss America was established in 1921, and Miss USA established in 1952. In 1979, Miss USA had 38 million viewers. As per our Miss USA article, in the early 1980s, the TV coverage regularly topped the Nielsen ratings. The popularity of these two pageants waned between 1990 and 2000, but since 2010 both have recovered some lost television coverage.
Associated state-level pageants are notable: All of these entrants are winners of notable state-level pageants, see Category:Miss USA state pageants and Category:Miss America state pageants.
Entrants may or may not be Wikipedia notable: Notability is not a key parameter for inclusion of these individuals, as Wikipedia non-notable topics can be covered as mini-bios at a suitable target topic.
Common elements in a bio: The typical state pageant winner is less than 24 years of age, and has competed in several beauty pageants before winning the state title. Winning the state title carries with it some scholarship money and a one-year reign, which means public appearances in various events around the state, as well as the national TV event. Occasionally, these winners are recognized by the state legislature. Besides being state celebrities, these winners typically get limited international coverage, including some coverage in foreign languages.
Wikiproject Beauty Pageants: I am not a member of WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants and the project page is marked semi-active. One of their strongest proponents, User:Dravecky, died in April of this year. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:16, 27 December 2016 (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.
Wikipedia readers want reliably sourced information, as available, for a broad range of topics; including the entrants to Miss America and to Miss USA, each of whom have won notable state-level pageants.
WP:Deletion policy is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow", and as per WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, merger of non-notable topics to suitable targets is accepted policy.
Explanatory material: Merriam Webster (mw.com) definition #2 for hypothesis is, "an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action." Unscintillating ( talk) 13:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I found some map files of Mesoamerica that didn't seem very accurate to me. I looked on the image information and there wasn't any source beyond 'own work'.
So I know image files need documentation on their copyright status, but in the case of diagrams, do they need to be able to back up claims they make in proper sources? -- TangoFett ( talk) 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Is there a policy on calling a person who has died as "late"? It seems like it shouldn't be used because ventually everyone is going to be "late". An example is in Standin' on the Corner Park. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants we have as item 61 the following:I see no progress on this subject. Here is my extremely early set of ideas: 1. Winners of major national pageants (Miss America and Miss USA in the US) are generally presumed to be notable. 2. Winners of sub-national level pageants are not notable for such per se, even if they have won more than one. This does not stop them from passing the general notability guidelines for such if the coverage for such either reaches far beyond publications that are local to them, or is substantial and persistent. 3. It should be kept in mind that some beauty pageant winners are notable for other things. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC) In the ensuing 14 days 3 people have made comments. I am trying to figure out how to get more attention. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I recently suggested an edit to the rings of saturn article to remove a, "for the death core band see Rings of Saturn (band)" tag, on the grounds that the band was gaining unwarranted enrichment from its positioning at the top of a much more popular page. It was promptly moved to a disambiguation page by a regular editor of that page.
A search for the string "band see" (as would be found in the string "for the xxxx band, see...") reveals numerous pages on which the top of the page contains what is basically an advertisment for an aspiring band. It's my proposal that a policy ought to be implemented regarding this use of the "see also" section at the top of pages. In a nutshell, Small commercial ventures shouldn't be benefiting from increased publicity by adding information about their company to the tops of pages about things which are much more frequently searched.
Here's a sample of what I mean based on the above search:
Edaham ( talk) 02:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article.- see WP:TWODABS. You believe that our articles look "silly": the established consensus is that these articles are the best way to help readers get to the information they want.
nutshell: because a photograph of the subject of an article is more accurate than a painting or a drawing (& because the lede image is the first thing most readers will see); (when they are available) photographs should generally be used in preference to paintings or drawings, as the primary (i.e.: lead) illustration of the subject, in an article.
BE IT RESOLVED
That, as per the requirements of WP:Accuracy and WP:NPOV,
When it comes to "real-world", i.e.: non-fictional subjects; such as history, biographies, etc.
When photographic images illustrating the subject of the article, which are of acceptable (article-space useable) quality exist, & are available to use (re: copyright, etc.),
& are not in (serious) dispute over matters of factual accuracy (such as identify of the subject, date, or alterations to the image),
the use of such photographic images should be given preference and precedence over the use of paintings, drawings, and other suchlike "interpretive" artworks,
as a/the primary illustration of the subject in articles;
with allowance for obvious exceptions such as maps, plans, diagrams, etc.; as per common sense and the practical requirements of the subject.
NOTE THAT: this in no way prohibits the inclusion in the article of creative artworks depicting or relevant to the subject, as best suits the article; "history of", "in art", "official portraits", etc.
Merely that, as primary &/or lead image on the article, preference should be given to photographic images accurately depicting the likeness of the subject, WHEN THEY ARE AVAILABLE, over creative/interpretive artworks.
For reasons of accuracy, better NPOV, & "best practices" as historical documentation of the subject, and wp:style.
Not to mention basic common sense.
Lx 121 ( talk) 15:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
discuss:
Hi Lx 121. Which few articles are you referring to? Are their talk pages insufficient to resolve this issue? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 08:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
your logic is fail -- all of them accurately record the lightwaves in the room; @ different resolutions, & in the last case, as monochrome.
more to the point, ALL OF THEM are more accurate (& more npov) than a hand- drawing or painting.
Lx 121 ( talk) 12:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
see the difference yet? Lx 121 ( talk) 06:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
jimmy @ 5 megs in b&w
jimmy @ 16 megs; you can count his freckles, which are not shown in the painting. real people have freckles, & wrinkles & other little details & "imperfections", that hired portrait painters do not include; for reasons of flattery or simply because it's too much work.
a comparison, of drawings & paintings vs photography (in-progress); click to enlarge
here are the presidents (USA), for whom we have both paintings & photographs; a number of whom i've had to fight "painting vs photo" battles over
a number of which i've had to fight more than once
& since somebody else mentioned john calhoun, here are the several PHOTOGRAPHS of the man that we have to choose from,
& none of them are "acceptable" to the persons i am debating the matter with; who replaced the long-standing photograph of the subject, with the painting in the next gallery.
& here is the PAINTING that keeps getting put in place of the photograph as lede. & btw, the painting was created in the same era as the photographs; & the artist may very well have used photographs as models in making it.
<
Now, when you looked @ all those images (UN-thumbnailed/full-sized), did anyone have trouble telling which was a photograph of a real person, & which was a photograph of a painting or a drawing?
EXACTLY
if there is anybody here who can't tell the difference, please, speak up.
Lx 121 ( talk) 07:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
actually; there is also the problem that decision-making on a particular article can be dominated by a handful of people with a "dedicated interest" & strong opinions about the subject. regardless of policy, & impervious to dispute, short of arbcom or a massive community intervention.
& i am tired of dealing with situations like that, thanks.
i have had to change back biography photos so many times, on so many articles.
& argue with mostly the same people; mostly about accuracy & npov.
then go back 6 months or a year later & do it all over again.
& again.
& again.
if we can't get a basic, simple rule like "photographs are better than paintings" for showing what somebody looks like, in a biography;
then somebody else can deal with it.
or not.
but i thought wp:accuracy & wp:npov were supposed to mean something?
i also thought the goal was to make wikipedia a quality information resource?
if i'm wrong about that; i've got other things i can spend my time & efforts on.
Lx 121 ( talk) 10:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
& are not in (serious) dispute over matters of factual accuracy (such as identify of the subject, date, or alterations to the image),
"& are not in (serious) dispute over matters of factual accuracy (such as identify of the subject, date, or alterations to the image),"
here, i'll get you some examples of how uselesss 19th century photographers were.
Lx 121 ( talk) 13:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
"accurate colours"? -- ''howso? do you mean "accurate" colour chosen by the artist, then mixed on the pallete, then PAINTED ON? that's some definition of accuracy there! Lx 121 ( talk) 13:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article on Photographic film helps explain the technical failures of early film & glass plates:
*comment* -- the article section you quoted is marked as lacking citations.
as a technical matter, it also CANNOT POSSIBLY APPLY uniformly to every photographic technology in existence @ the time.
because there were several completely different techniques of fixing a photographic image by that time; & your uncited quote does not specify WHICH TECHNIQUE it is talking about.
'also all of this does nothing to negate the fact a photographic plate is an ACCURATE RECORD of the lightwaves, taken in at least the megapixel range.
which is FAR beyond what the human eye & hand can create, even IF the artist was an insane savant completely obsessed with exactly tracing the image via a camera obscura.
AND all of your agrument here does NOTHING to explain why you attempted to impose a painting of president William McKinley, taken well after your claimed "magical date" of 1883.
on the other hand IF you want to use that as an argument for "why we need to replace all the photographs of Abraham Lincoln, with your "more accurate" paintings, then by all means, have fun with that.
Lx 121 ( talk) 12:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Since my previous repairs were reverted, I'm going to make this more obvious: Lx 121, please quit violating WP:LISTGAP in this discussion. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC) '
effectively undermining my arguemenmts.
there is NO wp to support altering ANOTHER USER'S posting, in a discussion in this way; & the cited "reasons" provided by the user responsible do not "create" one.
Lx 121 ( talk) 11:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
BTW -- that link leads to a guideline, not a policy
& that guideline is specifically for the article-space. (see m.o.s. header)
Lx 121 ( talk) 12:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
There is uncertainty and confusion about the proper forum for requesting copies of articles that have been deleted in accordance with a full deletion discussion at Articles for Deletion. Such requests may be made either by the author or would-be author of an improved version of the article, or by a reviewer at Articles for Creation who needs to compare a draft against the previous article. Some editors think that the proper place for requests is Requests for Undeletion, but some think that such requests are better made at Deletion Review. In looking carefully at the headers for the two boards, it appears that REFUND is correct, because it says:
This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace
However, some editors think that Deletion Review is the place for such requests. First, am I correct that REFUND is the correct place for such requests? Second, perhaps, if so, in the list of reasons why Deletion Review should not be used, there should be an entry for requests to restore deleted articles to draft or user space (use REFUND instead). Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I started the discussion about very little participation at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard in WT:NOR and WT:NORN. However, no one showed up. Therefore, I am doing another discussion here to increase awareness on the NOR noticeboard. There have been cases regarding OR determinations, but very little number of people volunteered to interfere. I wonder whether this will end up in the same fate as already forgotten WP:notability/Noticeboard. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I have been reading many articles on British transport of late on Wikipedia, and I find the lack of consistency in units of measurement in articles very confusing and problematic. I have also seen that the preferred use of measurement to be very subjective within Wikipedia, and subject to very heated debates, see Talk:Edinburgh Trams and Talk:High Speed 2.
