Ok i recently stumbled upon these articles looking a Cyberbullying and they bother me greatly.

• Suicide of Ryan Halligan

• Suicide of Megan Meier

• Death of Phoebe Prince

• Kelly Yeomans

• Dawn-Marie Wesley suicide

I am looking at some of these and very tragic yes, gained some third party reliable sources, I am just unsure if i can Justify them as Worthy of a whole article. Seems to me most could be neutral one or two sentences in a cyber bullying article or any laws that were passed a result. rather than post Slew of AFDs (Especially since a couple have been kept in previous ones) i thought i come here to get some input. Weaponbb7 ( talk) 21:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, WP:SINGLEEVENT is mostly concerned with living people. The suicides described in these articles are obviously not living, though of course other aspects of WP:BLP apply to survivors. Second, four of the listed articles are not biographies, but rather are articles about the suicides. This is similar to some famous murders in which the victims are only notable due to their deaths. We might have an article about the crime but not about the victim. WP:SINGLEEVENT applies to people, not events.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Question: I notice the mentioned articles are framed as "XXXX was a XXXX who committed suicide" instead of "The suicide of XXXX was XXXX". I've not read multiple articles of this kind before; so, I don't know the answer to my question. Is this the recommended format for these types of articles?  Chicken monkey  21:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say the first four are obvious biographical articles. Calling the article "suicide of x" doesn't change the content or style, and I think these articles very easily fall under ONEEVENT along with WP:NOTNEWS. Using their cases as examples in articles detailing the legal issues and ramifications of bullying would be ideal. But as standalone articles, lets call them what they are. Reso lute 22:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If they are excessively biographical then that can be fixed through editing.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not about the person. It's about the event. Is the event notable? If, indeed, as one the article says "Her death brought calls for more stringent, specific anti-bullying laws in Massachusetts" then I'd say yes. Quite simple. The rest (trimming down bio etc.) is secondary. East of Borschov ( talk) 12:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Every suicide that results from bullying leads to calls for tougher laws. Individual cases long since stopped being notable on these grounds. Reso lute 16:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Issue Why are some of these articles titled "suicide of [name]" or "[name] suicide" while others are "death of [name]"? This is not cool. Fix it, Wikipedia -- it's consensus time! :) Alex Douglas ( talk) 14:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agree that these articles are probably not best organized as whole, stand alone articles. I am also bothered by articles made up entirely from newspaper reports. The depth of coverage is minimal, and there are original research issues. I'm sure that there exist more substantial sources about bullying and teenage suicide that would enable better organization of this content. There are plenty of good sources already included at Suicide and Teenage suicide in the United States, for example. I think these individual stories would be better considered as case studies connected to a general subject. In any case, I don't think that deletion is a solution to any problem here. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Try assessing them against the notability guideline for events, WP:EVENT. Fences& Windows 16:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have put up a new set of proposed Tibetan naming conventions. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan)#New naming convention proposal. Your comments and feedback are requested.— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 23:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC. There's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a project to streamline the MoS. One part of the proposal is to merge Words to avoid, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Avoid neologisms into a new page, Words to watch ( W2W). Fresh input would be appreciated at the RfC. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi please join in the thread at here. Falling rain was compiled in 1995-1996 and lists false population estimated within a 7 km radius and altitude data which reliable government sources and google earth and consistently proved wrong, often dramatically so and oftne lists settlements or draws railway lines which no longer exist. Unfortunately many editors believe this data to be reliable and have used it or linked to it in over 9000 of our encyclopedia articles, presenting the read with false information or directing them to false information through external links. This site has recently been used as a source for the mass creating of generic stubs about Kenyan village. The creator is now aware of the problem and thanks to a Xenobot has now been dealt with but we still have 9000 articles using this as a source/link. I and other well trsuted experienced editors/admins such as User:Darwinek, User:Orderinchaos and User:Satusuro have called for this to be blacklisted asap and did so back in December. Four months later we are still stuck with 9000 links in articles and a lot of data which we know are false. It seems however this is not adequate enough for deletion and that a wider consensus is needed. Please can you comment on the black list page in the link given and offer your views on this situation. Thankyou. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Do we have enough sources to create an article about the website (and its problems)? If the blacklisting fails, then an article might save you the trouble of re-re-re-explaining the problems to each person in turn. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is done, it should be a Wikipedia: article, not something in the main namespace. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling Rain Genomics (2nd nomination) already happened. Fram ( talk) 10:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Due to this quote by Jimbo found here-

I think that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." is a good policy. To take the example of a popular book that receives no reviews, what kind of encyclopedia article could you write about it? You could write an original review, but that isn't an encyclopedia article. You could write a plot summary, but that isn't an encyclopedia article. You could do some kind of original research, but that wouldn't be an encyclopedia article.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 09:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should revisit the old discussion about whether or not plot summaries are "encyclopedic" and should be allowed. In those previous discussion I (and several others) said just summarizing and using the book/movie as the source for a summary is not encyclopedic nor should it be allowed. We were shouted down and told that wasnt true. Jimbo seems to agree with us however... Oh, I know exactly which editors will show up here and say "Jimbo was only talking about articles with ONLY plot summaries...we have fully fleshed out articles" etc etc to explain this away, but if need be we can always go to Him and ask what his thoughts truly are on this for I dont wish to put words in his mouth. So, I'm just suggesting that we revisit this topic as last time it came up with no consensus (or actually I'd say the majority was against using books/movies themselves as sources for plot summaries, just a vocal minority blocked it by being stubborn). Camelbinky ( talk) 03:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Good gravy..didn't you bring this up just last month? Jimbo has NEVER said you cannot use a film nor book for its own plot summary. His quote doesn't have a damn thing to do with it, and I'm sick if it being thrown around in such a horrible attempt to misuse his statement. Nor do his thoughts really matter one way or another. Consensus has long upheld that yes, you can use a book as the source for its own plot summary, and a film for its own, the same as you can use a newspaper to source information about itself, a magazine to source information about itself, etc etc etc. And it wasn't a "vocal minority" either. The only "vocal minority" are the few people who keep making these asinine arguments to get around WP:SPOILERS by making up a stupid excuse to remove all plot summaries from articles. This needs to be thrown right back in the perennial proposal pile and buried there, yet again. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 03:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually no I didnt. And second watch your tone you are being uncivil (and no I dont want a big conversation here, on my talk page, or anywhere else listening to you tell me you're not being uncivil; you're wrong, so sit there in your wrongness and be wrong) and so basically my response to your rant is- I can bring up whatever topic I want, you dont want to talk about it then dont comment on the thread. Camelbinky ( talk) 04:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. Nothing wrong with my tone, thanks. There is absolute nothing wrong with asking if you had not just brought this up (could have sworn it was you). That was the only comment about "you" personally, and it is obviously not a personal attack of any kind so don't start throwing around the uncivil label just because you dislike the question. If you don't want honest responses, don't bring up a topic, try to make claims that are incorrect about the past discussions on that topic, blatantly attempt to misapply Jimbo's quote, and dismiss everyone who disagreed with you as some "vocal minority" or claim that anyone who disagrees shouldn't comment. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 04:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Still find your tone rude and uncivil and now you have continued in your lack of AGF against me and escalated it further. Specifically said I dont want a big fight over this. You accuse me of "blatantly attempt [sic] to misapply Jimbo's quote"; I did no such thing, I truly find his quote to be what I took it as, apparently I was wrong, my bad, but no blatant attempt to misapply it. I never claimed ownership and I havent said to anyone else here that they shouldnt respond, didnt say you shouldnt respond if you disagree with me, I said YOU shouldnt respond if you think this is a discussion that shouldnt take place, not because you disagree with it. I dont mind honest responses like from Equazcion and Peregrine Fisher both of whom I respect their views. Camelbinky ( talk) 04:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fail to see how you can take that quote, which does not say anything at all about not using primary sources, nor about plot summaries within an entire article and claim that he supports your view that plot summaries should presumably be removed or reduced to the teasers in reviews and the like. The quote makes no such implication, hence my feeling it is a misapplication. If you really think it somehow supports your view, please draw a clearer line because I just don't see it. Your response implied that I was not allowed to comment if I didn't think it worth discussing, which is just as valid a view as any, because it has been discussed to death and the outcome is unlikely to change, especially after so short a time. My response also clearly disagreed and noted that you were clearly misinterpreting the statement, but of course that only counts if someone else says it? And somehow you telling me to basically go away because I think bringing it up again is wrong is somehow civil, polite, and AGFing? ... -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 04:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Note, notices of discussion left at the talk pages of the main media projects, WP:WAF, and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 03:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You're saying this quote means Jimbo agrees that plot summaries based on primary sources are bad; but I think that's a bit of a stretch. He said those alone don't constitute valid articles, but not that they shouldn't be included in an otherwise valid article. I think if we have an article based on reliable third-party sources, it'd be conspicuously remiss in omitting a plot summary, even though these primary-sourced plot summaries do tend to cause quality problems. I'd be in favor of searching for a solution but I'm not sure if leaving them out altogether is the answer. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:50, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)

The idea of excluding articles lacking any sort of reliable third-party coverage is an entirely different thing than excluding articles which incorporate first-party sources. Also, appeal to authority. Dcoetzee 04:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I do not see how the quote implicates plot summaries. The key word that is used is "topic", which is not a stand in for "information." The plain language of this quote regards a subject entire; there must be reliable third-party sources on the topic of the movie/book, or Wikipedia should not have an entry for that topic. I do not see how parsing this language even speaks to the segregated section of an article containing the plot. Please note that I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the idea that plot summaries should be sourced with third party sources, only that the quote cannot be used to support that proposition because it is about something entirely different that doesn't even work by analogy.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 04:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I don't believe this quote has any bearing on this topic, to be honest. Plot summaries are first-party sources. They, inherently, do not require third-party reference, I would think. The only thing to be mindful of is original research toward interpreting what certain plot points mean, or over-detailed/long summaries: things like that, in my opinion.  Chicken monkey  04:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo didn't really mean what you think he meant, and even if he did, it wouldn't matter. We decide by the consensus of the community, and by what primary, secondary, sources say. Imagine disallowing primary sources in all cases, and you can kind of get the idea of how far this proposal will go. Fiction editors are some of the most numerous and active editors, and they decided that primary sources are fine for plot summaries a long time ago. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 04:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So we should write a plot summary on a film and then source it with a Roger Ebert review? That's unfeasible, sorry. Also, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. — Mike Allen 05:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As others have clearly stated, this statement only implies what we already pretty much say through WP:NOT#PLOT - a published work that is only covered by plot summary is not encyclopedic, but a plot summary as part of a larger work is fine. No need to address any changes -- MASEM ( t) 05:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Add me to your "vocal minority". Can we really attain article Completeness without a plot summary? I really don't think so. Then again the spoilers haters are at works here. -- KrebMarkt 06:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't agree that the primary sources should be forbidden for plot summaries. Articles that are sourced entirely from the work of fiction itself are not acceptable, but articles that draw on the primary source in addition to secondary ones are perfectly fine. Reyk _YO! 08:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• We already essentially have such a policy, it's called WP:Notability. No need for policy creep. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I think there is a serious issue to address and that writing plot summary is being systematically to contravene Wikipedia content policies in relation to fictional characters. Many articles, such as Gaius Baltar use plot summary to construct fictography. Whilst this as a legitimate of literary trope or genre in the real world, in Wikipedia this approach to writing articles it borderline original research. Perhaps we should have a new form of cleanup tag to highlight this issue. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 08:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You are completely missed Jimbo's point while taking what he said completely out of its context. He was reply to a question by Dream Focus about whether a novel that makes the NYT's best seller list but has not received any other third-party coverage should have an article. Jimbo's reply, which you quoted, was to say "no". Jimbo goes on to voice his support for WP:NOTPLOT, which Dream Focus also opposes.

It is quite clear that Jimbo's statement that articles that are only or largely plot summaries are not encyclopedic articles. He does not says anything about plot summaries as part of a larger encyclopedic article about a work of fiction not being encyclopedic content. Nor does he make any statement implying that all content must be based only on third-party sources. To make that stretch requires twisting Jimbo's statement.

You claim you don't want to put words in Jimbo's mount, but that is exactly what you are doing. But also, Jimbo is just like any other editor on policy matters. While his words do carry some weight, he has left it up to the community consensus to determine what exactly the policy is. He doesn't have a veto nor can he overrule a policy unless there are clear legal problems with a policy. But that doesn't apply here. — Farix ( t |  c) 11:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why do we need a new template for articles like Gaius Baltar? That's what Template:Plot is for, right? -- Conti| ✉ 12:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The fictional work using reliable third-party sources for analysis does not mean that the primary source cannot be used to provide a basic description of the the work. I do not see WP:PSTS mentioned, but it says about using primary sources:

Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

If an article on a fictional work has nothing or mostly nothing but a plot summary, that is a problem. A summary can exist as part of the larger coverage. For example, the article should not have 1,000 words of a film's plot if there are only 200 words explaining the film's background. Plot summaries should be a fractional amount of any well-written article about a fictional work. Obviously, that fraction can be debatable, but the primary-source content should not swamp content from reliable third-party sources. Erik ( talk | contribs) 12:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

For the simplest of trash novels the primary source may suffice, but complex allegories are different. Contemplate how Animal Farm or Atlas Shrugged might read if we had only the primary text as basis. They would be constant battlegrounds for editor interpretation of the texts. Surely we don't want that. User:LeadSongDog come howl 12:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The key with allegorical works is to make plot summaries very high-level. I do not think it is an issue to use a primary source to write one paragraph about the basic premise of such a work, but it can be useful to rely on a third-party, reliable source that may do a better job of providing that concise of a synopsis. Then the allegories can be explored in analytical sections. I took this approach with The Fountain#Narrative because the plot summary had a lot of interpretations and did not have a conventional flow that could be conveyed. Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot summaries are one section of an encyclopedic topic. Jimbo's quote is about the entire topic, not subsections thereof. I can't see how you can read that as requiring third-party sources for the potted plot summary, only for the topic/work as a whole. — Quasirandom ( talk) 14:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

as someone new to all this, yet willing to learn, can I just be generic ...

I find the quote I think that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." is a good policy. utterly incomprehensible. I'm working mainly within the comics field, and despite extensive knowledge, and superb resources above and beyond the usual gods, find it frustrating that it is virtually impossible to provide sufficient citations to develop what Wkipedia as a collective entity decides is a good article. Now the argument in the narrower field of comics may miss some of the nuances of Wikipedia in general, but I can't follow that if the only sources are primary, and one is willing to work only within those without conjecture, that they're not acceptable, whilst an external source is accepatble if 'notable' even if wrong - taking it to the extreme - it's ok to do Nazi history through Neo-Nazi research because it's x-party, but not first-hand experience.

I still can't get my head around not being able to synopsise comics, while doing episode guides for tv series is ok. I don't understand how Wikipedia is full of endless pages of stuff without any citations whatsoever (or sometimes any content whatsoever) and there's no complaint, but some get blasted for the same problems. And the drive to 'good article' is often lost in the rule book - although thankfully in my little panelological corner people realise that anything can be the start of a good thing.

Personally, I'll get on with it on the basis that all knowledge should be available, think removing something because it doesn't fit with current thinking is challengeable, and add an article if I think it may add a micron to the sum of human knowledge. Someone else can argue the whys and wherefores of petty argument.

Sometimes we not only miss the forest because of the trees, we forget to make sure the tea bar is open before the crowds arrive to picnic in the woods. Apologies for the edge - I'm tired from a week of not travelling home. Cheers! Archiveangel ( talk) 16:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason, if we accept episode lists for notable TV shows that give title, production number, date of airing, writer(s) and director(s) and guest star(s), and a short plot summary, why the same can't be for itemizing the issues of a notable comic book series, where date of publication, ISBN #s (do comics have these?), writer(s) and artist(s) and a short plot summary.

Part of what needs to be noted is that a "topic" is not the same as an "article". A topic may span several articles due to WP:SIZE and Summary style. Thus, while Jimbo and WP:NOT#PLOT clearly state that a topic should not be plot summary only, that doesn't mean an article in support of that topic needs to follow the same. Mind you, this also doesn't mean we break out every character/episode/comic issue/etc. into its own page if it's only going to be plot info, but there is certainly support for topic support articles that are grouped lists of characters or episodes or the like that are otherwise all plot, in support of the larger topic. -- MASEM ( t) 16:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

On a personal basis your para 1 is what I'd like to see from an article, complex as it can be for comics. It appears to be generally frowned on though unless craftily weaved in, although the subject is something not discussed recently to my knowledge, so I am assuming a long-term accepted policy. Cheers! Archiveangel ( talk) 11:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The 'opposition' keeps making the same error over and over. Let's try this again, from the top:

1. Good encyclopedia articles about books, films, plays, comics, etc. include a plot summary (which editors are normally permitted to write from primary sources).
2. A plot summary all by itself is not a good encyclopedia article.

Can we keep this in mind for the rest of this conversation? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly why {{ All plot}} exists, as contrasted with {{ Plot}}. -- Cybercobra (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

thank you - somewhat more concise than my argument. However, perhaps a caveat on #2. A plot summary can be the start of a good article - 'first step on the long road', 'babies and bathwater' and all that. If someone puts up a plot summary that prepares the ground so those who follow don't have to totally reconstruct, 1) the ground is broken by example for others who may not otherwise get involved 2) with nurturing, example and discussion a well-organised re-write should not demoralise the original writer or others from participating and encourages better from those who contribute (something I believe in implicitly from those who have gracefully spared time to do this with me in our little corner of comics wikipedia - can be easy to forget it's a very steep learning curve). I've come across more than a few articles by people who don't follow the 'rules', but they've set the ball rolling, and cause no harm. IMO better a basic article than none at all. I'm for inclusion unless it can be proved nothing can be improved, putting the onus on those participating to 'remove with reason', and as for improving - Air ( talk) said to me recently 'Inevitably if you know what needs fixed, the burden's on you to fix it' - that's worth a t-shirt slogan at least - to be worn when working around here. Cheers! Archiveangel ( talk) 11:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That view is a bit less common now than it was in the early days — see the end of WP:HS/N for a 2003 quotation from Jimbo that appears to support inclusion of articles that are supported solely by self-published primary sources — although everyone agrees that editors should use their best judgment.

IMO the ultimate controlling factor should be whether or not independent sources exist (not: "already cited"), so that the article could be properly expanded (not: "already expanded"). If we're pretty sure that exactly zero independent book reviews/other sources have been published, then we should not have an article about the book, full stop. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's important to include plot summaries to provide context for commentary. A plot summary without commentary is pretty pointless as an encyclopedia article, but it can be labeled a stub. A book would be a verifiable source for a straightforward description of its own plot. -- Susfele ( talk) 01:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Echoing others here. Plot summaries are nessasary and whether they come from primary or secondary sources matters only when you use certain intreprative words that are not used in the actual work itself. In those cases, secondary sources are needed. One also needs to make it as condense as possible without stripping away the meaning that might confuse the reader. When a book is notable, it is nessasary for a reader to know what the plot is so that if they are unfamilar with the story, they can get an idea why others think this work is notable; in essence it provides context.

Thus a reasonable sized plot summary using only factual statements from the work " [...] is good editing." 陣 内 _Jinnai 02:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked this over at Commons because that's where the image is located, but they don't seem to be too concerned, so I'll ask it here. File:P1000.png is a self-created image with no sourcing as to the scale used. Is there a way to ask for reliable sourcing on an image? Woogee ( talk) 20:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ask the author on their talkpage? Also, that image doesn't even seem to be in use on enwiki. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How does asking the author resolve the sourcing problem? Plus, they are not users on the English Wiki. And it most definitely is used, in fact, in two different articles, Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte and Landship. Woogee ( talk) 05:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that asking the author would either bring to light the information that the image is not based on a reliable source, and thus should not be used, or that they can provide the source they used. Either way, you would get the answer you seek, and that is how it would resolve the sourcing problem. かんぱい！ Scapler ( talk) 06:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If the other user's sole contributions to Commons is to add the image, how to I find out which language Wikipedia they contribute on? Woogee ( talk) 21:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you do realize that a fantasy like Ratte could be said to be 45 or 55 meters long ... as practical as 25. NVO ( talk) 10:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Let's cut to the heart of the matter shall we? What is your actual objection to this image? Do you believe they copied it from another source, or is the concern in the area of accuracy? Hitler loved huge guns, I'm sure a psychiatrist could go on for hours explaining why but the point is he never tired of proposals for bigger and more ridiculous pieces of destructive hardware. So if there is no reason to believe the image was copied from a copyrighted source then the only remaining concern is accuracy. That should be easy to determine by comparing the proposed dimensions of this monstrosity to the real-world tanks pictured next to it. The article itself seems well sourced so if the image jives with the article there should not be a problem. It's too bad there isn't at least a prototype of this somewhere, I'd love to see such a ridiculously overblown piece of machinery... Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • My objection is that the image was created by a User with no source as to whether or not the scale is correct. I don't know. I'm asking for a source, as would be required if the image were put into text into the article. I don't understand your hostility. Comparing the scale of the tank in the image with the other tanks in the picture would be original research and violate WP:SYNTH. Woogee ( talk) 22:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, comparing the scale of two things standing together in an image isn't OR, it's plain sight. The OR policy is clear that the type of calc that anyone can do without any special training or equipment is not OR. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm not seeing the OR here. As long as the scale in the image agrees with sourced dimensions in the tanks' articles (and that agreement is something we can determine for ourselves without need for sources), it's fine. We've got lots of images used like this in other articles to show scale, and I'd go out on a limb and say, without checking, that a good percentage of them are "unsourced" this same way. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:04, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte gives sources as to the size of the thing (35m long 11m high) and Tiger 1 gives the length of a Tiger I as 8.45m gun forward, and the height as 3m. I would say on that basis that the drawing is a little inaccurate. Which is more of a problem than it being unsourced really. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I t looks more or less okay to me. The P.1000 looks about four times the height of the Tiger, for example. What specifically do you think is inaccurate? Equazcion ^(talk) 23:12, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)

On a closer look, I think you're probably right. It must be an optical illusion that it looks bigger because its got the detailing. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. I get it now. You have to source text, but you can make whatever images you want. If I were to make an image of Barack Obama that's ten feet tall, that would be okay, because it's an image. Thanks for letting me know. I'm done with this. Woogee ( talk) 23:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly -- As long as there's a source in the article that says Obama is 10 feet tall. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:02, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Based on the size of the Maus in the illustration, which seems to be in approximately correct proportion to the Tiger, and the dimensions given in its article of 10.1m long and 3.6m high, the Ratte appears to be 38m long by 12m high. Based on the dimensions shown in its infobox (35m by 11m), that means the Ratte's two-dimensional image is almost 20% too large. Converting the image to 3-D in my head, the Ratte looks more than 50 times larger than the Maus, while the dimensions given in text should make it only 40 times bigger. Of course, the source for the dimensions in the text is not clear to me either. Neither is it clear how it could come in at 1000 tonnes, or even 2000, which is only about 5–11 times the weight of the Maus. Even with the high clearance and a fairly roomy cabin, it seems like it should weigh at least 20 times as much as a Maus, if not more. BTW, I don't know anything about tanks, but I think that I'm pretty familiar with bad attitudes. Perhaps somebody could put on their WP:CIVIL face and suggest to the original artist (Alebo) that he/she check the scale, adjust it if appropriate, and add a note that the drawing is based on the dimensions provided in the article as of the date of upload (or any other source). The current request for sourcing is on the Commons talk page of the editor who simply added the human figure (the original artist has not posted at Commons for more than two years). OTOH, it might be sufficient to add a note to the image file's talk page, which I just did.-- Hjal ( talk) 05:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Days of the year ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is motivated by the merge message which has been at the top of the Extrasolar planet article for some time. I think these boxes are unsightly and detract from readers appeciation of an article. They are aimed at editors, not readers. They also act as an undue weight advertisement for the topic that is to be merged into a main article. I propose that any templates which are aimed at editors rather than readers should only be visible if you log in, or even better appear on the talk page instead. They make Wikipedia look very messy. Qurq ( talk) 23:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Even people who are logged out/don't have an account are able to WP:MERGE pages, or to contribute to the discussion about merging pages. If the announcements are hidden, then fewer people will be able to participate in the discussion. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see most templates moved to either the talk page or the bottom of the article. I agree that they clutter the appearance. Maurreen ( talk) 20:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

A discussion at ANI prompted a proposal to codify our de-facto policy on admitted or suspected pedophiles on Wikipedia. As that isn't really the correct venue for that sort of thing, I'm moving it here. Buddy431 ( talk) 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion has since been re-centralized to Wikipedia talk:Pedophilia

This policy subsection consists of three paragraphs. The third reads as follows:

Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and note worthy sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about some particular terms can be found at words to avoid.