With regards to these articles, I am trying to remain as unbiased as possible and not share my personal opinion on the matter. I find it frustrating to read an article such as the London Underground which in one sentence will say ″the Metropolitan eventually extended as far as Verney Junction in Buckinghamshire, more than 50 miles (80 km) from Baker Street and the centre of London" and later on state "London Underground's eleven lines total 402 kilometres (250 mi) in length". Other articles are written solely in Imperial Measures ( Chiltern Railways) and others are written solely in Metric ( High Speed 1), some articles have supplementary indicators, some do not.
As
MOS:UNIT states ″In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that:
-UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in (but road distances are given in imperial units, with a metric conversion – see next bullet);
-the primary units for distance/length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon (except for short distances or lengths, where miles are too large for practical use)″
While many articles use kilometres, and perhaps many of the engineers behind this project do also, there is a propensity for the British to use miles and miles per hour. For the average Brit, one would never use kilometres in a day to day environment. A recent YouGov poll found that 89% of Brits would use miles to estimate a long distance, whereas only 6% would use kilometres. [1] I understand that the metric system may be more practical, but that is not what I wish to debate and I implore any commenters on this to not bring in their personal opinions on which system of measurement is better. I just want what is best for the average reader of Wikipedia, and until the British Government fully implement the Metric System I suggest all distances are kept in Miles and Miles Per Hour.
I propose that editors and contributors put aside their personal preferences so that we can have conformity in all our articles and use Miles (Kilometres). I propose changing MOS:UNIT guidelines to be clearer on the matter, and say something like this:
″In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric, except that:
-UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in (but distances are given in imperial units, with a metric conversion – see next bullet);
-the primary units for distance/length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon (except for short distances or lengths, where miles are too large for practical use)″
I appreciate your time and consideration -- Alfiecooper ( talk) 11:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
We should always quote sources exactly, using whatever units the source used - and then give the alternate measurements in parentheses. We don't need this MoS. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 13:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
References
I’m having a disagreement with a fellow editor,
User:Shaddim, at
Talk:Flatpak (and elsewhere), over interpretations of policy and community consensus. The way I see it, policy supports removing unsourced content, and strongly discourages restoring it while leaving it unsourced, and this (I think) is the consensus view. He says the requirement for sources only strictly applies to BLP content and other sensitive content, and calls my removal of unsourced content “excessive,” claiming the WP:
links I’ve used to justify my actions do not in fact support my position. We’ve gone back and forth about this, neither of us seeming able to sway the other’s opinion of what the actual consensus is. I’m hoping we can get a (relatively) final answer here. —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 23:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Preserve appropriate content(emphasis added)—justify removing content that doesn’t fit? If someone disagrees with removal, there’s BRD, provided the restored content is sourced. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 05:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
"All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."Remove anything that you think isn't sufficiently referenced. If you get reverted, discuss. While Wikipedia prefers status quo ante during discussions the burden is on the editor adding the content. If that addition happened long ago I would err on the side of sticking to sources. Unsourced content that is likely to be challenged is a danger to the trustworthiness of the project. I don't understand why PRESERVE disagrees with this. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I would note that Wikipedia bluelinks do not satisify verifiability concerns per WP:CIRCULAR. Specifically, linked articles can change. I generally recommend that editors copy the pertinent sources from linked articles in such cases. The fact that verifiability has been challenged moots any question of whether it was "unlikely" to be challenged. We don't deal with whether material was "likely" to be challenged with regards to verifiability, we address situations where it is being challenged. And in such cases the most practical way to resolve the question is to provide a source and move on, not bicker over whether one is necessary. I'll note that I tend to feel that the more an editor argues against providing a source, the more likely it is that it's because either a) one can't be found, or b) they're not willing to do the work to provide it, neither of which makes me personally more inclined to help. If sources are so trivial to find, why are they not being provided? Why are we arguing about this? DonIago ( talk) 04:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The encyclopedia is continually being accused of not being reliable. Since we have no board of paid editors to make certain that the material here is correct and reliable, verifiability through sources, preferably inline sources, is the only way we have to assure ordinary users of the encyclopedia of that fact. The tension, of course, is between encouraging people to build the encyclopedia, on the one hand, and insuring its reliability and reputation for reliability on the other. Putting a burden on removal of unsourced material beyond that already stated in BURDEN will cause editors who have genuine doubts about the verifiability of unsourced material to hang back from removing it lest they be blocked or banned for removing it without searching for sources for it to the competence level chosen by their accuser. In doing so, it disenfranchises the casual editor of this encyclopedia "that anyone can edit," and leaves removal of unsourced material to that — some say dwindling — core of editors who devote a large part of their life to the encyclopedia and who will take the time to be absolutely certain that sources cannot be found before removing material. It also puts an additional cartridge in the gun of fringe editors: If I see an unsourced entry in Westminster Abbey saying that it's haunted by the ghost of Geoffrey Chaucer, do I really in fear of being blocked, banned, or criticized need to go searching for some obscure source for that assertion which then has to be evaluated for reliability or should I be able to rely, as is the case today, on my concern that it cannot be reliably sourced and merely remove it? No. Giving editors who add material the discretion to source or not source on the basis of whether material is likely to be challenged is fine: That encourages the growth of the encyclopedia and makes it easier on new editors, but we also need to have the ability to easily and quickly removed unsourced material if anyone even slightly doubts that they have exercised that judgment incorrectly. (And that also applies to material which has been introduced and left untouched for long periods of time; many articles and introductions of material receive no attention until long after the material has been introduced.) Let me close by noting that this is a perennial topic of discussion at the V talk page and the consensus there has always been to maintain the current balance. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads up, there is a proposal to have a bot wipe out all the ISBN magic links at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#Yobot 27. Relevant links MW:Requests for comment/Future of magic links and Wikitech-l: Future of magic links / making ISBN linking easier. Looks like the proposal is to use a template instead like {{ ISBN}} Spinning Spark 16:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite pmid}}
, not {{
pmid}}
.ISBN{{nbsp}}1
or ISBN{{nbsp}}9781910392171
for those rare occasions where the isbn should not be linked, and to leave the magic linking in place for the other 99.9n% (at a guess) of instances. Where was this discussed? It doesn't seem to have been mentioned at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books where editors interested and expert in books (and therefore in isbns) are likely to be found. (And it's perfectly possible to write "RFC 1" without it making a link).
Pam
D 18:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
ISBN 1234
to {{ISBN|1234}}
. Skimming this discussion and others, the arguments against doing this seem to be that the magic behavior is easier for editors. I would counter that the magic behavior is actually not great for new editors because it's inconsistent with how almost every other type of link works. Magic links pre-date the existence of templates. They actually even pre-date the existence of
MediaWiki. If magic links were proposed today, they would almost certainly be rejected. We don't want the wikitext parser to have to guess at what should and should not be a link for most cases. (A weird exception is "free" links such as <
http://www.example.com>.) Generally, we want to be explicit, as we are with nearly every kind of citation template.(un-indent) Yeah, that's part of the curse of templates, I suppose. Templates provide consistency, easier standardization, and input validation, however the wikitext is often uglier and more cumbersome as a result. As an analogy, perhaps, in your reply you used {{
u|Jytdog}}
instead of just writing "Jytdog" or even "@Jytdog". For better or worse, templates are what we have and what we commonly use. I think removing the "magic" behavior of ISBN, RFC, and PMID links will simplify wikitext behavior and human understanding of wikitext behavior in the long run.
Certain input tools such as VisualEditor may make it simpler to input just the text "ISBN 1234" and have it turn into a link that uses a wrapper template. That would help new and old users alike. I also think it's reasonable for us as users to insist that the existing link behavior be fully deprecated before being disabled. That is, I don't care if it takes four or five years for us to phase out the "ISBN 1234" magic syntax and empty the Pages using ISBN magic links tracking category. There's no real rush in my mind, but it is something we should do unless there are really good reasons not to. To me, the convenience of the current behavior is outweighed by the inconsistency and arbitrary special treatment of these three magic citation types. It's unnecessarily difficult and frankly silly to have to explain to users that PMID is special, but PMC is not. ISBN is special, but ISSN is not. I think we gain a lot, including simplifying the wikitext parser, by eliminating this magic link behavior.
Regarding behavior in a post-magic link world, a new user will type "ISBN 1234" into an article. If a tool like VisualEditor doesn't make the text a link, the user can look at and copy existing ISBN examples that are linked. To me, this is a much better experience than the current behavior where the text is a link and it's much more difficult to understand why. You have to know that in November 2001, Magnus added an "ISBN" function that made this string special. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
u}}
template, it becomes a bit easier to see why developers and their parsers prefer templates and other forms of explicit syntax. It's less guesswork, which generally results in more straightforward and expected behavior for everyone.Hi
Rich Farmbrough. I think most of the reasoning for wanting to get rid of magic links has been sufficiently given in the previous comments. But I wanted to respond to your specific comment about when you might not want a magic link. We've seen cases where magic link functionality has worked or not worked in weird contexts, such as section headings or edit summaries, causing confusion. In addition, magic linking offers users no control over the output. We have templates such as {{
ISBNT}}
for contexts in which people don't want to repeat "ISBN" every time, such as in tables. ISBN syntax is also difficult to internationalize and has presented problems in non-English wikis.