There has been an ongoing debate at Genesis creation myth as to the proper title of the article. Here is a rough timeline of this debate:

• [1] User:PiCo suggested replacing the word "myth" in the first sentence of the article with "sacred narrative".
• [2] User:Ben Tillman objected strenuously, and we were off.
• [3] For the next 9 days (from January 12 to January 20), this topic was argued back and forth, and if you go to the bottom of this diff, you'll see that User:King Öomie cited this policy as a reason why "myth" had to be used.
• [4] On January 20, User:Afaprof01 started an RfC on the subject.
• [5] On January 25 and 26, there was a subtopic entitled "This article is about a creation myth and also about a myth that is untrue".
• [6] On January 27, User:Ben Tillman requested that the page be moved to Genesis creation myth.
• [7] On February 5, User:Ucucha declared that a consensus had been reached on this move request. This "consensus" consisted of two Support votes, one Oppose vote, and one Question, which seemed to be a Support vote. Considering the number of people who have worked on this article, four votes hardly seems like a representative consensus.
• [8] On February 14, and for the next few days, there was a "move war", spurred by the perception of some editors that the move had been executed without proper consensus. And much debate took place on the subject on the talk page.
• [9] Eventually, after it seemed that there was a consensus for the title Genesis creation narrative, the same few users who had pushed through the change to Genesis creation myth came back and started contesting it, and one of the chief arguments is this policy.

So I'm requesting that this policy be modified to make it clear that when it comes to article titles (as opposed to article bodies), the name used should be one that does not carry loaded connotations to the average reader, which "myth" certainly does. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 01:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This is more a question for WP:Article titles than WP:RNPOV since Genesis creation myth clearly is a formal usage. Professor marginalia ( talk) 01:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and no. Here we find that "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint." I think "viewpoint" relates to WP:NPOV. Bus stop ( talk) 02:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this request/reasoning is a bit premature in light of the fact that the RM is still open and it is not at all clear that consensus supports your claim that the use of "creation myth" carries loaded connotations. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 04:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think RNPOV (the religion section of WP:NPOV) has just been deleted anyway (presumably because of consensus on the talk page - I haven't been following the details).-- Kotniski ( talk) 05:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It improves our reputation if we stick to the technical and scholarly-accepted meaning of "myth", much like we do with all other words. OrangeDog ( τ • ε) 12:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not gratuitously. Not when there's a perfectly useful term that doesn't carry a biased connotation. The only "reputation" it gives us is being as biased in one direction as something like Conservapedia is in the other direction. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 13:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a believer, and I don't see such use of myth as gratuitous or biased. It's the ordinary, neutral, scholarly term. Other connotations arise out of ignorance. Ntsimp ( talk) 15:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing gratuitous about the use of the term "myth", and when applicable it should be used with abandon (e.g. in the body and introduction of the article being discussed here). However, the discussion regarding the title is not that simple for a variety of reasons. Regarding scholarly or technical use -- as a way of referring to these passages "Genesis creation myth" is one of the least common scholarly alternatives (believe it or not this has been tested repeatedly and various results appear on the talk page in question). "Genesis creation story," and "Biblical creation story" are each many times more common for instance, and they are so in a wide array of literature and sub-disciplines. Regarding NPOV, there is a difference between using words in context and outside of context. In the body of an article context is clear, and internal linking to entries like creation myth make it even clearer. In a title on its own such context is not possible. If the question is about avoiding myth in the article itself then that's ridiculous. But the logic that implies that one necessarily follows the other isn't remotely sophisticated enough and I think the empirical evidence from scholarship backs that up as well. Griswaldo ( talk) 14:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I wasn't first to point out RNPOV (or at least I don't think I was), and thank you for your entirely one-sided account of events. The eggregious section title you point out was disowned by the pro-myth side with the exception of User:Cush (who I have personally spoken with and requested he cease input along those lines) and ScienceApologist (if I recall correctly). I was very specific in that section- we are not going down this particular line of argumentation. The term "Creation myth" doesn't address the issue of truth. At all. And neither do most of us. More than anything, this sounds like you being unable to refute or discredit WP:RNPOV, so you are requesting permission to neuter it. -- King Öomie 15:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors may wish to comment at WP:VPM#Add "myth" to WP:LABEL. -- AuthorityTam ( talk) 15:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I know that women were largely ignored in historical writings however I feel sure that there are as many interesting women in the world , both past & present as there are men. For some time now I have noticed the almost complete absence of anyone of the female gender on the main page. I would think that items relating to women feature less than 1 in 10 or even 1 in 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.61.92 ( talk) 11:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This might not be the most PC thing to say, but my feeling is that it's actually possible that there are fewer "interesting" women in history than there are men, due to women's position in most of society up until recent times. There are many exceptions, but overall I think this might be the harsh reality of the situation -- there just aren't an equal number of women of historical significance. Again, this is just a possibility. I don't know for sure as I'm no historian. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:19, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Woolf wrote an essay about this; trying the remember the name of it (read it years ago), but the upshot was that it isn't just that history failed to record many interesting women, and certainly not that women are inherently less anything, but that women were relegated to certain tasks for much of history which simply kept them from having historically interesting lives that would be recorded. I'm not saying it quite right but that's the gist.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of A Room of One's Own. See chapter 3, for example. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

True. But articles make it to the front page not based on what's in the encyclopedia in general that we can pick or choose from to balance systemic biases, but based on what the volunteers who are writing excellent ( featured) articles happen to choose to write about. I don't think there is much we can do to influence people's choice of subjects. People write on topics they happen to be interested in. The only thing I can think of is to ask Raul654 (the featured article director) to add articles on females as part of the point system for choosing today's featured article, but all that would do, I think, is make a few featured articles on women, not yet displayed on the front page, closer to the front of the queue, with the total number of FAs still containing the same percentages of male to female subjects. It so happens I currently have an article on a woman at WP:FAC. Anyway, there's is one thing you can do: register for an account and become a prolific featured article writer who chooses to write on female subjects.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Another less-demanding alternative is to propose news, facts or historical events for the "In the news", "Did you know?" or "On this day" sections. However, have in mind that, even if it's not needed that linked articles are featured, they must be of great quality to get it to the Main Page. Each of those sections has it own specific rules for choosing what to include and how to do so. MBelgrano ( talk) 12:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not support the proposal to give extra points for articles about females. This is an encyclopedia, a summarization of the world we live in, not a blueprint for the world we would like to live in. By all means, work on changing the world to become a better place, and changing attitudes about gender roles is a step in that direction, but we should not conflate the description of the world with the prescription for the world.-- SPhilbrick T 13:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Hart wrote a book called The Hundred Most Influential People in History (the list is on the internet somewhere). Only 2 are women, & both of those were able to be influential only because they happened to be queens by accident of birth. Peter jackson ( talk) 13:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"This is an encyclopedia, a summarization of the world we live in, not a blueprint for the world we would like to live in." that's a wonderful quote, and extremely well said in my opinion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Events involving at least two women were recently nominated for the ITN section but were rejected due to their insignificance. Both are under 21 April. The sudden retirement of Lorena Ochoa at the age of 28 (the world's number one golfer for the past three years) and the death of civil rights campaigner Dorothy Height at the age of 98 if anyone is interested in pursuing them. -- can dle • wicke 14:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ochoa is a big deal - I don't follow golf and I knew about it.-- SPhilbrick T 13:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be a reason for developing articles on particular women, and related topics eg Women as theological figures. Also, for WP to be balanced, 'transgenders, transsexuals and others.' Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to an extra point for women on the main page. Although there may not be a lot of FAs about women, a lot of FAs will never make the main page unless we start featuring more than one a day, so it actually would increase the number of women FAs on the main page, not just move them up the queue. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 16:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a huge number of examples to be found in our sister Uncyclopedia, here: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/History_of_Woman pietopper ( talk) 20:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There are already points for diversity, which is appropriate in my view - adding additional points for one specific class of articles would be unwise. Emily (below) has it exactly right. Do the write thing, it's the right thing.-- SPhilbrick T 13:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for. Don't put articles on the Main Page which aren't about women? Have some sort of equal rights plan? Why don't you write articles that mean the Main Page's goals, and then you'll be happy at the results. Woogee ( talk) 20:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The content on the main page is not the byproduct of some nefarious gender-bias program - it's simply derived from the available featured articles, new articles suitable for WP:DYK entries, etc. Working on bringing more articles on women to featured status would increase their presence on the main page. Emily Jensen ( talk) 03:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Emily Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I was arguing for people improving categories of articles so that they were suitable for FA status. As Karl Marx might have said in a variant on his remark on Feuerbach - The point is not just to describe a weakness on WP but to find ways of improving WP (g). Jackiespeel ( talk) 20:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Citing a male discussing another male ... both boasting fancy beards ... in this thread ... charming! Now, why is it still on WP:CENT ? NVO ( talk) 10:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I think we're done here, we can't blame Wikipedia for society's failings. While we should endeavor to avoid systemic bias I certainly don't think we should institute some sort of affirmative action plan for groups of people that are under-represented in the historical record. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it says in policy (or guidelines) somewhere that it's not WP's job to correct systemic bias in reliable sources themselves. Peter jackson ( talk) 09:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spam ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:User pages ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Public domain no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Public domain ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

These have apparently been recategorized as " Wikipedia project content guidelines" as opposed to regular "content guidelines". -- Cybercobra (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a serious problem with a level of disparity between what constitutes a notable athlete vs a notable entertainer. The problem is highlighted by two recent RfD discussions (note these are only examples used to illustrate the fundamental problem).

First, consider George Blackmore, a cricketer who once appeared in a single first-class match. He was nominated for deletion, but he was deemed notable according to WP:ATH and WP:CRIN, both of which state that everyone who has ever appeared for any length of time in any top-level professional sporting event is prima facie notable. During the deletion discussion, even the principal author of WP:CRIN lamented that the standard was in need of revision, saying for example:

"I was the main (probably only) author of WP:CRIN and I am uncomfortable with it. I think the author of WP:ATH should be be feeling similar discomfort. I am coming around to the idea of lists that mention those people who were the "extras"... that I don't think can warrant a standalone article."

"But, really, shouldn't the cricket project be taking a step back and reconsidering which cricketers are actually notable? At the end of the day, what exactly is "notable" about someone who played in an odd match somewhere?"

Compare and contrast an entertainer, Claudia Lynx, who once appeared in a guest speaking role on The West Wing. In her nomination for deletion, she is going down in flames because she does not meet WP:ENT, which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions".

Now to me, George Blackmore and Claudia Lynx are exactly comparable. He made a single appearance in a notable match, she made a single appearance on a notable tv show. The two standards must be made to treat them equally.

Personally, my own opinion is, I feel that WP:ENT has it right, and that Wikipedia is not the place for all the extras, walk-ons, or minor supporting figures whatever their field. In this case, WP:ATH, WP:CRIN, and all the other sport-specific guidelines should be tightened up to include only players who are actually notable in the ordinary sense. (Perhaps those who at least played an entire season?)

If the various sports projects are unwilling to take their scrubs off the table, then the only other way to ensure consistancy is for the entertainment field to put its scrubs on. WP:ENT could be reworded in a way almost exactly parallel to WP:ATH, including anyone who:

• Has had a speaking role, singing part, or dance role in a notable movie, tv show or stage performance.
• Is a member of Actors' Equity, the Screen Actors' Guild, or other applicable fully professional performers' union.

Please note that I DO NOT support this; I am just trying to show what a comparable standard would look like. Hopefully everyone can agree that this is not the world we want to live in, and that consequently the athletic standards must be revised. — Rnickel ( talk) 17:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There is some debate over WP:ATHLETE at present as being discussed at WT:Notability (people). FWIW, I don't see any reason why one occupational notability guideline has to mimic that of another occupation. Reso lute 17:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

They don't have to mimic, but there should be a similar threshold of notability. If neither of these two did anything else, would someone 10 years (5? 2? 1?) recall their name? Syrthiss ( talk) 13:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rnickel that the sports guideline is ridiculously lax. And I think the parallel with entertainers is a good one. I often see deletion discussions about musicians, actors, etc., where the conclusion is "delete" even though the person is fully professional, earning a living at what they do, and appearing in notable productions. Entertainers are held to a standard where it is not enough to have performed for years, or to have a string of records out, or to have a long listing at IMDB (which doesn't count as a reliable source) - there has to be independent coverage about them specifically or out they go. And yet for a sports figure with far less professional qualification and zero independent coverage, the decision is "Snow Keep," because they played in the majors once and that seems to exempt them from GNG. I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist by philosophy, but I don't like to see Wikipedia cluttered with worthless articles, and I would like to see GNG applied to sports figures. BTW there seems to be a current vote on the issue, going on at the link Resolute provided. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In the modern age especially, anyone who plays at the major league level is virtually certain to have enough reliable coverage to pass GNG. These disputes, I think, come down to either a fundamental misunderstanding of what the notability guidelines are, or more likely, the purpose of them has been lost. Generally, they should reflect the point at which a topic can be presumed notable. History shows that athletes at the top level of their sport, even if just one game, typically have that independent coverage. That society places what some may consider too high a value on athletes is not an issue with Wikipedia. Likewise, that these guidelines have become de facto policy at AfD discussions is not a fault of the guidelines themselves. The real issue is a lack of common sense, imo. Reso lute 17:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's take American baseball, a subject which truly does receive a lot of coverage. At any given moment there are, what, 800 baseball players active in the majors? And we've had professional baseball for, what, 100 years? Do we really need 80,000 articles about American baseball players? That's a very conservative estimate, and it doesn't count the people who are called up briefly from the minors but never become full fledged major leaguers. I think there needs to be some kind of threshold, such as playing for a full season or half a season or appearing in a certain number of games or something, to keep out what Rnickel called the scrubs. And of course, GNG would trump that guideline, so if you had a player who didn't meet the standard but had significant independent coverage anyhow (such as a rookie phenom or even a highly touted draft choice), he would still get a page. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTPAPER. 99% of the entertainers in Wikipedia wouldn't have an article in a traditional encyclopedia either. Your numbers are also wildly inaccurate. Reso lute 19:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

ATH may be "ridiculously lax" -- but this common application of it actually violates the guideline as currently written. If you scroll up to the top of the section that contains ATH, you'll find this important text: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."

"Generally" does not mean "always and without exception" or "even if no decent sources exist because the athlete played only a single game". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I just added a source to WPZS to replace a broken link. I got there without any effort, so I don't understand the lock, except the computer gave me a pop-up asking if I wanted to view non-secure items. Clicking on "no" didn't affect my ability to see the information. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It means only part of the page was secured using SSL/ HTTPS, as opposed to the entire page. Doesn't matter for Wikipedia's purposes since most sources aren't and don't need to be secured. -- Cybercobra (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick: If you search for "Truth in Lending" you'll see in the first result the article Truth in Lending Act and the summary that Google puts under it includes vandalism that was inserted to it yesterday.

The vandalism was reverted and the IP blocked, but is there anything else we can do? Flagged Revisions? Anything else?..

If this was already discussed, please point me to it. Thanks. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 21:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing can be done about it - Google's loading a cached version of the page for the summary; the only thing that can be done is wait for their cache to clear or for you to clear your cache. — Jeremy ^{( v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You can request that Google rescan the page here. Mr. Z-man 21:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, WP:NAVHEAD is an essay, and not part of the MOS? But yet, a "related information" section is being added to hundreds of articles to create a section for the navigation boxes. However, if you click on the "printable" version, the navigation boxes are not there, since they are excluded from print, and what remains is a blank section. See World War I for example. Is there something that can be done about this? It would seem as though if this practice is accepted, then this section heading should be excluded from print as well. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed that this editor is opening a multi-front attack on this idea. Posting (in response to my inquiry) on his own talk page, posting on my talk page, and (without a courtesy note to me) posting here. I have responded to the concern above at his talk page. (And, when I get more time, will respond to his most recent postings there.). Interested editors may want to follow that conversation. Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 18:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't an attack. It was a question and a concern. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This idea was proposed and rejected at WP:LAYOUT last year. I don't think anyone realized that it would cause problems with print versions. I'll leave a note for the editors at the essay. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, "rejected" may not be the proper description of what took place. Here is a report about what happened according to the editor who brought the idea to Layout. Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 18:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I mean only that the inclusion of this then-new idea in WP:LAYOUT (at that time) was rejected, not that all editors believed it to be a universally bad idea. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why sockpuppetry is such a crime. As long as none of the accounts vandalize, and they aren't being used as meatpuppets, why is it such a big deal? How does it damage Wikipedia? Is it really worth blocking a user indefinitely who has over 1,000 constructive contributions because they use another account? -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"The purpose of this policy is to forbid deceptive or misleading use of multiple accounts." If there's no disruption, not a huge deal. It's nice if they are linked as alternates, but in the absence of disruption, etc. there wouldn't be a block, just discussion with the editor. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 02:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone is innocuously using two or more accounts to edit separate subjects that's fine (for example to keep their sexual fetishes or political interests separate from their public identity) so long as they never use their extra account(s) for policy discussions etc. If two accounts never edit the same subjects or are involved in the same discussions, they'll never be associated with each other. Abusive sockpuppeteers get investigated precisely because they draw attention to themselves with disruptive editing. Abusive sockpuppetry is a problem due to falsely giving the impression of consensus when there is none, allowing an editor to tag-team with themselves in editing disputes, and allowing an editor to circumvent editing restrictions such as bans and blocks. Fortunately, most editors are poor at hiding abusive sockpuppetry, leaving clues aplenty. Fences& Windows 07:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As a user who does a lot of work reverting editors, warning them, and pointing them at the policies and guidelines themselves, I get asked this question pretty often: why do we have the policy / guideline in the first place? The common Wikipedian response is to refer the users to the text in the guideline itself or to refer them to other policies which themselves refer to other policies. Our internal guidelines are written primarily for experienced users and they can be very confusing and I feel that Wikipedia itself never gives full answers in plain English to these problems.

So I want to throw this idea out there to see how it's receive response: How about we place within our policies a clearly visible section that either explains the purpose of the policy (in language non-Wikipedian readers can understand) or links to the discussions and arguments that have produced the policy. The main argument against this is, of course, instruction creep. There could also be wording issues with the summaries of the most contentious policy areas. But I feel that explaining our policy in a way non-Wikipedians could understand would make Wikipedia a friendlier place for newbies and non-Wikipedians, give us less of a Kafkaesque reputation, and it would help outsiders understand why we have the policies we do. Them From Space 00:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea. However, I'm not so experienced with policy yet, so unfortunately, I would not be able to help you write that stuff. This idea does have my full support though. Bramble claw x 00:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I do remember coming across something like this. Maybe in the Help: namespace? If i'm mistaken, I would gladly volunteer to help write it. It is a good idea to help newbies get used to the steep learning curve here. The Wordsmith ^Communicate 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't most policies already have a {{ nutshell}} description on top? Links to discussions are probably going to be less useful to non-Wikipedians than the policy itself. Mr. Z-man 00:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The nutshells often contain a good description of the policy, but they usually don't offer any reasons why we have chosen the policy. Them From Space 01:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea; the only problem might be that the other thing people perennially complain about regarding our policies is their length, and adding "Rationale" sections to all of them would not help in that department. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If we cut a lot of the unnecessary wordage and repetition out of our policies and guidelines, I reckon we could get them down to about a fifth of what they are. Then there'd be plenty of space to add rationales for those points whose reasons aren't obvious.-- Kotniski ( talk) 06:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. WP:NPOV is half as long as a month ago. And I believe a concise version combining WIkipedia's key policies is being worked on. Perhaps a rationale section could be explicitly added here. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 06:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I admire your optimism. -- Cybercobra (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"I believe a concise version combining WIkipedia's key policies is being worked on"? I was under the impression that thre were already several such pages. Peter jackson ( talk) 09:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If the {{nutshell}} is insufficient, an expansion could be placed in a FAQ template or non-archived section at the top of the talk page. Placement there would help keep the explanation in sync with the actual page. Flatscan ( talk) 04:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that non-admins can't move images? I've been told that it's because of some interaction of the CC-BY license, but I'm not entirely clear on why that would be a problem. Can anyone clarify? Gigs ( talk) 20:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly technical, actually. For hysterical raisins, the way images and their histories are stored is completely unrelated to how wiki pages work and deleting/moving images used to be a very destructive and one-way action, hence the paranoia (which I'm sure was borne out of actual abuse). Now, it's not as bad, but image histories and undeletion are still tricky enough that you don't want random moves being possible. —  Coren  ^(talk) 22:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, image moves still are annoying enough that we want them as little as possible. Also, it opens the door for pagemove vandalisme, and since files are not watchlisted as much as articles, it is probably something the vandals will enjoy... Just use {{ media rename}} or ask any admin on his talkpage. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And it is very easy to tag an image for renaming. I think the response to renames have been timely. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  ^talk 00:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that we are; see WP:OFFICE. This policy needs to be eliminated, because as long as one small group has complete control over Wikipedia's content and uses this power to suppress information, this policy is a lie. -- J4\/4 < talk> 12:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ridiculous! The point of Office Actions and Oversight is to make sure people aren't posting things that are illegal (like uploading images of child pornography) or libelous. "But... we're not censored!" is not an excuse to, say, call Pierce Brosnan a 'douche nozzle' and reference that statement to a shock site. "Uncensored" doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. We don't remove content that offends a particular group's sensibilities (like taking down images of Mohammad), and we have graphic depictions of ejaculation, including a video. But when content violates real-world laws, it will be removed. The small, tyrannical, independent, secretive group you're talking about is the same group that runs this entire site, and they're free to do whatever they want with it. -- King Öomie 13:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Blocking illegal actions is not the same as censor. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 14:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's censorship if the laws which the content violates are unjust (such as the DMCA). If hosting the server in another country would enable this same content to be hosted legally, it should be done. Material which is false or unsourced should be removed, but that's it. -- J4\/4 < talk> 15:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is idealism taken to an unrealistic extreme, and I assure you the notion won't be entertained. Hosting content illegal for any reason is a poor choice of action for an operation that survives on donations and its own tax-free status. -- King Öomie 15:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Whether you think it is unjust is irrelevant for our purposes. Go get the laws changed. Until then, Wikipedia must comply with the Florida ones. Moving it to another country is not really an option any of us have control over. Wikipedia Foundation moved to California, but kept the servers in Florida so clearly they have some reason for preferring the location (I presume being one of the few commercial hosting centers that can handle the servers and traffic). -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 15:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• What should happen if Wikipedia relocates to Sweden, and posts content that violates SWEDEN'S laws? Are those laws unjust as well? Why is the DMCA unjust? This is ridiculous. -- King Öomie 16:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