Regarding the general practice of deprecating and replacing wikitext syntax, you're surely familiar with the practice given edits such as this. The primary (and perhaps sole) benefit that magic links have is that they're convenient for wikitext editing. The detriments are outlined in this section, including inconsistency with almost every other kind of citation markup. Your arguments elsewhere that we would be "overloading" the template system by having a means of doing input validation on ISBNs is without merit, in my opinion. Lua/Scribunto modules such as Module:Check isxn were specifically implemented to solve for use-cases like this. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Our Edit Warring policy has a section titled "What edit warring is". However, the text in that section never explicitly defines the concept. Arguably, a definition might be implied (maybe) but if so it is buried way down in the third sentence. We could help NEWBIES and reduce drama in general if this section more clearly stated how it works. There is some marked-up draft text that shows the changes I propose. Please offer your input at the policy talk page in the "Definition section" thread. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
on the south african maling list, User:DjMlindos was trying to get his account unblocked 4 years after blocking this and his sockpuppet. he was referrec to Template:2nd_chance. i am wondering first if 2nd chance is a real feature to be available to users, and second, if yes, how technically this should work? e.g. where to say "i want to have a 2nd chance", and how this would be configured in wikipedia? technically i do not have enough experience, but i suppose he is blocked from editing, and creating a new account - otherwise i suppose he would just do it. and wikipedia would be open to allow indefinitely blocked to easily create sock puppets. -- ThurnerRupert ( talk) 08:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm looking at Plot section of articles like The Golem's Eye, which are a regurgitated detailed narrative like a junior high school book report, and totally unreferenced. Another editor ridiculed me, saying the source was the book itself! I.e., the editor read and summarized the book himself. Isn't that original research? Can't I legitimately question: who says that's what the book is about? On the other hand, it's often difficult to find a plot summary suitable for a concise encyclopedic article, which is not drawn from promotional or merchandising material. If I were writing an article for a literary review journal, I'd have to cite sources, why not here? Anyway, the Plot is supposed to be what the story is about, not a retelling of the story itself. That's an artistic creation, original work, copyrightable, if one were inclined. Can the Plot section of the article be removed as <unreferenced> or alternatively as <original research>? I seriously doubt that any published source can be found with the level of detail in the section... some editor made it up. Sbalfour ( talk) 20:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I have posted a proposal to modify the administrator inactivity policy; see Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposal. Maxim(talk) 12:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
or does wp want to be "behind the times" by waiting for new discoveries to be reviewed? I'm a somewhat frustrated newbie and retired biologist. I'm troubled by the wp definition of OR. Let me explain. Suppose I wanted to test the adage that "the early bird gets the worm." I could get up from bed way before sunrise (a bizarre thought in retirement) and sit next to my front lawn on 3 nice spring days. Starting at the official time of sunrise, I could count how many worms are pulled up by birds in the first hour and, separately, in the second hour after sunrise. I could calculate the average number of worms pulled up during those 2 intervals to see if early birds get more worms. I could publish that data, which I am now naming Personal Data, on my facebook page. However, I could not publish PD on wp. I could not cite my facebook page as a source on wp, because it is unreliable and unverifiable. PD is the kind of OR that wp doesn't want. However, what is frustrating to me is that editors keep on dissing discussions/citations of Original scientific Research articles as OR as if they are as undesirable as PD. Original scientific Research articles are not PD! They are overwhelmingly collections of controlled, laboratory, experimental PD generated by multiple people, collected as a series of figures, scrutinized by the authors and combined into a manuscript, then presented to a journal, which sends it out to independent experts for (generally anonymous) peer review. Then, the manuscript is sent back to the authors to address the peer review concerns. Eventually, excellent work is published as Original scientific Research articles in more or less prestigious journals. One of the (if not THE) most prestigious journals is Nature. I've had an editor dis a Nature paper I wanted to cite becuse it was just OR. Unbelievable. smh. So, I wonder if the community wants to try to make editors aware of a difference between silly PD and respected OR in the form of peer reviewed papers? DennisPietras ( talk) 23:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.That hypothetical article in Nature counts as a published reliable source. So...confused as to the point you are trying to make here. -- Majora ( talk) 23:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I have opened up an RfC discussing what the policy should be on for users remaining in redlinked user categories after such category has been deleted at CfD, see here. VegaDark ( talk) 22:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
If you're reviewing a GA nominee article and you put it on hold because it has minor issues, what's the point of waiting the prescribed time if you find all of the issues are fixed before that time is up? I'd like to change the policies concerning good article reviews so that if an on-hold nominee article has all of its issues fixed before the on-hold time is up, a reviewer can promote the article right away. I'd like to know what you think about that. Phil roc My contribs 21:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
"change the policies concerning good article reviews"when you don't even understand them. WP:GANI Step 4 explains this. Village Pump isn't even the right forum for your question. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Having witnessed many (and participated in some) Wikidata-related discussions recently, I have the intention to have an RfC on Wikidata usage on enwiki (with the intention to create an up-to-date policy or guideline). Before this can start, I believe it is best to have a preliminary state of affairs to base the RfC discussion on. With that in mind, I have created Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs.
Everyone is invited to contribute their knowledge of Wikidata on enwiki there. I have explained the purpose of the page at the top of it, but it is not my page so feel free to change that as well of course. I just hope that we can restrict the page to what is and what has already happened, and leave the "what should happen" for the future RfC. Fram ( talk) 15:07, 11 January 2017 (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.
"Wikipedia will suffer no great loss if the standalone article is nuked", is a quote yesterday from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Brown, diff, in a diff in which the commentator agrees that the topic should be included in the encyclopedia.
I posted two RfCs last week on beauty pageants on this page and each was procedurally closed. I've had follow-up discussions with three people since then, #your post at the RfC at VPP #Community divide on ATD without resolution. I have posted a new draft at User:Unscintillating/Draft RfC on Miss America and Miss USA entrants.
Meanwhile, on Friday we had six new beauty-pageant AfDs posted in one hour, [14]. How do we post an RfC on beauty pageants that addresses the community divide on WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT? Unscintillating ( talk) 14:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion here is about WP:Deletion policy, specifically WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. Unscintillating ( talk) 18:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
So, no, editors are not "assumed to have considered ATD" when they !voted to delete due to notability; in fact, the presence of the topic elsewhere on Wikipedia shows that their !vote was flawed.
Likewise, "delete and redirect" for notability is also a bogus concept, as WP:N does not define a content problem. Unscintillating ( talk) 00:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The question remains in how to move forward. Unscintillating ( talk) 12:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
An RfC has been created. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The fact that a topic is not notable is not, alone in and of itself, a valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its page history. It is at most an argument for merger and/or redirection. To validly argue for deletion, editors need to additionally advance separate arguments against both merger and redirection, on relevant grounds. (Since "merger" includes a history merge without redirection, an argument against redirection is not an argument against merger). Since any verifiable topic/content can in principle be redirected/merged to an article on a broader topic, this should be exceptionally difficult. Valid arguments against merger might be based on WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT or WP:BLP, in particular. (In some cases it might be a prerequisite requirement to transwiki the page first). Valid arguments against redirection must be based on the criteria specified in WP:R (that the proposed redirect is clearly positively harmful). The only valid argument for "delete and redirect" is that every revision in the page history of the page otherwise eligible for redirection in question meets the criteria for revision deletion ( WP:REVDEL). See further WP:ATD. |
Before authorising or operating good-faith bots which enact consensus to remove data (such as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ZackBot 7), or deleting templates or template parameters that do so, we should consider whether the data can be migrated to Wikidata. A note can be posted to d:Wikidata:Project chat to solicit opinions or collaboration from colleagues on that project.
I'd like to see this written onto the appropriate policy (or policies). Which should that be? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 12 January 2017 (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.
The question specifically concerns whether this is a proper application of WP:ELNEVER/WP:COPYVIOEL. I see this as a slippery slope situation, where we are made to censor Wikipedia on the grounds that we can not link to external materials, even ones that are so heatedly debated as this.
The link in question is currently given in the Buzzfeed article at [15]
Discussion started at Talk:Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier#External_links, please comment, but feel free to continue here.
Best, Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
material that violates the copyrights of othersper WP:COPYLINK; and provides the following criteria for links to external sites that display copyrighted works:
the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the website has licensed the work from the owner; or it uses the work in a way compliant with fair use.The link in question is to a website which is not manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright holder; does not assert a license from the copyright holder; and given the reproduction in whole, the absence of transformation or commentary, does not meet fair use. It satisfies none of the criteria for linking.
Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use.The link to the untransformed reproduction in whole of the dossier is analogous to the direct link to the still image. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:11, 18 January 2017 (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
Many articles use further reading sections with links to different pages and this is pretty much the same as the WP:External links and it becomes a headache to decide which link goes where. It also looks like a mess sometimes on the article with all these sections. it could even confuse the readers.
What I propose is this: If the recommended further reading section cites to a book or an article, or essay or website or whatever, but no link exists, then we can put it in further reading. But if it is a linked work, not counting a preview, then they should be made to go in external links.
Otherwise we have too many sections with links, when they can all be put together if there is a link, and previews don't count. If the full material is there, then the link can just go in external links section but only provided it's the full material.
Proposed-- Taeyebar 00:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
If you really want to definitely remove one of the two sections you should first rename "Further reading" into "Further information", or something similar. But that is not what excites me much. I am more interested on another change, which can be seen in the German Wiki, i.e. the moving of "References" section to the very bottom of the page, sot that the sequence will be:
The reason for this reshuffling is quite self-explanatory. Carlotm ( talk) 02:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I slightly share the concern. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST: re}} ( Talk) 17:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't really support re-shuffling. I just think if 'further reading' has linked articles/websites/e-books then we can just put them in external links, because it's essentially the same thing.-- Taeyebar 18:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
This seems to ignore an important point that the "External links section should be kept to a minimum". A couple of links is OK, but I've seen articles with more than 30 External Links, one of which I edited down to ten or so. Why change something that works? For example, an obscure article named Hanny's_Voorwerp that I've edited has 3 External links and 7 Further Reading links, many of which are internal Wiki links. What is accomplished by moving these 7 FR links? If an editor sees messy links in FR then tidy or update them. As mentioned above, it's the links themselves that cause the spam, not the section itself. Richard Nowell ( talk) 08:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't remember where I heard this recommendation, but I've generally treated 'Further Reading' contents as being potential references in that they either extend the article content or articulate the content in a usefully different fashion. If, in fact, a 'Further Reading' item were used as a reference, it should be removed from that section. I've very seldom added to 'External Links' and would generally consider such to be not suitable for use as references, though they would also extend the article's content space. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, somebody already linked it above on the thread.-- Taeyebar 23:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
What could be improved upon in a specific Further Reading section, such as in the article Citizen science? All the titles are externally linked. Richard Nowell ( talk) 17:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC regarding (1) the streamlining of the pending changes reviewing process and (2) the proposed protection of certain articles with Level 1 Pending Changes protection. Please do not comment here—your support or opposition to the proposals should be indicated in the relevant sections, and general discussion should be occur in the "General discussion" section at the bottom of the RfC page. Thank you. Biblio ( talk) Reform project. 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Considering that the wikipedia page for notability links to it for military personnel, should it be officially declared a notability guideline? It is currently only an essay. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
For the English-language Wikipedia, should we use American spelling, British spelling, or both?
(If both, is it obvious that in any given article only one spelling should be used?) Bh12 ( talk) 01:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you.