On a more fundamental level, the two things the original poster is claiming we have "censored" are not information that is particularly appropriate for an encyclopedia. Then again, WP:NOTNEWS appears to be routinely thrown out the window. Mostly, though, I agree with Kingo that Wikipedia is in is in the real world. I as an editor routinely suppress advertisements, vandalism, and fringe theories, because I believe they are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. While on a theoretical level I believe the kidnapping information is appropriate encyclopedic content, I value human life over my desire to get "the real dirt" and I trust the Wikimedia foundation to at least have some sense in the matter. The TI thing is silly: it's outright theft of intellectual property, and it has no place in an encyclopedia. SDY ( talk) 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act is unjust for several reasons. First, there's no penalty for filing an invalid DMCA takedown notice, though there is a penalty for filing a false counter-notice. This enables companies to force fair-use materials to be taken down, despite those materials not being illegal. Furthermore, the DMCA prohibits copying works for your own use, even if you own the original. For example, it's illegal to copy a movie from a DVD which you legally bought onto an iPod. In addition, the DMCA has a significant chilling effect on legitimage cryptographic research.

As for the TI keys, how is it stealing intellectual property? You are using a calculator which you legally purchased for your own personal use. TI experiences no loss of anything in any form as a result of using the keys.

Finally, the very concepts of intellectual property, copyright, trademarks, and patents are flawed and outdated. In fact, I would argue that they are the greatest barrier to human progress. -- J4\/4 < talk> 16:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, but none of this matters, at all. I mean not one tiny, minuscule little bit. Wikipedia will not be used to rail against a system because you don't like it. I say again, what should happen if Wikipedia relocates to Sweden, and posts content that violates SWEDEN'S laws? Are those laws unjust as well? Where do we move then? Shall we gather 250,000 miles of CAT-6 cable and host Wikipedia from the sovereignty of the Moon? You said yourself that you have no problem with Wikipedia removing incorrect/unsourced content- why isn't that censorship? Sounds to me like you're just looking for something to stick in the DMCA's eye. Look elsewhere. -- King Öomie 16:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is no practical way around the law of at least one country. Clearly, almost every country has some ridiculous laws, forbidding completely innocuous things. So WP should not boast "no censorship". − Woodstone ( talk) 17:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Abiding by the law is inherently "censorship"? I think you need to move your standard of what qualifies for that term. If you don't like a law, contact your congressman, but Wikipedia isn't in the business of decreeing individual laws "unjust". If Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 is redirected to Peaceful day of studies 1989 due to an office action, we can talk. But presently, nothing going on here can reasonably described as "censorship". -- King Öomie 17:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that "the law" is a human universal. Many countries (including the U.S.A) have laws that forbid things that are considered completely normal in other countries. So, yes there is a degree of censorship. And yes, that is probably unavoidable. − Woodstone ( talk) 17:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you must know that WP:CENSOR refers to the fact that Wikipedia removes only the content it must to avoid copyright/libel lawsuits. Again, I really don't think it's reason to call either of those things "censorship", but my point stands. Wikipedia, while uncensored, is not an experiment in anarchy. -- King Öomie 17:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that with regard to the TI keys, even if there was not an OFFICE action in effect, there is currently no consensus on the talk page discussions to put the keys themselves in the article. Just because we're legally allowed to do something doesn't mean that we have to do it, there are ethical (Rohde kidnapping) and pragmatic (TI keys) concerns as well. As for the "one small group" with complete control over content, this is the same small group that legally owns the servers and does almost all of the legal/technical/financial work required to keep the site running, consider yourself thankful that that is basically the only power that they maintain over the site. Mr. Z-man 17:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

J4V4 is absolutely right: Wikipedia is censored for certain things. There's also a lot of things that aren't censored here, which is what wp:NOTCENSORED attempts to convey. I agree that it's poorly named. Perhaps better would be "Wikipedia is not censored for everything that anyone might find objectionable". Though to be fair, we censor a lot of stuff only because some people find it objectionable. I agree with the OP: we are censored, so we shouldn't claim we aren't. Our content disclaimer is sufficient, I think. Buddy431 ( talk) 22:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation censors (and only then for limited legal reasons), we the editing community don't; significant difference. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "not censored" is an absolute statement that isn't exactly true, especially since the term "censorship," like most words in the English language, means different things to different people. Like almost all of the WP:NOTs, there are exceptions and qualifications. I can't imagine any benefit to "fixing" it so that it is absolute Truth. Is there a proposal or action that we could take that would make this better? If not, I don't see much point in this discussion. SDY ( talk) 00:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

CC, of course the editing community censors. When it's working correctly it censors unsourced statements, biased material, original research, non-notable material, fringe theories ... When it's not working correctly cabals of editors censor reliable sources they disagree with. If you want an environment that doesn't censor such things go to Wikinfo. Peter jackson ( talk) 09:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well of course "we" ^who? do censor all the time, that's what enforcing WP:NOT,NPOV,NOR and all other no-no's are about. There's nothing wrong in admitting this. Every revert censors someone's input (good or bad). There's nothing wrong in admitting this. East of Borschov ( talk) 12:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This blows the word "censorship" far out of proportion. You're talking about basic editing being "censorship." It takes all meaning out of the word. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 01:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• point taken, the Foundation has a legalistic view of copyright that minimizes claims of "Fair Use", which they could use more effectively. they have a zero tolerance policy toward copyright or defamation, which is unrealistic, and when a good faith effort to police the domain is shield enough. while i agree the censorship is light, it's not where i would draw the line. like don't be evil, more of an aspiration than reality. notice the management through slogans. Texas Instruments signing key controversy is instructive, with all the legal beagles sending warnings around, i'm sure the foundation would prefer to avoid the crossfire. we have the best legal system money can buy; best wikipedia lawyers can intimidate. Pohick2 ( talk) 00:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • We minimize fair use for several reasons. 1) We want to focus on free content, to maximize the re-usability of our content 2) What qualifies as fair use depends on the user. What might be fair use on a non-profit encyclopedia website may not be fair use for someone using a portion of a Wikipedia article in their own publication. Some countries don't even have fair use laws. Its not a legalistic view (though it has the side effect of reducing the likelihood of infringement complaints), its more of a idealistic one – Ideally, we could make an encyclopedia using only freely-licensed content (and some Wikipedias don't allow fair use, mainly ones where the majority of users live in a country with no fair use law). The reason we didn't fight the TI keys issue is because its not our fight. The content of the keys themselves is barely related to our mission. As I noted above, even if we could use them, there's no consensus that we should. Mr. Z-man 00:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    • i appreciate the response. when i say legalistic, i mean that the Foundation appears to be very sensitive to letters sent by lawyers, (on DCMA, copyright, or defamation) and rule bound, rather than ethically or idealistically bound, on issues such as "censorship", or "fair use". clearly they chose to buckle to legal threats over the value of no censorship in this case. the lawyer by sending the letter makes it a wikipedia fight. the poster has a point that DCMA is fraught with dubious ethics. ultimately, the users will, by their conduct both on and off wikipedia, determine the fate of DCMA as seen in the Digg AACS encryption key controversy: i.e. ethics trump law. the question for the foundation is: at what point is wikipedia going to draw the line to the importuning lawyers? the warning letter here seems a stretch, at what point will the foundation reject an incoming legal theory? btw, why the use of "Office" rather than a normal lock? it seems disproportionate, it shines a light on the article, and seems to suggest the "Office" is concerned with legal liability alone (or doesn't trust the admins). Pohick2 ( talk) 17:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
      • The article is not actually protected, the only "office" action was to remove the keys from the page. What I mean by "its not out fight" is that we lose little by not being able to publish they keys themselves. Wikipedia is not a calculator hobbyist site. The article can still stand without the keys (and if TI didn't send any DMCA letters, we wouldn't even have an article on it). The DMCA may be flawed, but we're an educational publisher, not the EFF; we're not explicitly an advocacy or political organization. As for defamation, we're highly ethics-bound. We typically respond to defamation complaints before it escalates to needing lawyers to step in. If you want the foundation's official stance or opinion, you can always ask. Mr. Z-man 18:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
        • the "office" is watching, on only this one article indefinitely, seems odd, why not the normal procedure? and deleting the edit history? taking things down is defense enough, purging the memory hole is extreme, wouldn't you agree? i agree, have no keys, as too techno-geeky, but the other article has the keys in the lead!? [10] don't tell the open source people about the no advocacy, it's all they talk about at meet-ups. (one of the biases of wikipedia) but address the bias in the normal manner: by pulling special procedures, it just makes it worse. i would actually prefer a lock: it is a consensus procedure. "censorship", and "fair use" are nebulous concepts or legal theories used by judges to interpret law. bending over backwards to address complaints is fine, but the position of TI is egregious, and they need to be told that by the recipients of their letters. wikipedia is quite happy to speedy delete vanity articles by people, but it won't speedy delete a nonsense legal warning? i hear a lot of talk about defamation, but havn't seen any, except in AfD: i take it that is a roaring success. Pohick2 ( talk) 19:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
          • This is the normal procedure for a DMCA notice. It just seems like a special procedure since it happens so infrequently. Most page protections are done unilaterally by a single admin, typically after a request by a single non-admin user, so I'm not sure I understand how "consensual" it really is. The WP:OFFICE policy has just as much community support as the protection policy. For every discussion like this about "censorship", there's probably another about how protection is overused and/or evil. If you're seriously going to try to suggest that a vanity article is similar in any substantial way to a takedown notice in how they should be handled, I really don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion. But as for defamation, we get a fairly constant stream of complaints (several per day) by email. Mr. Z-man 21:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, if we were to remove "Wikipedia is not censored" (which I don't think we should, as the 'censorship' here is for legal reasons), then we'd also have to remove "Wikipedia - the encyclopedia which anyone can edit", as there are thousands of accounts and IPs which have been blocked/banned, and so not everyone can edit it. I'm sorry, J4V4, but I have to disagree with your basic premise for the reasons given by many others here - just because you don't like the laws that govern the state in which the servers are physically located does not mean that we can ignore them. Unless, of course, you are going to pay the costs for a new server farm in a state/country of your choice and take over from the Foundation... -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 10:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see this section of Wikipedia talk:NPOV. The NPOV policy currently contains two sections on specific topics: a 534-word section on pseudoscience and a 267-word section on religion. These sections were removed last month as being too specific after an RfC was posted on April 3. [11] The pseudoscience section was moved to WP:FRINGE, [12] and the religion section removed entirely. The sections have now been restored by others on the grounds that consensus was not established, or has changed. Fresh eyes would therefore be appreciated here on talk to decide whether to restore or remove the sections. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the previous Rfc was not labeled "should the Pseudoscience and Religion portions of NPOV be removed" but rather "Should NPOV have topic-specific sections" thus ensuring no one would understand what was being proposed unless they followed the link, participation was lower than it would otherwise have been - and surely fell far short of the "higher standard of participation and consensus" required by WP:CONLIMITED for significant changes to policy pages. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 00:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, the Rfc you're claiming had consensus has three views and a comment - two supports, one oppose. This is not enough input to gut a policy, SV, and you darn well have been around here long enough to know that. If it were an Afd on a third rate pop singer you'd relist for more input. I cannot believe you've been claiming consensus on that basis. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 01:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this RfC needs to be clarified: it aims to demote WP:PSCI from policy to an ignorable guideline. Currently, WP:NPOV requires a neutral point of view, but makes an important exception allowing pseudoscience to be labeled as such. PSCI also ensures that articles can assert that science and pseudoscience are not simply two equal viewpoints. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely the place for a discussion of the merits of the RfC is the RfC itself. It makes no sense to repeat one's arguments at each of the neutral pointers that direct to the RfC. Hans Adler 08:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And if SV had not edit warred to keep a misleading title and description, it wouldn't be here at all. This is about how the Rfc has been described, not about the Rfc. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 12:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the accusations and the insults. You've accused me in edit summaries of lying and being dishonest, because I asked "should the NPOV section contain these sections." You may not like it, and others may have phrased it differently, but it's neutral and it's straightforward, so stop the assumptions of bad faith. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop being dishonest, and I'll stop calling you on it. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 20:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a productive or civil line of discussion. -- Cybercobra (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point#This_guideline_keeps_instruction_creep_in_place. 18.246.2.83 ( talk) 08:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For something set as a guideline, I do believe that an RfC is a minimum to overturn/remove. There seems to be support on no change on the talk page as a whole, and I'm going to cheat and use common sense to say that any policy or guideline that's cited as frequently as this is needs a good talking through. *shrugs* I agree there's merit in digging into things to see just how much overlapping there is within incivility as a whole, but to balance that I can appreciate a need to really pound different angles of incivility on editors; New(er) in particular that honestly might not know what is making some of their edits disruptive. ArbCom rulings citing WP:POINT have directly called it a form of bad faith editing, so might like to see a review to assure that AGF is always heavily pushed in remaining guidelines to avoid future confusions and possible loopholes that you always risk a tiny bit when our !rules get cut away in any manner.