Self-nominations for the 2016 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 6 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 00:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. I wrote the following proposal here two years ago, but I'm copying it here as it's something supposed for the whole Wikipedia and not only a certain article:
Hi, I wanted you to notice the fact that on the Spanish Wikipedia we've reached a consensus that we can create separate articles for cover versions if they meet the general policies. I think that's so useful, and even more in such famous songs like this one, wich have been covered many times, some of which are notable enough so a separate article can be written. We avoid having multiple infoboxes, which are there, in fact, for very different things: the " Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" cover by the Flaming Lips and Miley Cyrus have a lot of differences in many senses from the Beatles songs (year, or decade, genre, performers, composers of some elements, critical reception, commercial reception, singles chronology, Wikipedia categories, etc.). Not to mention that many readers can find themselves confused by an article of the Beatles that eventually can end up talking extensively about Miley Cyrus. So, in Spanish we have the original Beatles song and the cover version. I think that it should be considered for the English edition :) -- Jorge ( talk) 04:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Is there a policy about league seasons of a national championship? I haven't find anything in Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Xaris333 ( talk) 11:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Please see and discuss the proposal here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi.
Imagine a User:John Doe writes a Wikipedia article. Is he allowed to add the following to the bottom of the article?
==About the author==
This article is written by [ https://www.example.com John Doe], an established expert in the field of XXXXX.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 07:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Since no one "owns" any Wikipedia content, content should not be signed. The exact contributions of all editors are seen with their names on the page history.; if someone's having trouble understanding why we don't allow this, a good way to explain it is that "anyone can edit" could mean that in 30 seconds time the article may be changed to say something with which they profoundly disagree, and do they really want their name attached to it as the author in that case? ‑ Iridescent 09:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I would like to know if anyone has an opinion about discontinuing talk pages (applies only to articles, not templates, categories, etc.) and using the reference desks instead for improvements. Talk pages of articles that are not on many people's watchlists are often not bothered for a long time. Georgia guy ( talk) 19:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a type a rifle (lightweight intermediate cartridge magazine-fed air-cooled semi-automatic rifle with a rotating lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas-operation or long/short stroke piston operation). The originating model of this type of rifle was named "AR-15". AR-15's are still made, by the Colt Manufacturing Company, under that trademarked name.
Very similar rifles are made by some other companies. They are (universally, I gather) referred to as "AR-15's" -- not only informally by gun people in conversation, but in the pages of gun magazines and so forth. There is simply no generic term for these entities -- "AR-15" is the only word for these things. (It's sort of as if there was no term "sports car", only the term "Ferrari" for all sports cars, or whatever.)
In spite of this, Colt Manufacturing defends its trademark, I am given to understand. The fact that (I gather) gun magazine editors etc. don't pay attention to them on this subject indicates they are not defending successfully. But they are trying, and no judge has formally ruled that they have failed and that "AR-15" has falled to the status of a genericized trade mark. De facto it may have (although I question Wikipedia's standing to make that judgement). (FWIW I think no non-Colt manufacturer has gone so far as to use a model name of "AR-15", though; whether other manufactures go so far as writing in their marketing materials "Meet the StreetSweeper, the newest AR-15 from North American Veeblefletzer", I do not know.)
So... how do we refer to these types of a rifles? Can our article about this type of rifle be named AR-15s (a suggested name)? How about AR-15 variants (the current name) or AR-15-type rifles?
I believe that is we had an article listing brands of facial tissue, we could not -- even if we wanted to -- title it Brands of kleenex. Correct? What about Brands of kleenex-like tissue -- maybe that would be OK? This is above my pay grade.
The problem here is there is no alternative term for "AR-15", as there is for "kleenex" (you can say "facial tissue"). (Instead of "AR-15" you can say "lightweight intermediate cartridge magazine-fed air-cooled semi-automatic rifle with a rotating lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas-operation or long/short stroke piston operation" bat that's too long to be useful.)
We certainly want to avoid violating Colt's trademark rights, helping push their valuable trademark toward genericized-trademark status, or position ourselves to be the subject (at least in theory) of a valid cease-and-desist letter. On the the other hand, is there any point to being behind the curve if de facto Colt has really already lost the game?
I see no useful guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks or Wikipedia:Copyrights, nor is the Wikipedia:Copyright problems board the right venue for this, so I ask here for guidance. Herostratus ( talk) 01:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently disputing a speedy deletion of a redirect from 'Fuck Trump' to Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Protests because it's common on protest signage, and noted in the paragraph it's redirected to. If I am in error, I don't understand how a redirect that points to an expression on common signage is a personal attack? Victor Grigas ( talk) 01:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Interested editors can comment on the Deletion process talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 05:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
We probably need some clarification, policy-wise, on how to handle situations like I just found at Category:Establishments in Spain by year. See, "Spain" is not a concept which has existed forever, even historiographically speaking, the earliest one could consider a place called "Spain" would have been the 16th century. Prior to that were places like "Castile" and "Leon", etc. Likewise Category:Establishments in France by year has establishments as early as 365; there weren't even Franks in the area! The Manual of Style specifically notes we should use the name of the place at the time the event occurred, to quote "An article about Junipero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico not the U.S. state of California because the latter entity did not exist at the time of Junipero Serra. The Romans invaded Gaul, not France, and Thabo Mbeki was the president of the Republic of South Africa, not of the Cape Colony." I am not aware of any exception carved out for categories, so, for example, the Ancient Diocese of Toul should NOT be categorized in Category:365 establishments in France but rather in Category:365 establishments in Gaul. I'm also not quite sure where to cross-post this discussion, so if anyone has suggestions for where, or if I should move this to a better page, let me know and I will do so. This page seems to have the wider readership... -- Jayron 32 16:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I noted a discussion about the removal of category of climate denier for people who reject the scientific consensus of climate change. I think it's a pretty accurate term. Is there any way to re-instate it?
I think wikipedia is less for not having the category. -- Skinnytony1 ( talk) 10:12, 24 November 2016 (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.
I am opening this thread to gain consensus for an edit filter I requested " No emoji's in edit summaries". I have to admit I'm not very good at sponsoring or formatting these types of discussions, so any help in that regards will be appreciated. It's mentioned at the filter request that this topic might require new or changed policy, hence the use of this venue. - Mlpearc ( open channel) 18:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Seems more disruptive and unnecessary than useful or needed- Mlpearc ( open channel) 19:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
somewhat silly, sorry. I am not convinced it's
disruptiveenough to merit any kind of countermeasure, really. And "not needed" is never on its own a reason for anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record, I do like emoji's and use them all the time, on IRC, talk page discussions and texting, I do have issues when used in edit summaries (which are supposed to describe an edit not how you feel, that's what talk pages are for) and I don't like them in usernames either, but I'll bite my tongue on that for now.- Mlpearc ( open channel) 19:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Interested editors may comment on the GA nominations talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 08:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Activity_requirements for a proposed amendment to the bot policy. — xaosflux Talk 19:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
If nobody edited the draft following its creation, a history merge, as I understand it, would be feasible. But what if that's not the case?
It seems like the entire idea of using the draft space is made problematic if they can simply be ignored by someone who sees the available sourcing as sufficient for mainspace. On the other hand, does it really make sense to "penalize" User 2 for not noticing the draft (they're easy to miss if you don't search for them, after all).
The example that led me here is Draft:Ram Point and Ram Point. I disclose these self-consciously, because the whole idea of "credit" for articles is obviously fraught, and that draft is not proud work (after all, it's there because I didn't think it was good enough). The reason I'm pursuing the matter is because what if it weren't a lousy stub -- what if it were a more substantial article I wanted to work on in draftspace for a while before moving it -- but then meanwhile someone else created nearly the same thing? We encourage new users to work in drafts/sandboxes all the time. Students in particular regularly use drafts to collaborate over a period of weeks prior to moving into the mainspace. Also just a matter of principle, because I like the draft space and want people to use it more, but if people don't take into account that notification that appears when they're about to create a page for which a draft exists, then who would want to use it? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Let me extract a rewording from the thread above, since I think I may have been unclear:
In this edit a redirect-to-subsection is converted to a piped subsection redirect. Our guidelines on this state we should prefer the redirect for reasons of maintainability amongst others, so normally it'd be considered counter productive.
However, in this case, the redirect's subsection anchor link (but not the link to the parent article) was broken beforehand, so it could be argued that- on an immediate and purely local level, this was an improvement. On the other hand, fixing things in this way in general is bad overall because it decreases maintainability and negates the reason it was linked via a redirect in the first place.
Clearly, the best solution would be to fix the redirect instead, or to encourage the editor to do things that way.... that isn't in question.
The issue is:- Should editors be discouraged- and even prohibited- from "fixes" like the one above, even if the alternative is that the slightly faulty redirect remains in place instead?
Ubcule ( talk) 19:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
If I am correct, then WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are the first pillar of notability.
Unfortunately many schools, colleges and universities are kept in
WP:AFD with the excuse WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Some schools and universities established less than a year ago. They don't have any third party independent reviews. They fail every criteria of (
WP:GNG)
WP:BASIC.
Whereas some sportsperson who has got media coverage in major newspapers and the articles published discuss the person as a heading (not a passing mention in one line), but editors vote delete as they don't pass individual criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Some of them are junior level players who participate in world championships. Even if they pass WP:GNG, but fail the community set criteria of those particular sports. -- Marvellous Spider-Man 04:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC) .
Issue: There seems to be a wide variation in how the Afd process works. It seems, the only guidelines that are evaluated are the ones that individuals bring up in the discussion. And, the outcome of the discussion is based upon the input from users, some of whom understand the guidelines and others do not. In addition, the decision-making process is sometimes focused on waiting until there is consensus versus weighing the extent to which the applicable guidelines are correctly assessed.
Proposal: Using a checklist, similar in concept to the {{ DYK checklist}}, and based upon the criteria from deletion reason guideline, will help ensure a thorough evaluation of the guidelines for decision-making.
I have drafted a proposed checklist and it would be great to get your input about this or other solutions that would help make the process more effective and balanced.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Currently, guideline 1 is very vague. It goes, "[When an actor] has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions[, they are considered to be notable.] How do we define "multiple"? Some users say it's two, others argue it's (at least) three. Unless that is clearly defined, a majority of AFD discussions regarding actors will remain long winded as to what is clearly defined as "multiple" productions, rather than focusing on the actual notability of the actor. Also, how do we define when a production is considered to be notable? If a page barely has any content ( such as this) on Eng wiki, is that our idea of a notable production? I believe that some clear, non-vague definitions or examples of this particular guideline must be implemented for smoother, quicker AFD discussions. If anyone could come up with a splendidly well defined definition of "multiple" and "notable" productions, that'd be great. -- Sk8erPrince ( talk) 04:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I am in the process of working on creating a bot that cleans up some of the deprecated parameters used in {{ Infobox NFL biography}}. The WP:BRFA ( Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ZackBot 5) has stalled due to a debate over what constitutes a purely cosmetic change. In short, the bot seeks to replace deprecated parameters with their new counterparts:
{{{currentteam}}}
→ {{{current_team}}}
{{{currentposition}}}
→ {{{position}}}
{{{currentpositionplain}}}
→ {{{position}}}
{{{currentnumber}}}
→ {{{number}}}
My view is that this is NOT a purely cosmetic change as it seeks to clean up and improve a template. I also feel that User:Monkbot provides a clear precedent. Others, including BU Rob13 (who suggested I post here), have countered that is simply a cosmetic change and thus violates WP:COSMETICBOT. I am looking for some input from others on their interpretation of this policy. Rob13 please chime in to better explain your side of this. -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Comments are requested at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch
on whether it would be useful to mention "so-called '
protologisms'" in the Manual of Style section on
Neologisms and new compounds – if so, why, and if not, why not? This was the subject of an
earlier discussion on the same page with no clear consensus being reached. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 09:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
At WT:FFD#Insufficient participation in discussions?, I discussed declining or insufficient participation in WP:FFD nominations. However, the discussion went dead for one month. Therefore, I figured that this needs more attention at the VPP. One or two say that files that obviously violate rules have been deleted, despite lack of participation. Maybe I misread things. Anyway, despite being notified by bots, amount of participants is still very low. Is the layout of the page the problem, including adding a nomination? If not, why else would many people not participate? -- George Ho ( talk) 09:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:NJournals is being used at many AfDs as though it is WP:PAG, which it is not. It is a terrible essay in that it claims that simply being indexed and having an impact factor (no mention of what that impact factor must be) is enough to make a journal notable. Any academic reading here will know how ludicrous a standard for notability this is. Unfortunately, it seems that the gatekeepers who are married to this essay will not allow for changes to the essay and continue to insist on using it. It's causing confusion because people think it may be a guideline which it isn't.
Thus, I argue for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals).
jps ( talk) 20:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants in the last section there is a discussion of possible notability guidelines for beauty pageant winners following a previous RFC that decided to try to create such. The focus seems to be on starting only with a statement about winners of sub-national contests. We need lots more imput. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines about gender considerations & proper representation on Wikipedia articles? e.g., Are we supposed to present topics in a way that represents men and women equally (when men and women are equal components of the group/population in question)? The question arises in connection with Haredi Judaism, where a few weeks ago I encountered a set of photographs exclusively of men. In discussions of the issue, another editor has claimed that "gender ... considerations do not have any basis in Wikipedia policy and guidelines" [10], and that it's okay to have mostly men in the photographs because "men are the public face of Haredi Judaism". I'd imagine that there are gender considerations in Wikipedia policy; the closest we get that I'm aware of is MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, "seek to depict a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicities". Is there anything else? Or is the other editor correct -- gender considerations don't have any basis in policy? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
...So, is there really any potential downside to proposing language saying that WP should have a form of WP:DUE weight with regard to diversity? ...Obviously within the bounds of RS, but with the expectation that, as an approximation of reality, RS should generally paint a picture of a diverse world, and so if WP does not, it may likely be a problem of editor decision making in relative emphasis. TimothyJosephWood 16:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Initial disclaimer: I am involved in this discussion on the talk page. This is an understandably prickly subject. Diversity is important—doubly so when the article is about a religious sect that values modesty in women. Unfortunately, as Sir Joseph noted in his comments, the fact that Haredi Judaism values women's modesty has resulted in a dearth of images of Haredi women that are both quality and relevant. Consequently, the use of photos of women for diversity's sake alone looks hodgepodge and out of place in the article. A couple of the images are tacked onto spots where they don't seemingly fit the context of the surrounding text or section headings. It's unfortunate and incredibly frustrating for me personally, but I think that, failing a reorganization of the contents of the articleactually not a bad idea..., the re-positioning or removal of these images is due.
Regarding the general question posed to the Village Pump regarding gender guidelines, I think it's useful to highlight Haredi Judaism as a case study. The unique circumstances imposed by the subject matter in this article are why I think a hypothetical guideline on inclusivity by gender is doomed to fail or worsen the encyclopedia. Can we depend on people to use common sense on topics that demand an exception to the guideline? Or will we see people strong-arming diversity at all costs [1] even when it deteriorates the quality of an article? I don't know, but I'm unwilling to find out. I think the guidance in MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE is appropriately broad, and I WP:Avoid instruction creep as a general matter of course. AlexEng( TALK) 02:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Recently there was a discussion on meta at meta:Terms of use/Creative Commons 4.0 about updating the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use for Wikimedia projects to use the updated version of the Creative Commons license, 4.0 instead of 3.0 as currently used.
While reading up on that I noticed that English Wikipedia uses two different descriptions of the copyright license. Anyone contributing to Wikipedia has to "irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". To see this text, go to any place on Wikipedia, click edit or edit source at the top of the screen, then scroll to the bottom above the "save" button. There actually are two text editors - one with source code and one that is WYSIWYG, but both of them prominently feature this text.
The second place is at the bottom of every Wikipedia article. This is much more prominent, because whereas the other place is seen by editors, this place is seen by everyone. Scroll to the bottom of any Wikipedia article and see where it says, "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply."
I find it surprising that there is one sort of text to which editors agree when they make submissions, but another text is presented on all pages for readers. Presumably since everything readers access went through the submission process, the two places should have matching text. However, the reader space only notes the CC license, whereas the submission space requires agreement to dual licensing. I do not know how or why these texts came to be different.
Wikipedia has used the dual licensing system of " Creative Commons plus GNU Free Documentation License" for a long time and I wonder how it came to be that the GFDL license is not presented to Wikipedia readers, whereas the CC license is. Does anyone have any insight on how this came to be? This might be a bigger issue than English Wikipedia but I thought I would ask here first. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I think these statements are correct.
@ Isaacl, RP88, and Hut 8.5: - I am guessing about the 90% number. I think the truth is closer to 99%+, but 90% seems safe and anything less than 51% seems implausible to me. Would any of you doubt the accuracy of any of these statements?
Assuming that these statements are correct, I would like to advocate that the copyright notice change from "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" to that, plus "and the GFDL". I feel that the text for submission should be reconciled with the text for reading. I think that Wikipedia's copyright notice should be aligned with the majority of content, and since the majority of content is dual licensed, then that is how the copyright notice should read. The truth of situation is more complicated, but it is more correct more often to say CC+GFDL than to say CC only.
Am I missing something here? Is there a counterpoint to this? Am I wrong on some premise? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Why is CheckUser data kept for such a short time? SPI clerks are sometimes reluctant to take action in the absence of such strong evidence. In that case, the WP:Standard offer is unenforceable. As a result, the community has to repeatedly go through the long tedious process of ejecting troublesome editors it has already ejected before. Can we improve on this? Burninthruthesky ( talk) 09:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikimedia Sites are collaborative, with users writing most of the policies and selecting from amongst themselves people to hold certain administrative rights. These rights may include access to limited amounts of otherwise nonpublic information about recent contributions and activity by other users. They use this access to help protect against vandalism and abuse, fight harassment of other users, and generally try to minimize disruptive behavior on the Wikimedia Sites.
Information about users (like their IP address) is retained for a limited period on Wikimedia Foundation sites. Data retention is limited in this way because incidents or actions that are not current rarely require investigation.
@ Burninthruthesky: The data is kept for such a short period to protect all of our users, sockpuppets and not alike. The only way to be truly safe against things like a subpoena, in which the Wikimedia Foundation would be legally obligated to hand the data over, is to not have the data at all. I believe it is a compromise that must be taken. -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Newspapers in general are considered reliable sources. However, many developing countries have news and media outlets that are state owned, and directly controlled. One of the examples that I see frequently are the Egyptian news outlets in general. Egypt ranks low on the Freedom of Press report, in pretty much every aspect, making it one of the worst. [1] We can also see reports of all media being stifled and made to dance to the regime's tune, being private, or state-owned. [2]
Obviously these sources (newspapers and TV channels) pass the criteria for verifiability, and reliability. And, in the case of state-aligned private media, seemingly fit the independence criterion.
Egypt isn't the only example, but it's the one I'm most familiar with.
In a country or region where press freedom is oppressed, the only voice heard can be the state's. And what little opposing voices heard are usually in the form of unreliable sources, like blogs or social media. So, if an incident happens in that country, and the government orders the media to accuse a group or person, this is what we have in the form of "reliable source", and can be safely edited into Wikipedia. And if the country or incident isn't in the spotlight, it's almost certain there won't be neutral outside reporting or investigation (for example in The Guardian, or WashPo, or any other news outlet), to counter the state's claims.
What's the opinion on such outlets?
while i sympathise with people who have had their rights violated and states should not try to censor people but things like facebook twitter and reddit are not considered reliable sources but neither would countries that have had a history of propaganda also whose social media post would you cite however just because a news source is owned by the state does not by itself make the news source unreliable but if the state is the only news source and the state attacks peoples right to speak no matter how unpopular the opinion than the state source then they are probably engaging in propaganda i am sorry about the human rights violations that happen however a self published blog or social media are not to be included into wikipedia because whose facebook or twitter post would you cite and whose blog would you cite i think in response to your question i belive it is probably better to not put on wikipedia unless you can find relible sources just because this is about an oppressive country actions does not mean you can just throw out the guidelines i do admit this is a complicated question and the ignore all rules is relevant to this question here the quote "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." i have never encountered any wikipedia policy on what to do in this situation-- Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 03:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC) /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
This concerns the criteria for inclusion for Category:Trump administration cabinet members and Template:Trump cabinet.
One editor removed Ben Carson despite this announcement, setting off a bit of an edit war.
So, what is the criteria for inclusion? When Trump announces a choice? When he submits his choice to congress? When the choice is confirmed? Is is possible to be confirmed before the inauguration, and if so are those confirmed choices excluded from our cat and template until the inauguration?
I would note that on 22 November 2008 Hillary Clinton was placed in Category:Obama administration cabinet members [11] and on 19 December 2008 Ron Kirk was placed in the same cat. [12] I didn't check any other names. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I see a mention above about "the RfC"; is there one, and if so, could someone post a link to it? If there is not an RfC (which I doubt is actually needed) but simply this discussion, I would say 1) no one should be in the "Trump administration cabinet members" category until they are nominated, approved by the Senate, and sworn in. That should not have been done 8 years ago either. 2) The suggestion to create a "proposed cabinet members" category is an excellent one, as it should satisfy all the editors who are eager to add "cabinet member" status for a person who simply isn't one yet. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Proposal: empty
Category:Trump administration cabinet members, create
Category:Trump administration proposed cabinet members, fill the proposed cabinet members cat with anyone trump announces as his choice, and move add the names to the cabinet members cat as they are confirmed. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 20:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Edited 23:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
You may be interested in this RfC: Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#RfC:_Hosting_content_from_countries_that_do_not_have_copyright_relations_with_the_U.S.. Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 18:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
According to the MOS for Biographies of living persons, a person's nationality "can be in the lead if relevant to the subject's notability." Similarly it says ethnicity "should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". So when is it relevant? Opinions seem to be all over the map (don't mind the pun) and a great deal of time is wasted on arguments and disruptive editing. Greater clarity could save time and help prevent some disruptive editing.