Being stubborn and trying to continue a discussion with wikilawyer and gaming efforts (in the "see also") to drag things on is a massive frustration at worst. Contrast to WP:POINT-type events proper; they're premeditation in the execution of that same lawyer-gaming. That's clear-cut disruptive editing. The prior can legitimately be AGF edits done in confusion or misunderstanding of certain things, but the later is always done in bad faith. However you want to word the guidelines staying under main policy, it's that premeditation line that is impossible to excuse. RfC is where this gets bitten into and everyone can throw cards on the table. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've seen something like this. What is our current best practice for when a highly respected source appears to make a glaring factual error? In current case, the NYTimes appears to have misstated the amount of oil spilled into the Persian Gulf during Gulf War I by two orders of magnitude too high compared to other sources. (If the NYTimes were correct then the amount of oil dumped would be roughly the same as the total global petroleum consumption in a year.) Dragons flight ( talk) 21:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If the mistake itself is so obvious that a multitude of other reliable sources confirm it to be erroneous, then I'd just use those ones... ╟─ Treasury Tag► Captain-Regent─╢ 21:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The best answer is: write a letter or email to the corrections department at the New York Times. If they're in error, they'll correct themselves. Reliable sources are reliable not because they're always right, but because they include mechanisms by which their errors can be corrected. MastCell  ^Talk 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

While the first part of that comment ("write […] to the corrections department") is good, the second part ("Reliable sources are reliable […] because they include [correction] mechanisms") not so much. I mean, by that measure, Wikipedia ought to be the most reliable source ever. :P {{ Nihiltres| talk| edits|⚡}} 22:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

VERACITY trumps so-called "reliability." If something in the New York Times or any other organ of the mainstream media is clearly wrong, ditch it without a second thought. The cynical mantra that Wikipedia editors don't care if something is true, only that it is "verifiable" as published by a "reliable source" is a load of crap and a corrupting influence on the Wikipedia product. If there's a political gridlock in the Wikipedia governance system that causes veracity to continue to go unrecognized while cynical platitudes remain unretracted IGNORE THE RULES. If it's factually wrong, out it goes without a second thought — that should be the official policy. Carrite ( talk) 23:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

:-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 23:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

@Nihiltres: Well, that's the whole point of providing references. So now people can't claim that WP is unreliable anymore. It still has that reputation, but it was never really true, and now less than ever. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 23:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Providing a reference is no guarantee that there aren't lots of RSs contradicting it, omitted because WP editors either are unaware of them or disagree with them. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

NYTimes make mistakes. Nothing new, handle it like any other situation of sources being different to each other. Regards, SunCreator ^{( talk)} 11:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

They do make errors daily. Just send them an email, and the article will corrected within a day or 2. Smallman12q ( talk) 11:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

i have seen this as an excuse to delete a nytimes reference, and then delete an article since all the references were "unreliable". if you really feel this way: caveat it, don't delete it. while i'm sympathetic to Veracity, by our editing of the verifiable sources, we will get to the veracity. ain't cynical: don't confuse means and ends. in fact i would be inclined to add a section about the nytimes (and others) misreporting of the incident. Pohick2 ( talk) 13:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

On the piece of info in question here, is it not found at any other source? I'd think that should be very openly published across the board as this point and easy to leave out that nytimes bit as a clear error. It does happen. ...I mostly wanted to poke in here and go out of my way to very stubbornly remind that we're never, ever, ever meant to have Wikipedia to be a reliable source in any firm sense while the project is yet growing, and even then probably never. All we can do as editors is put together the best with what's handed to us, which in this case happens to be wrong and needs a fix. Everyone knows that going about (even if jokingly) thinking about a move to take out nytimes refs is not somewhere we want to be. But hey, there's always WP:RS/N if someone is feeling lucky. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable is not equivalent to infallible. TreasuryTag's advice is good - I'd supplement it by suggesting you explain in the talk page - e.g. NYT says this, but source x, y and z say that, so the article now says that, and please don't add the NYT reference which appears to be mistaken.-- SPhilbrick T 17:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate any thoughts on this here. – xeno ^talk 19:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the only time an editor should be denied access to a talk page is if that editor is being disruptive or is engaging in vandalism. We at the same time need to be careful when deciding when an editor is being disruptive or just opinionated. the only annoying problem would be the occasional impatient editor asking Am I unblocked yet ?, Am I unblocked yet ?, huh ? huh ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the comments, but they should be placed at the linked discussion to keep it all together. Thanks, – xeno ^talk 15:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposals offered at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal for CSDs: essay and how-to. — Timneu22 · talk 20:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Lead and try to determine if consensus exists and how to proceed? The discussion has stopped and it should be closed.-- SaskatchewanSenator ( talk) 20:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In this hatnore,

It looks like the comma is in the wrong place. When I went back and looked at how another hatnote was done, I realized the intention may have been to put the comma before see.

I was going to use this template because I was looking for a Wikipedia policy and stumbled across the one I needed going from the above hatnote. It's better to have a specific hatnote for what I was using this for because WP:COPY doesn't do what I thought it would.

As a matter of fact, this brings up a possibility for the actual WP:COPY page. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the comma in Split. It doesn't appear to have been a template problem- the description is a write-in. ALI ^{nom nom} 21:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I didn't want to monkey with what someone had supposedly done on that level. What about a hatnote for WP:COPY? is that sort of thing done? Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of policies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't exactly been marked as a policy; it's just been added to Category:Wikipedia policies. Seems reasonable to me. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Summary style ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The difference appears to be that it is now using the "Style Guideline" template, instead of the "Guideline" template. The Style Guideline template says (in the text) that it is a guideline, but doesn't add it to the relevant category. Bluap ( talk) 02:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled across this while reading an article on Gas-discharge lamps, and it appears that there is a conflict between the use of File:Oxygen.jpg as cover art for an Avalon Album, and for the spectral lines of Oxygen. Should I re-upload one (or both) under a different name(s)? If so, which category would they fall under in the image uploader? Hmmwhatsthisdo ( talk) 00:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Upload the cover art as File:Oxygen cover art.jpg. That seems obvious to me. PleaseStand ^(talk) 00:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Darn, someone beat me to it. Hmmwhatsthisdo ( talk) 00:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The recent reversions at WP:NPOV have increased its length from less than 18kB to more than 43kB. Almost no one reads these policies all the way through. We know this because almost no one reads them at all: NPOV stats for Feb, and when presented with such a daunting document, human nature will mean most people who do visit the page will not read it all, let alone inwardly digest it.

Correction: I have been alerted to this page, which shows that there are many more hits under Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, which would suggest that each year a significant minority could indeed be looking at the NPOV policy page. Another good reason not to waste their time with an unnecessarily long text. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 08:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This brings up a more general point. Are the policy pages for scholars in Wikipedia policy, or are they for the millions of people who read and edit Wikipedia articles?

It seems to me that for these policy pages to serve their core audience of volunteer Wikipedia editors, a typical new editor should be able to read and understand each of the core policies in under five minutes. If we allow a reading speed of 20 characters per second (around 200WPM), this means that the pages should be no more than 6kB each. This does not preclude wikilinks to long, complex and detailed essays, histories and the like for those seeking more nuanced views. But the length of these core policies, such as WP:NPOV, should be kept to around 6kB.

What do people think? And for those who answer, please would they indicate whether they have read the current versions of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V end to end. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 09:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I did actually read through all the policies a while back, which took a long time, and of course they've changed since then. I wouldn't dream of trying to read all the guidelines. Nobody even seems to know how many there are, though there seem to be hundreds. Peter jackson ( talk) 09:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This whole "policy" thing has become ridiculous. There are far, far too many policy pages (we'll leave guidelines on one side for the moment, but the same points apply to them too) and the pages are mostly far, far too long. They repeat the same points over and over again, quite often in ways that contradict each other, waffle on about this and that, give examples that don't illustrate what they're claimed to be illustrating, contain whole reams of incomprehensible text (that even experienced editors can't agree on the intended meaning of), and have little relevance to improving the encyclopedia. And when someone makes the effort to tidy them up a bit, various editors come out of the woodwork to revert them, not on any substantial grounds, but apparently because they believe the text has some almost religious value by virtue of it having sat around in a particular form for a particular number of years. It's an embarrassment to this project that we can't even communicate our key principles in a clear, concise and comprehensible manner.-- Kotniski ( talk) 10:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and NPOV is a particular problem, almost a stream of consciousness. The result is that no one can read it, and it's therefore largely ignored, except when individual editors use a soundbite from it here and there to aid them in an edit war. I've put up a version at User:SlimVirgin/NPOV, where I may try to work on it and invite experienced content contributors and policy writers to do the same. It would be a slow process and would require wiki-wide consensus, but it might be worth trying. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the policies are too long, and think Stephen B Streater right to emphasise ability of new editors to read and understand the policies easily and quickly. And I didn't read any from start to end!

• WP:NPOV was about 39KB at 19 March 2010. A group of editors slimmed the policy to 19KB at 00:55, 30 April 2010. Then one editor, without any discussion, reverted the policy to a version from 23:15, 25 January 2010!!. In the last days the policy has grown from 39KB to 43KB. I suggest the following from Jimbo Wales covers about 50% of NPOV:

  : From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list
  If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

• WP:NOR has grown from 20K to 23K between June 2008 and present - not a great increase, but a lot to read.
• WP:V IMO is almost usable.