I propose greater clarity on this MOS guideline, by adding examples of what is and what is not acceptable, preferably using examples of well known people.
Thanks Dig Deeper ( talk) 19:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Dig Deeper, you've incorrectly stated the MOS language regarding nationality. It does not say that nationality "can be in the lead if relevant to the subject's notability" (emphasis yours); that language you quoted from the MOS is instead regarding place of birth or death. The MOS (and overwhelming editor consensus) instead presumes that nationality is the best way to provide "context" for the subject and so should "usually" be in the opening paragraph. You appear to be conflating nationality with ethnicity, and those are two different things. And this is what the MOS says on that: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." (emphasis added) postdlf ( talk) 19:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I was recently involved in an editing dispute at User talk:Bkonrad#Bismarck and Jefferson and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Listing a topic discriminatorily above others over whether Thomas Jefferson and Otto von Bismarck should be treated akin to a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT on their respective dabpages, namely Jefferson (disambiguation) and Bismarck (disambiguation) respectively. When I first came across both Jefferson and Bismarck, I initially thought that the US president and German chancellor were primary redirects in their own right, however I saw the layout as rather strange (as it was different from e.g. Obama (disambiguation)), so I set about rectifying the dab layout. Just before I did so, I noticed that "(disambiguation)" wasn't in the title. I then realised the two statesmen were not primary redirects so I proceeded to move them both down to an appropriate section, so they could be treated like all other entries (without any perceived subjectivity absent a consensus). Soon after though, I was reverted a couple of times by the user aforestated who insisted that they both were undeniably the most sought-after articles on their respective dabpages. If that's his rationale, his mission should be to open a move discussion at both pages to confirm that they both qualify WP:PTOPIC. I have since added Jefferson Davis to Jefferson#top and another user added Bismarck, North Dakota to Bismarck#top (I later added the submarine ship). Just as a disclaimer, I think that adding the most significant entries (notice plural) at the top is totally reasonable, but for a single entry it is wrong and misleading unless it's because of a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT situation (since otherwise it confuses us to believe that e.g. President Jefferson is the established primary topic, even though he isn't). MOS:DABORDER should be revised in my opinion, prohibiting the addition of less than two entries to the lede of a disambiguation page if it is not a primary redirect.-- Nevé – selbert 21:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
A prolific contributor to Wikipedia created a page apparently indented as initial scratchwork that would grow into an article, and when its inappropriateness as an article in that embryonic form was pointed out, moved it into the "Draft" space. Then someone proposed its deletion from the "Draft" space on the grounds that it was advertising. There was in fact no hint of advertising in it; at best the person who proposed speedy deletion was acting without paying attention. Is this an appropriate edit? Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:56, 25 December 2016 (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.
Hypothesis #2:Wikipedia readers want reliably sourced information, as available, for a broad range of topics; including the entrants to Miss America and to Miss USA, each of whom have won notable state-level pageants.
WP:Deletion policy is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow", and as per WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, merger of non-notable topics to suitable targets is accepted policy.
History: Miss America was established in 1921, and Miss USA established in 1952. In 1979, Miss USA had 38 million viewers. As per our Miss USA article, in the early 1980s, the TV coverage regularly topped the Nielsen ratings. The popularity of these two pageants waned between 1990 and 2000, but since 2010 both have recovered some lost television coverage.
Associated state-level pageants are notable: All of these entrants are winners of notable state-level pageants, see Category:Miss USA state pageants and Category:Miss America state pageants.
Entrants may or may not be Wikipedia notable: Notability is not a key parameter for inclusion of these individuals, as Wikipedia non-notable topics can be covered as mini-bios at a suitable target topic.
Common elements in a bio: The typical state pageant winner is less than 24 years of age, and has competed in several beauty pageants before winning the state title. Winning the state title carries with it some scholarship money and a one-year reign, which means public appearances in various events around the state, as well as the national TV event. Occasionally, these winners are recognized by the state legislature. Besides being state celebrities, these winners typically get limited international coverage, including some coverage in foreign languages.
Wikiproject Beauty Pageants: I am not a member of WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants and the project page is marked semi-active. One of their strongest proponents, User:Dravecky, died in April of this year. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:16, 27 December 2016 (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.
Wikipedia readers want reliably sourced information, as available, for a broad range of topics; including the entrants to Miss America and to Miss USA, each of whom have won notable state-level pageants.
WP:Deletion policy is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow", and as per WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, merger of non-notable topics to suitable targets is accepted policy.
Explanatory material: Merriam Webster (mw.com) definition #2 for hypothesis is, "an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action." Unscintillating ( talk) 13:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I found some map files of Mesoamerica that didn't seem very accurate to me. I looked on the image information and there wasn't any source beyond 'own work'.
So I know image files need documentation on their copyright status, but in the case of diagrams, do they need to be able to back up claims they make in proper sources? -- TangoFett ( talk) 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Is there a policy on calling a person who has died as "late"? It seems like it shouldn't be used because ventually everyone is going to be "late". An example is in Standin' on the Corner Park. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants we have as item 61 the following:I see no progress on this subject. Here is my extremely early set of ideas: 1. Winners of major national pageants (Miss America and Miss USA in the US) are generally presumed to be notable. 2. Winners of sub-national level pageants are not notable for such per se, even if they have won more than one. This does not stop them from passing the general notability guidelines for such if the coverage for such either reaches far beyond publications that are local to them, or is substantial and persistent. 3. It should be kept in mind that some beauty pageant winners are notable for other things. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC) In the ensuing 14 days 3 people have made comments. I am trying to figure out how to get more attention. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I recently suggested an edit to the rings of saturn article to remove a, "for the death core band see Rings of Saturn (band)" tag, on the grounds that the band was gaining unwarranted enrichment from its positioning at the top of a much more popular page. It was promptly moved to a disambiguation page by a regular editor of that page.
A search for the string "band see" (as would be found in the string "for the xxxx band, see...") reveals numerous pages on which the top of the page contains what is basically an advertisment for an aspiring band. It's my proposal that a policy ought to be implemented regarding this use of the "see also" section at the top of pages. In a nutshell, Small commercial ventures shouldn't be benefiting from increased publicity by adding information about their company to the tops of pages about things which are much more frequently searched.
Here's a sample of what I mean based on the above search:
Edaham ( talk) 02:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article.- see WP:TWODABS. You believe that our articles look "silly": the established consensus is that these articles are the best way to help readers get to the information they want.
nutshell: because a photograph of the subject of an article is more accurate than a painting or a drawing (& because the lede image is the first thing most readers will see); (when they are available) photographs should generally be used in preference to paintings or drawings, as the primary (i.e.: lead) illustration of the subject, in an article.
BE IT RESOLVED
That, as per the requirements of WP:Accuracy and WP:NPOV,
When it comes to "real-world", i.e.: non-fictional subjects; such as history, biographies, etc.
When photographic images illustrating the subject of the article, which are of acceptable (article-space useable) quality exist, & are available to use (re: copyright, etc.),
& are not in (serious) dispute over matters of factual accuracy (such as identify of the subject, date, or alterations to the image),
the use of such photographic images should be given preference and precedence over the use of paintings, drawings, and other suchlike "interpretive" artworks,
as a/the primary illustration of the subject in articles;
with allowance for obvious exceptions such as maps, plans, diagrams, etc.; as per common sense and the practical requirements of the subject.
NOTE THAT: this in no way prohibits the inclusion in the article of creative artworks depicting or relevant to the subject, as best suits the article; "history of", "in art", "official portraits", etc.
Merely that, as primary &/or lead image on the article, preference should be given to photographic images accurately depicting the likeness of the subject, WHEN THEY ARE AVAILABLE, over creative/interpretive artworks.
For reasons of accuracy, better NPOV, & "best practices" as historical documentation of the subject, and wp:style.
Not to mention basic common sense.
Lx 121 ( talk) 15:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
discuss:
Hi Lx 121. Which few articles are you referring to? Are their talk pages insufficient to resolve this issue? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 08:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
your logic is fail -- all of them accurately record the lightwaves in the room; @ different resolutions, & in the last case, as monochrome.
more to the point, ALL OF THEM are more accurate (& more npov) than a hand- drawing or painting.
Lx 121 ( talk) 12:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
see the difference yet? Lx 121 ( talk) 06:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
jimmy @ 5 megs in b&w
jimmy @ 16 megs; you can count his freckles, which are not shown in the painting. real people have freckles, & wrinkles & other little details & "imperfections", that hired portrait painters do not include; for reasons of flattery or simply because it's too much work.
a comparison, of drawings & paintings vs photography (in-progress); click to enlarge
here are the presidents (USA), for whom we have both paintings & photographs; a number of whom i've had to fight "painting vs photo" battles over
a number of which i've had to fight more than once
& since somebody else mentioned john calhoun, here are the several PHOTOGRAPHS of the man that we have to choose from,
& none of them are "acceptable" to the persons i am debating the matter with; who replaced the long-standing photograph of the subject, with the painting in the next gallery.
& here is the PAINTING that keeps getting put in place of the photograph as lede. & btw, the painting was created in the same era as the photographs; & the artist may very well have used photographs as models in making it.
<
Now, when you looked @ all those images (UN-thumbnailed/full-sized), did anyone have trouble telling which was a photograph of a real person, & which was a photograph of a painting or a drawing?
EXACTLY
if there is anybody here who can't tell the difference, please, speak up.
Lx 121 ( talk) 07:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
actually; there is also the problem that decision-making on a particular article can be dominated by a handful of people with a "dedicated interest" & strong opinions about the subject. regardless of policy, & impervious to dispute, short of arbcom or a massive community intervention.
& i am tired of dealing with situations like that, thanks.
i have had to change back biography photos so many times, on so many articles.
& argue with mostly the same people; mostly about accuracy & npov.
then go back 6 months or a year later & do it all over again.
& again.
& again.
if we can't get a basic, simple rule like "photographs are better than paintings" for showing what somebody looks like, in a biography;
then somebody else can deal with it.
or not.
but i thought wp:accuracy & wp:npov were supposed to mean something?
i also thought the goal was to make wikipedia a quality information resource?
if i'm wrong about that; i've got other things i can spend my time & efforts on.