I suggest an RFC to get wider discussion about: the principle of making the policies shorter and more readable; the revert to the start of Jan 2010. - Philcha ( talk) 11:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

My view is that 20 kB is a good upper limit to aim for. I'd make an exception for BLP, because there are details there that need to be spelled out and reinforced, but even that is only 21 kB. The current 37 kB at NPOV, plus another 19 kB at NPOV/FAQ that someone recently tried to place a policy tag on, is unacceptable, and the recent reverting undid months of work from several editors who had been trying to trim it down. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 12:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes - several valid points there. A reasonable number of highly experienced editors were involved. There was a constructive attitude for ensuring important details were not lost, and many refinements had been discussed and implemented by the time of the revert. No one tried to block well thought through and discussed changes to preserve "their" version. This was collaborative editing working well in an important area. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 12:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Philcha for suggesting an RFC. It makes sense to collect some ideas from several people together first to make sure we ask the right questions. Perhaps now would be a good time to start discussing what we should ask editors to comment on. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 13:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Those who think the policy "grew" are in error. It didn't grow at all. Extreme cuts were reverted, that is all that happened. The policy was actually gutted to the tune of about 25kb. This was restored; core pieces of the policy, such as the part which overs pseudoscience, had been removed. I am in favor of concise wording. I am opposed to gutting policy so that fringe POV pushers have no policy to prevent them from turning Wikipedia into some New Age Woo haven, where some fringe theory about aliens controlling the stock market can be presented as "fact". I am assuming no one wants that; I am assuming those who trimmed the policy didn't want that - but that they didn't realize that would be the end result of their actions. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 22:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that much wording and repetition could be trimmed without opening WIkipedia to abuse. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 22:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

So who's going to get it going and where? I ask where because I think we'll need a draft, and do it there would be confusing and unhelpful to users of this page - how a sub-page and, if so, where? Then we can copy the completed draft to here, so that people can add their support/oppose/comments. -- Philcha ( talk) 07:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. The current page seems to have stabilised enough to make a concise draft. I'll create it this weekend, and put it on a sub-page for criticism and adjustment. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 19:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Experienced editors on the main policy page are still considering signficant changes such as this. As one major debate at a time is sufficient, I'll leave it a few more days for the current page to settle. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 15:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Fresh input would be appreciated at this section of Wikipedia talk:NPOV. The issue is whether the NPOV policy should contain two sections devoted to specific subject areas—one on pseudoscience, the other on religion—or whether they should be removed. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a policy about using potentially copyright-violating websites as sources? The case in point is a Reuters obituary from 2001. It is no longer available at reuters.com, but there is a copy at [17], a memorial page for the subject. That page was used as a reference in Oscar Janiger, but recently an editor removed the ref and left behind a ^{citation needed} tag, with "Remove links to copyvio site." as the edit summary. Is it WP policy to never link to websites suspected of copyvios? And is there a better solution than to remove the claims from the article (which must eventually be done if there is no RS)? Thundermaker ( talk) 14:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a policy about avoiding linking to copyright violations. See WP:LINKVIO. The appropriate resolution would be to remain using the Reuters obit as a reliable source, an archive of the original webpage if possible, but even offline or no-longer-online sources can still be reliable sources. VernoWhitney ( talk) 15:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Public domain ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I was studying up on CSD just a few minutes ago and I noticed that the Criteria for Speedy deletion for articles lists A1 - A3, A5, A7, A9-A10. This might be a stupid question (and I attempted to do some research on my own), but what happened to A4, A6, and A8? None of the other categories (general, files, user, etc) have irregular numbering. Were A4, A6, and A8 once valid CSD:A that are no longer recognized? What about a renumbering? Can a wiki-veteran please explain? Sapporod1965 ( talk) 02:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Delete#Deprecated criteria. A renumbering would break past usage, so if you were looking at an archived discussion a few years ago, what they called a deletion via e.g. "A7" then wouldn't match what people would call an "A7" today if they were renumbered, causing confusion. Tarc ( talk) 03:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

T1, R1 and C3 were also removed. OrangeDog ( τ •  ε) 13:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

R3 and C3 were actually merged into the original G8 making one criteria (the current G8) that could deal with everything the there critera did. Anything that could have been deleted under those three critrtia is still deleatable. Only T1 was repealed.

For clarifucatio G8 used to deal with talkpages of deleted pages, R1 delt with redirects to deleted or non existant pages, and C3 delt with catagory pages only used for a template and the template is deleted. The Current G8 calls to delete any page that is dependent on a deleted or non-existant page and covers all of these previous examples.-- 76.71.208.197 ( talk) 23:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User account status userboxes, is there policy about displaying user account status userboxes when the user does not have that status, ie. a user displaying "rollbacker" userbox and/or topicon when the user is not a rollbacker ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they should be removed-- Jac16888 ^Talk 16:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Could the user face a block (If not, I feel they should, at least in ther case of repeated violations)? Immunize ( talk) 20:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Case-by-case I would say. If they are impersonating an admin and trying to bully other users they will probably be blocked. If they are claiming to be a rollbacker and they aren't one, the main thing they have accomplished is pushing back the day when they will be granted rollback, so it's kind of self defeating. The use of userboxes isn't really regulated otherwise. Personally I think they are silly, although there are a few on my userpage. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, after reading your response's I was looking at the history of the user and he's had the exact issue before so I'm obligated to take this issue to ANI, since I mentioned to the user as "FYI" courtesy on his talk page that he might want to remove the userbox and topicon before he's ask why are they there. Thank you Mlpearc MESSAGE 21:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I wonder whether the user might not understand what the WP:Rollback feature is (and how it differs from WP:UNDO). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of what user that you are discussing, but I feel that it is possible he is confused by the fact that Twinkle has a "rollback" feature that is available to most users, not only rollbackers and admins (who are the only users who have access to the real rollback feature). I myself was confused about this prior to receiving rollback rights. Immunize ( talk) 22:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

See commons:Commons:News_regarding_the_sexual_content_purge. Not only is FOX back for another round, but the BBC, Slashdot, The Register, and Vanity Fair are weighing in, and it's being discussed in at least five languages. Dcoetzee 07:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I just encountered the latest case in which editors had to explicitly mention the difference between a user and his signature, i.e. User:JzG signing as "Guy". I've seen something like this before involving a user leaving Twinkle notices. I don't want to focus on the choice made by these individuals, but on the broader policy question. The current policy ( WP:Signature) says only,

"While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents."

Though I won't generally argue against non-matching signatures, I do feel that:

• All admins, and
• Anyone using WP:Twinkle or similar automatic notice tools

should use a signature exactly identical to the name on their user page, at least while possessing this status. The reason for this is that these people frequently interact with unskilled and problematic editors, who start calling them by the given name on their signature page, and later might try to reach them at this site, or involve other editors in a dispute who think that's the editor meant.

Does anyone else think the confusion would justify such a demand? Wnt ( talk) 19:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• My name is Guy and I've been using this sig for a long time. Guy ( Help!) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Could the confusion you envisage not be prevented by a redirect from the userpage matching the signature to the editor's account page? For instance, User:Guy and User talk:Guy → User:JzG (or User talk:JzG). AGK 19:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• JzG's username used to be User:Just zis Guy, you know? - that's what JzG means, and that is why his signature is Guy. Coincidently, that was a very bad block on User:Guy, JzG. Prodego ^talk 19:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I never knew that was what "Jzg" meant. Obviously I find that hilarious. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

AGK, that's a reasonable idea. Because "impersonating another user" is prohibited by the policy, the page should always be available to be made into a redirect. There will be some especially confused subset of users who don't understand the redirect system much, but it's a smaller problem.

Still, I have to wonder... if you're going to redirect from the page on the signature to the page not matching it, why not instead redirect from the page not matching it to the name one actually signs with? Wnt ( talk) 19:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

JzG would need to usurp the name in this case. – xeno ^talk 21:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Zaphod. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I know of several users who use signicatures (or at least have-some of them change their signature frequently). The users I know of include Jmh649 who signs as Doc James and Fetchcomms, who signs as just several disorganized letters. I feel users who use these signatures should create redirects to there userpage. Immunize ( talk) 13:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fetchcomms is normal now, he changed it recently, and Jmh649's does have a link to their actual user page eve though it is a different name. As long as it isn't just unlinked text, like Docu used to do, it should be ok. Tarc ( talk) 13:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to Chess is a chess encyclopedia. On page 252, talking about Milan Matulovic, it says "... he played in the Sousse Interzonal in which, after a little cheating (see j'adoube), he came ninth." Page 185 (the "j'adoube" entry) it says: "... withdrew a losing move saying "Ich spreche j'doube" ; this ruse went unpunished ...". (emphasis added) Is it original synthesis to say that withdrawing a move is cheating? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 17:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say it is, yes. If that's cheating there should be a source somewhere who says it explicitly. There should be sources available in Touch-move rule. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Right now that is the best source we have for withdrawing a move being cheating. Page 252 says that what the player did was cheating; page 185 says specifically what he did. The question is whether or not we can connect the dots. There are plenty of sources about the rule, but at least one editor takes issue with the statement of breaking that rule being cheating, see talk:cheating in chess. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems a bit fanciful to me. "Cheating" in the first quote sounds like a light-hearted subjective interpretation. Withdrawing a move isn't so much cheating as simply doing something that shouldn't be allowed to stand (like moving into check) - I guess it would be cheating to lie to the referee about what you did.-- Kotniski ( talk) 09:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What he did was intentionally breaking the rules to his advantage - isn't that basically cheating by definition? The reference calls it cheating and it was not a light-hearted subjective interpretation. The book is clear that what he did is cheating. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"After a little cheating" sounds less than serious to me. And even if he cheated on this occasion because he intentionally broke the rules, that wouldn't apply to all cases of withdrawing a move (where a player might be unaware of the rules).-- Kotniski ( talk) 15:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"After a little cheating" sounds light-hearted. If this is generally regarded as cheating, there will be a serious source out there who's clearly not kidding. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This was a professional player - he should be aware of the rules. It is clearly a violation of the rules of chess. The Oxford Companion to Chess is the most authoritative encyclopedia of chess. And it goes on to say "this ruse went unpunished", which I think clearly implies that it could or should have been punished. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 17:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a well-known incident in chess. From Chess Life, September 1970, p. 500: "...in the interzonal in Tunisia he even took back one of his moves pretending that this bad move was only yet another j'doube." Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 18:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of tone, "a little cheating" is still cheating. But wouldn't this violate the separate rule mentioned on Touch-move rule? This rule seems to make it clear that a move can only be withdrawn if it is illegal; withdrawing a move otherwise—as when unhappy with a move—would violate the rules and be cheating. Moreover, I would think that at the professional level, there is no distinction made between intentional or unintentional violation of rules. That being said, does the term "cheat" have to be used, as opposed to just mentioning that the rules were violated? — Ost ( talk) 19:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If the encyclopedia hadn't included the word ruse, I would have had no problem seeing at original synthesis. As it is, the comment seems valid if a little confrontational, possibly it is slightly at odds with the normal WP style. Kaid100 ( talk) 19:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which move he violated because it isn't completely clear to me if he took his hand off the piece. I documented what some other sources say at Milan Matulović, notes 9, 10, and 11. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 19:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it permissible, please, to set up a redirection that points to a category page? I am considering recommending that Orphan initialism be retargetted to Category:Orphan initialisms if that is in order. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 18:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It'd be better to redirect it to Acronym and initialism#Pseudo-acronyms, with a "see also" to Category:Orphan initialisms at the top of that section. I think redirects straight to categories would confuse readers. There's an essay on this, but no hard and fast policy. Fences& Windows 13:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested a change to our soft redirect guideline to allow for more interwiki redirects. If you're interested, head on over and let me know what you think! -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 18:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I nominated Corruption in Russia for AFD, and later I found two templates (cited on the AFD) that are POV magnets. Not really sure how these topics are encyclopedic. Maybe they are, but this seems wrong. Join Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corruption in Russia for a discussion. — Timneu22 · talk 17:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that some place-name pages, especially those about popular tourist destinations, have "image galleries"; for example, Santorini and Rhodes. Is there any policy about this? Personally, I think they should be discouraged for two reasons. First, they give the page a "travel guide" sort of feel which seems inappropriate to Wikipedia. Second, a lot of these pictures, however nice they may be as pictures, don't really add much to the article: I don't think a picture of a beach or church or village on Rhodes adds much to the article on Rhodes unless the beach/church/village portrayed is either really famous or there is something uniquely Rhodian about it. "Generic" pretty pictures seem to me just decoration. I'd welcome other opinions or pointers to policy. Thanks. Strawberryjampot ( talk) 14:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

My take on this - I think we often get a bit too carried away with policy wonky here and the writing side of wikipedia without a lot of consideration for the end-users of the project. If someone adds some public domain images to an article about a place and they add to the enjoyability of the article without detracting from the readability of the article, I don't have a problem if they are simply decoration. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries which notes, among other things:

[T]he use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. ... Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.

and

[A] gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Links to the Commons categories can be added to the Wikipedia article using the {{ Commons category}} template.