Lx 121 ( talk) 10:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
& are not in (serious) dispute over matters of factual accuracy (such as identify of the subject, date, or alterations to the image),
"& are not in (serious) dispute over matters of factual accuracy (such as identify of the subject, date, or alterations to the image),"
here, i'll get you some examples of how uselesss 19th century photographers were.
Lx 121 ( talk) 13:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
"accurate colours"? -- ''howso? do you mean "accurate" colour chosen by the artist, then mixed on the pallete, then PAINTED ON? that's some definition of accuracy there! Lx 121 ( talk) 13:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article on Photographic film helps explain the technical failures of early film & glass plates:
*comment* -- the article section you quoted is marked as lacking citations.
as a technical matter, it also CANNOT POSSIBLY APPLY uniformly to every photographic technology in existence @ the time.
because there were several completely different techniques of fixing a photographic image by that time; & your uncited quote does not specify WHICH TECHNIQUE it is talking about.
'also all of this does nothing to negate the fact a photographic plate is an ACCURATE RECORD of the lightwaves, taken in at least the megapixel range.
which is FAR beyond what the human eye & hand can create, even IF the artist was an insane savant completely obsessed with exactly tracing the image via a camera obscura.
AND all of your agrument here does NOTHING to explain why you attempted to impose a painting of president William McKinley, taken well after your claimed "magical date" of 1883.
on the other hand IF you want to use that as an argument for "why we need to replace all the photographs of Abraham Lincoln, with your "more accurate" paintings, then by all means, have fun with that.
Lx 121 ( talk) 12:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Since my previous repairs were reverted, I'm going to make this more obvious: Lx 121, please quit violating WP:LISTGAP in this discussion. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC) '
effectively undermining my arguemenmts.
there is NO wp to support altering ANOTHER USER'S posting, in a discussion in this way; & the cited "reasons" provided by the user responsible do not "create" one.
Lx 121 ( talk) 11:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
BTW -- that link leads to a guideline, not a policy
& that guideline is specifically for the article-space. (see m.o.s. header)
Lx 121 ( talk) 12:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
There is uncertainty and confusion about the proper forum for requesting copies of articles that have been deleted in accordance with a full deletion discussion at Articles for Deletion. Such requests may be made either by the author or would-be author of an improved version of the article, or by a reviewer at Articles for Creation who needs to compare a draft against the previous article. Some editors think that the proper place for requests is Requests for Undeletion, but some think that such requests are better made at Deletion Review. In looking carefully at the headers for the two boards, it appears that REFUND is correct, because it says:
This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace
However, some editors think that Deletion Review is the place for such requests. First, am I correct that REFUND is the correct place for such requests? Second, perhaps, if so, in the list of reasons why Deletion Review should not be used, there should be an entry for requests to restore deleted articles to draft or user space (use REFUND instead). Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I started the discussion about very little participation at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard in WT:NOR and WT:NORN. However, no one showed up. Therefore, I am doing another discussion here to increase awareness on the NOR noticeboard. There have been cases regarding OR determinations, but very little number of people volunteered to interfere. I wonder whether this will end up in the same fate as already forgotten WP:notability/Noticeboard. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I have been reading many articles on British transport of late on Wikipedia, and I find the lack of consistency in units of measurement in articles very confusing and problematic. I have also seen that the preferred use of measurement to be very subjective within Wikipedia, and subject to very heated debates, see Talk:Edinburgh Trams and Talk:High Speed 2.
With regards to these articles, I am trying to remain as unbiased as possible and not share my personal opinion on the matter. I find it frustrating to read an article such as the London Underground which in one sentence will say ″the Metropolitan eventually extended as far as Verney Junction in Buckinghamshire, more than 50 miles (80 km) from Baker Street and the centre of London" and later on state "London Underground's eleven lines total 402 kilometres (250 mi) in length". Other articles are written solely in Imperial Measures ( Chiltern Railways) and others are written solely in Metric ( High Speed 1), some articles have supplementary indicators, some do not.
As
MOS:UNIT states ″In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that:
-UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in (but road distances are given in imperial units, with a metric conversion – see next bullet);
-the primary units for distance/length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon (except for short distances or lengths, where miles are too large for practical use)″
While many articles use kilometres, and perhaps many of the engineers behind this project do also, there is a propensity for the British to use miles and miles per hour. For the average Brit, one would never use kilometres in a day to day environment. A recent YouGov poll found that 89% of Brits would use miles to estimate a long distance, whereas only 6% would use kilometres. [1] I understand that the metric system may be more practical, but that is not what I wish to debate and I implore any commenters on this to not bring in their personal opinions on which system of measurement is better. I just want what is best for the average reader of Wikipedia, and until the British Government fully implement the Metric System I suggest all distances are kept in Miles and Miles Per Hour.
I propose that editors and contributors put aside their personal preferences so that we can have conformity in all our articles and use Miles (Kilometres). I propose changing MOS:UNIT guidelines to be clearer on the matter, and say something like this:
″In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric, except that:
-UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in (but distances are given in imperial units, with a metric conversion – see next bullet);
-the primary units for distance/length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon (except for short distances or lengths, where miles are too large for practical use)″
I appreciate your time and consideration -- Alfiecooper ( talk) 11:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
We should always quote sources exactly, using whatever units the source used - and then give the alternate measurements in parentheses. We don't need this MoS. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 13:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
References
I’m having a disagreement with a fellow editor,
User:Shaddim, at
Talk:Flatpak (and elsewhere), over interpretations of policy and community consensus. The way I see it, policy supports removing unsourced content, and strongly discourages restoring it while leaving it unsourced, and this (I think) is the consensus view. He says the requirement for sources only strictly applies to BLP content and other sensitive content, and calls my removal of unsourced content “excessive,” claiming the WP:
links I’ve used to justify my actions do not in fact support my position. We’ve gone back and forth about this, neither of us seeming able to sway the other’s opinion of what the actual consensus is. I’m hoping we can get a (relatively) final answer here. —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 23:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Preserve appropriate content(emphasis added)—justify removing content that doesn’t fit? If someone disagrees with removal, there’s BRD, provided the restored content is sourced. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 05:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
"All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."Remove anything that you think isn't sufficiently referenced. If you get reverted, discuss. While Wikipedia prefers status quo ante during discussions the burden is on the editor adding the content. If that addition happened long ago I would err on the side of sticking to sources. Unsourced content that is likely to be challenged is a danger to the trustworthiness of the project. I don't understand why PRESERVE disagrees with this. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I would note that Wikipedia bluelinks do not satisify verifiability concerns per WP:CIRCULAR. Specifically, linked articles can change. I generally recommend that editors copy the pertinent sources from linked articles in such cases. The fact that verifiability has been challenged moots any question of whether it was "unlikely" to be challenged. We don't deal with whether material was "likely" to be challenged with regards to verifiability, we address situations where it is being challenged. And in such cases the most practical way to resolve the question is to provide a source and move on, not bicker over whether one is necessary. I'll note that I tend to feel that the more an editor argues against providing a source, the more likely it is that it's because either a) one can't be found, or b) they're not willing to do the work to provide it, neither of which makes me personally more inclined to help. If sources are so trivial to find, why are they not being provided? Why are we arguing about this? DonIago ( talk) 04:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The encyclopedia is continually being accused of not being reliable. Since we have no board of paid editors to make certain that the material here is correct and reliable, verifiability through sources, preferably inline sources, is the only way we have to assure ordinary users of the encyclopedia of that fact. The tension, of course, is between encouraging people to build the encyclopedia, on the one hand, and insuring its reliability and reputation for reliability on the other. Putting a burden on removal of unsourced material beyond that already stated in BURDEN will cause editors who have genuine doubts about the verifiability of unsourced material to hang back from removing it lest they be blocked or banned for removing it without searching for sources for it to the competence level chosen by their accuser. In doing so, it disenfranchises the casual editor of this encyclopedia "that anyone can edit," and leaves removal of unsourced material to that — some say dwindling — core of editors who devote a large part of their life to the encyclopedia and who will take the time to be absolutely certain that sources cannot be found before removing material. It also puts an additional cartridge in the gun of fringe editors: If I see an unsourced entry in Westminster Abbey saying that it's haunted by the ghost of Geoffrey Chaucer, do I really in fear of being blocked, banned, or criticized need to go searching for some obscure source for that assertion which then has to be evaluated for reliability or should I be able to rely, as is the case today, on my concern that it cannot be reliably sourced and merely remove it? No. Giving editors who add material the discretion to source or not source on the basis of whether material is likely to be challenged is fine: That encourages the growth of the encyclopedia and makes it easier on new editors, but we also need to have the ability to easily and quickly removed unsourced material if anyone even slightly doubts that they have exercised that judgment incorrectly. (And that also applies to material which has been introduced and left untouched for long periods of time; many articles and introductions of material receive no attention until long after the material has been introduced.) Let me close by noting that this is a perennial topic of discussion at the V talk page and the consensus there has always been to maintain the current balance. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads up, there is a proposal to have a bot wipe out all the ISBN magic links at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#Yobot 27. Relevant links MW:Requests for comment/Future of magic links and Wikitech-l: Future of magic links / making ISBN linking easier. Looks like the proposal is to use a template instead like {{ ISBN}} Spinning Spark 16:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite pmid}}
, not {{
pmid}}
.ISBN{{nbsp}}1
or ISBN{{nbsp}}9781910392171
for those rare occasions where the isbn should not be linked, and to leave the magic linking in place for the other 99.9n% (at a guess) of instances. Where was this discussed? It doesn't seem to have been mentioned at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books where editors interested and expert in books (and therefore in isbns) are likely to be found. (And it's perfectly possible to write "RFC 1" without it making a link).
Pam
D 18:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
ISBN 1234
to {{ISBN|1234}}
. Skimming this discussion and others, the arguments against doing this seem to be that the magic behavior is easier for editors. I would counter that the magic behavior is actually not great for new editors because it's inconsistent with how almost every other type of link works. Magic links pre-date the existence of templates. They actually even pre-date the existence of
MediaWiki. If magic links were proposed today, they would almost certainly be rejected. We don't want the wikitext parser to have to guess at what should and should not be a link for most cases. (A weird exception is "free" links such as <
http://www.example.com>.) Generally, we want to be explicit, as we are with nearly every kind of citation template.(un-indent) Yeah, that's part of the curse of templates, I suppose. Templates provide consistency, easier standardization, and input validation, however the wikitext is often uglier and more cumbersome as a result. As an analogy, perhaps, in your reply you used {{
u|Jytdog}}
instead of just writing "Jytdog" or even "@Jytdog". For better or worse, templates are what we have and what we commonly use. I think removing the "magic" behavior of ISBN, RFC, and PMID links will simplify wikitext behavior and human understanding of wikitext behavior in the long run.
Certain input tools such as VisualEditor may make it simpler to input just the text "ISBN 1234" and have it turn into a link that uses a wrapper template. That would help new and old users alike. I also think it's reasonable for us as users to insist that the existing link behavior be fully deprecated before being disabled. That is, I don't care if it takes four or five years for us to phase out the "ISBN 1234" magic syntax and empty the Pages using ISBN magic links tracking category. There's no real rush in my mind, but it is something we should do unless there are really good reasons not to. To me, the convenience of the current behavior is outweighed by the inconsistency and arbitrary special treatment of these three magic citation types. It's unnecessarily difficult and frankly silly to have to explain to users that PMID is special, but PMC is not. ISBN is special, but ISSN is not. I think we gain a lot, including simplifying the wikitext parser, by eliminating this magic link behavior.
Regarding behavior in a post-magic link world, a new user will type "ISBN 1234" into an article. If a tool like VisualEditor doesn't make the text a link, the user can look at and copy existing ISBN examples that are linked. To me, this is a much better experience than the current behavior where the text is a link and it's much more difficult to understand why. You have to know that in November 2001, Magnus added an "ISBN" function that made this string special. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
u}}
template, it becomes a bit easier to see why developers and their parsers prefer templates and other forms of explicit syntax. It's less guesswork, which generally results in more straightforward and expected behavior for everyone.Hi
Rich Farmbrough. I think most of the reasoning for wanting to get rid of magic links has been sufficiently given in the previous comments. But I wanted to respond to your specific comment about when you might not want a magic link. We've seen cases where magic link functionality has worked or not worked in weird contexts, such as section headings or edit summaries, causing confusion. In addition, magic linking offers users no control over the output. We have templates such as {{
ISBNT}}
for contexts in which people don't want to repeat "ISBN" every time, such as in tables. ISBN syntax is also difficult to internationalize and has presented problems in non-English wikis.
Regarding the general practice of deprecating and replacing wikitext syntax, you're surely familiar with the practice given edits such as this. The primary (and perhaps sole) benefit that magic links have is that they're convenient for wikitext editing. The detriments are outlined in this section, including inconsistency with almost every other kind of citation markup. Your arguments elsewhere that we would be "overloading" the template system by having a means of doing input validation on ISBNs is without merit, in my opinion. Lua/Scribunto modules such as Module:Check isxn were specifically implemented to solve for use-cases like this. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Our Edit Warring policy has a section titled "What edit warring is". However, the text in that section never explicitly defines the concept. Arguably, a definition might be implied (maybe) but if so it is buried way down in the third sentence. We could help NEWBIES and reduce drama in general if this section more clearly stated how it works. There is some marked-up draft text that shows the changes I propose. Please offer your input at the policy talk page in the "Definition section" thread. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
on the south african maling list, User:DjMlindos was trying to get his account unblocked 4 years after blocking this and his sockpuppet. he was referrec to Template:2nd_chance. i am wondering first if 2nd chance is a real feature to be available to users, and second, if yes, how technically this should work? e.g. where to say "i want to have a 2nd chance", and how this would be configured in wikipedia? technically i do not have enough experience, but i suppose he is blocked from editing, and creating a new account - otherwise i suppose he would just do it. and wikipedia would be open to allow indefinitely blocked to easily create sock puppets. -- ThurnerRupert ( talk) 08:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm looking at Plot section of articles like The Golem's Eye, which are a regurgitated detailed narrative like a junior high school book report, and totally unreferenced. Another editor ridiculed me, saying the source was the book itself! I.e., the editor read and summarized the book himself. Isn't that original research? Can't I legitimately question: who says that's what the book is about? On the other hand, it's often difficult to find a plot summary suitable for a concise encyclopedic article, which is not drawn from promotional or merchandising material. If I were writing an article for a literary review journal, I'd have to cite sources, why not here? Anyway, the Plot is supposed to be what the story is about, not a retelling of the story itself. That's an artistic creation, original work, copyrightable, if one were inclined. Can the Plot section of the article be removed as <unreferenced> or alternatively as <original research>? I seriously doubt that any published source can be found with the level of detail in the section... some editor made it up. Sbalfour ( talk) 20:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I have posted a proposal to modify the administrator inactivity policy; see Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposal. Maxim(talk) 12:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
or does wp want to be "behind the times" by waiting for new discoveries to be reviewed? I'm a somewhat frustrated newbie and retired biologist. I'm troubled by the wp definition of OR. Let me explain. Suppose I wanted to test the adage that "the early bird gets the worm." I could get up from bed way before sunrise (a bizarre thought in retirement) and sit next to my front lawn on 3 nice spring days. Starting at the official time of sunrise, I could count how many worms are pulled up by birds in the first hour and, separately, in the second hour after sunrise. I could calculate the average number of worms pulled up during those 2 intervals to see if early birds get more worms. I could publish that data, which I am now naming Personal Data, on my facebook page. However, I could not publish PD on wp. I could not cite my facebook page as a source on wp, because it is unreliable and unverifiable. PD is the kind of OR that wp doesn't want. However, what is frustrating to me is that editors keep on dissing discussions/citations of Original scientific Research articles as OR as if they are as undesirable as PD. Original scientific Research articles are not PD! They are overwhelmingly collections of controlled, laboratory, experimental PD generated by multiple people, collected as a series of figures, scrutinized by the authors and combined into a manuscript, then presented to a journal, which sends it out to independent experts for (generally anonymous) peer review. Then, the manuscript is sent back to the authors to address the peer review concerns. Eventually, excellent work is published as Original scientific Research articles in more or less prestigious journals. One of the (if not THE) most prestigious journals is Nature. I've had an editor dis a Nature paper I wanted to cite becuse it was just OR. Unbelievable. smh. So, I wonder if the community wants to try to make editors aware of a difference between silly PD and respected OR in the form of peer reviewed papers? DennisPietras ( talk) 23:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.That hypothetical article in Nature counts as a published reliable source. So...confused as to the point you are trying to make here. -- Majora ( talk) 23:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I have opened up an RfC discussing what the policy should be on for users remaining in redlinked user categories after such category has been deleted at CfD, see here. VegaDark ( talk) 22:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
If you're reviewing a GA nominee article and you put it on hold because it has minor issues, what's the point of waiting the prescribed time if you find all of the issues are fixed before that time is up? I'd like to change the policies concerning good article reviews so that if an on-hold nominee article has all of its issues fixed before the on-hold time is up, a reviewer can promote the article right away. I'd like to know what you think about that. Phil roc My contribs 21:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
"change the policies concerning good article reviews"when you don't even understand them. WP:GANI Step 4 explains this. Village Pump isn't even the right forum for your question. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Having witnessed many (and participated in some) Wikidata-related discussions recently, I have the intention to have an RfC on Wikidata usage on enwiki (with the intention to create an up-to-date policy or guideline). Before this can start, I believe it is best to have a preliminary state of affairs to base the RfC discussion on. With that in mind, I have created Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs.
Everyone is invited to contribute their knowledge of Wikidata on enwiki there. I have explained the purpose of the page at the top of it, but it is not my page so feel free to change that as well of course. I just hope that we can restrict the page to what is and what has already happened, and leave the "what should happen" for the future RfC. Fram ( talk) 15:07, 11 January 2017 (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.
"Wikipedia will suffer no great loss if the standalone article is nuked", is a quote yesterday from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Brown, diff, in a diff in which the commentator agrees that the topic should be included in the encyclopedia.
I posted two RfCs last week on beauty pageants on this page and each was procedurally closed. I've had follow-up discussions with three people since then, #your post at the RfC at VPP #Community divide on ATD without resolution. I have posted a new draft at User:Unscintillating/Draft RfC on Miss America and Miss USA entrants.
Meanwhile, on Friday we had six new beauty-pageant AfDs posted in one hour, [14]. How do we post an RfC on beauty pageants that addresses the community divide on WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT? Unscintillating ( talk) 14:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion here is about WP:Deletion policy, specifically WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. Unscintillating ( talk) 18:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
So, no, editors are not "assumed to have considered ATD" when they !voted to delete due to notability; in fact, the presence of the topic elsewhere on Wikipedia shows that their !vote was flawed.
Likewise, "delete and redirect" for notability is also a bogus concept, as WP:N does not define a content problem. Unscintillating ( talk) 00:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The question remains in how to move forward. Unscintillating ( talk) 12:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
An RfC has been created. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The fact that a topic is not notable is not, alone in and of itself, a valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its page history. It is at most an argument for merger and/or redirection. To validly argue for deletion, editors need to additionally advance separate arguments against both merger and redirection, on relevant grounds. (Since "merger" includes a history merge without redirection, an argument against redirection is not an argument against merger). Since any verifiable topic/content can in principle be redirected/merged to an article on a broader topic, this should be exceptionally difficult. Valid arguments against merger might be based on WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT or WP:BLP, in particular. (In some cases it might be a prerequisite requirement to transwiki the page first). Valid arguments against redirection must be based on the criteria specified in WP:R (that the proposed redirect is clearly positively harmful). The only valid argument for "delete and redirect" is that every revision in the page history of the page otherwise eligible for redirection in question meets the criteria for revision deletion ( WP:REVDEL). See further WP:ATD. |
Before authorising or operating good-faith bots which enact consensus to remove data (such as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ZackBot 7), or deleting templates or template parameters that do so, we should consider whether the data can be migrated to Wikidata. A note can be posted to d:Wikidata:Project chat to solicit opinions or collaboration from colleagues on that project.
I'd like to see this written onto the appropriate policy (or policies). Which should that be? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 12 January 2017 (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.
The question specifically concerns whether this is a proper application of WP:ELNEVER/WP:COPYVIOEL. I see this as a slippery slope situation, where we are made to censor Wikipedia on the grounds that we can not link to external materials, even ones that are so heatedly debated as this.
The link in question is currently given in the Buzzfeed article at [15]
Discussion started at Talk:Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier#External_links, please comment, but feel free to continue here.
Best, Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
material that violates the copyrights of othersper WP:COPYLINK; and provides the following criteria for links to external sites that display copyrighted works:
the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the website has licensed the work from the owner; or it uses the work in a way compliant with fair use.The link in question is to a website which is not manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright holder; does not assert a license from the copyright holder; and given the reproduction in whole, the absence of transformation or commentary, does not meet fair use. It satisfies none of the criteria for linking.
Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use.The link to the untransformed reproduction in whole of the dossier is analogous to the direct link to the still image. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)