I don't oppose including a few images for decoration, but I do think that too many purely-decorative images grouped into a generic "Gallery" translates into clutter and diminishes the readability of the article. The dividing line between decoration and clutter must, of course, be defined on a case-by-case basis. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 17:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and the link to policy (which I couldn't find before, I wish these things were easier to locate.) I basically agree with Black Falcon, and it seems to me that the galleries on the Santorini and Rhodes pages are clearly outside of policy. To quote more from the policy:

the use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). ...However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. ... One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.

It's hard to see how much more clearly the galleries in question could not be within policy. They are not "suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery," and they are exactly "an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject." By way of example, an image gallery on the Santorini page would be within policy if it illustrated the geological and volcanic history of the island: pictures of rock striations, and of the smoking islets showing continued volcanic activity, and aerial photos showing the configuration of the caldera. Instead, what we have is a random collection of photos with captions like "beautiful sunset at Oia" or "Thira at night." And the gallery is just titled "Gallery"! This gallery might almost stand as an example of what under policy a gallery should not be. And the Rhodes one is just as bad. I'm considering deleting those galleries and others like them I see, with reference on the relevant Talk pages to the policy and to this discussion, but I'll wait first to see if there is any further discussion here. Strawberryjampot ( talk) 14:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I Think images are an important aspect, just like words, references and quotes. I also think we as editors tend to forget about the "End user" of Wikipedia, the person who just looks here for information, they don't have an account, they don't edit and so on, which Cameron Scott brings to point. Pictures, like words can become a problem, we would tag an article quickly and with little thought for "rambling" in the same aspect Images can create the same problem. Images are just as important as words for the end user but an article can ramble on with images just as easy it can with words. Sorry it took me a paragraph to get to the subject of the discussion, but I think we need to be reminded of the end users. Galleries, I think the editor should be able to justify the need for it. If the images cannot be worked into the body of the article, there might be the need to have a gallery, if it's "justifiably" large why not just have a link to a subpage or I suspect that's what moving them to commons would do. Storage doesn't seem to be an issue, so if the gallery turns into the "elephant" in the room, then create a subpage for it. Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not the issue of having galleries (of free images, natch), but that if the galleries are just used to dump every possible Commons picture for a topic in there. A gallery with a good representative selection of images that can be found with Commons, alongside a link that says "More images of (topic) can be found at Wikimedia Commons" is a better option for readers (considering size, amount of content to dl, etc. as well as context and readability) than to display every possible image in a gallery, as they then lose their functionality. -- MASEM ( t) 15:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the further discussion. I'll summarize my understanding of what seems to be the consensus:

1) Images are appropriate.

2) There's nothing wrong with individual images being decorative, but they should also be appropriate and informative.

3) Wikipedia policy clearly states that image galleries should not be used for a collection of pictures, however attractive, that are related only by all referring in some way to the article subject; they should all illustrate some particular aspect of the article.

With the above in mind, I propose to start delete "generic" image galleries where I find them (as I have time,) replacing them with a pointer tag saying there are more images in commons, and referring to this page and to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries on the article's Talk page. But I'll wait to see if there are any more responses here first. Strawberryjampot ( talk) 14:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree to the summery, but, I think we need to have more discussion on just how we are going to "judge" an articles images on their relevance, what I'm trying to say I don't think any one editor should go around "Fixing" images and or gallery's Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yea, I would not go around deleting image galleries just yet. You could flag them as being too large, but that means they can be trimmed alongside the additional pointer text to commons for more images. -- MASEM ( t) 15:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Strawberry, unlike the other editors, I'd recommend that you start implementing your plan -- just slowly, and starting with the 'worst of the worst' rather than the borderline cases.

Most editors really do want to do the right thing; if you approach articles pleasantly and leave a note about why this specific gallery doesn't happen to comply with the usual advice, then you'll probably get very few complaints. When/if someone complains, please scrupulously avoid anything that might possibly be construed as an edit war. Instead, either have a positive, calm conversation, or just move on to the next article. If you cleaned up just one gallery a day, or even one a week, you'd be doing the project a real service, and no rational person could attack such slow, steady progress as an "attack" on "images". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Better than "deleted", galleries that just "show" related images should be moved to Commons, where such galleries are indeed welcome. On a given topic Commons may have a category (all images, sorted by name) or a page with galleries. Such pages allow to select images (and leave aside, for example, semi-duplicated ones, like different photos of a same public thing), order them, add captions or explanations, introductory texts, etc. MBelgrano ( talk) 22:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks yet again for the useful discussion. I tend to think I should start to delete some galleries, for two combined reasons: 1) though there's not a complete consensus here, there seems to be as much support for doing it as not, and 2) the galleries I have in mind are ones which very clearly are not within policy: as I mentioned, the Santorini and Rhodes galleries could serve as examples of what the policy specifically says a gallery should not be like, and I don't see how anyone who examined them and read the policy could disagree. As for whether it's appropriate to have one editor remove image galleries, presumably one editor made the initial decision to put one in, so I don't see why one editor shouldn't be able to make the decision to take one out. I know that policy also suggests moving them to commons, which I'll do if I can figure out how to do it -- I don't understand commons very well. If I can't, maybe another editor who is a commons specialist can do it. (I assume the galleries will still be available in the archived pages so they can be moved to commons after the edit if necessary.) Despite what I've said above, I'll wait a little longer for further discussion before doing anything. But if anyone else wants join in the discussion, I would ask them to please read Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries and look at the Rhodes and Santorini page galleries and then return here with an answer to the question, "Aren't these galleries really exactly what the policy specifically says galleries should not be?" In all honesty, deleting them seems to me to be a no brainer. Strawberryjampot ( talk) 14:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• MBelgrano is on the track of what I think would be a good way to start working this issue. Thank you MBelgrano. Mlpearc MESSAGE 22:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• I agree the Santorini and Rhodes galleries are a bit excessive, especially as the captions are pretty uninformative, which is a crucial point in increasing the encyclopedic value of galleries. Oddly, both articles have pictureless stretches of text, though other places where the images are a bit crowded. However I would very strongly disagree that "galleries that just "show" related images should be moved to Commons, where such galleries are indeed welcome". At least imo, Commons galleries are a plague and a curse, and galleries here should nerer be moved there wholesale. This is mainly because in Commons searches galleries show before categories & few people realize there are more images than the tiny selection, by one person, that is the gallery. Galleries in Commons are a major problem, and should be discouraged. Johnbod ( talk) 15:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There may be something to be said for the argument that Galleries are a problem in Commons -- personally I have no opinion on that issue at present. But the present policy says very clearly that "generic" galleries should be moved to commons, and until the policy is changed, it seems to me that any editor should feel free to do that. Strawberryjampot ( talk) 22:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I also must register an objection against the characterization of what I'm proposing, used twice above, as "going around deleting images," which implies something casual, arbitrary and irresponsible. Wikipedia policy, as quoted already above, states: A gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. What I've proposed to do is very clearly not only allowed by this policy but recommended by it, and so can't fairly be considered casual, arbitrary, or irresponsible. Strawberryjampot ( talk) 23:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone point to a step-by-step beginner's guide on how to move a gallery to commons? I've looked on both Wikpedia and Commons help, and though there are a lot of things about galleries, I can't find any actual instructions on how to do this. I mean that could be understood by someone who has never added anything to Commons before. Thanks for any information. Strawberryjampot ( talk) 14:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Having just come to this discussion, I've now looked at Rhodes to see what the problem is. Personally, as someone who has never been to or read much about Rhodes or the region, I found the Gallery extremely helpful to get a feel for the environment. It certainly greatly added to this reader's understanding of the subject.

Quite contrary to the OP opinion above, I feel that images which show the ordinary reality of a place are just as helpful as those that only show its famous or unique features. Further to what some editors above have said, we must keep in mind the general WP users' needs. The vast majority of WP users are casual readers wanting quick information about the topic. Many users will only have a quick look at the pictures. Their approach is very different from that of the select group of editors involved in this discussion. I really don't see this Rhodes Gallery as any kind of problem. There are only 12 small pictures, each of a different aspect. I agree the Santorini#Gallery could be tidied up to remove duplicate sunsets, perhaps, but again I found the whole Gallery very helpful. Each picture might be worth 1,000 words of cluttered text.

Another major point is that the WP policy quoted only gives two options: improve the Gallery, or move it to Commons. Deletion is NOT an option in that policy. So I'm re-assured that guidelines for moving to Commons are now being looked for!

Also, I think the "rule of thumb" requirement above to name an article's Gallery anything else is pointless, unless it is a gallery for a specific sub-topic. If the page is about Rhodes, then obviously a collection just called "Gallery" on that page will be about Rhodes. The Gallery is the obvious place to put generally illustrative images of aspects that may not be specifically referred to in the article. -- Bricaniwi ( talk) 05:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

But Wikipedia policy clearly says that a gallery should be about a sub-topic, and it specifically says that a gallery should not be used as a "place to put generally illustrative images of aspects that may not be specifically referred to in the article;" it should illustrate an "aspect" of the subject. As to the usefulness of such galleries, I see from discussion here and elsewhere that many people would agree that "images which show the ordinary reality of a place are just as helpful as those that only show its famous or unique features," but whether that's true or not, galleries of such images are clearly not in compliance with current policy. People who don't like the policy should try to change it; meanwhile, while the policy exists, it's appropriate for it to be enforced, and any editor ought to feel free to alter such galleries to bring them into compliance. (And as for their "usefulness," let's not forget that if moved to Commons, as provided by policy, users can still get to them with a click.) Strawberryjampot ( talk) 14:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the real issue is simply that not enough effort is going into informative captions and alt-texts. For inline images that accompany article text we often overlook this, but in a gallery the lack is more evident. Geocoding landscape images (either in their captions or metadata) would be an easy start. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have some questions about the exact meaning of "move the gallery to Commons," which seems like a simple statement but when you look into doing it turns out to have a number of complications. Where is the proper place to ask for clarification of the policy, and to discuss whether the policy itself needs to be re-worded to be clearer: here, or some other page? Thanks for any advice. 21:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strawberryjampot ( talk • contribs)

I have found many users which in my opinion are Username violiotions. Some of them contain the words "Rape", "Sex", or even a trademark like User:WindowsNT. Some admins say it is not a username violiotion but I think otherwise. What do you guys think? And can somebody please expand what usernams can be considered "offensive"? -- Tyw7  ( ☎ Contact me! •  Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I would tell you that Wikipedia talk:Username policy is a good place to discuss this, but since you just posted there as well you apparently already know that. Administrators are granted the ability to block because they are expected to be able to make decisions rather than rigidly adhering to policies. What is offensive is often very much in the eye of the beholder and open to interpretation. "Sex" in and of itself is not sufficient in my opinion, but "rape" usually would be. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I found many users (some dead) with the word "rape" in their username. -- Tyw7  ( ☎ Contact me! •  Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Context matters: a User:PreventRapeAndViolence or User:PollutionIsEnvironmentalRape might be accepted. We expect our admins to be able to make judgement calls -- calls that permit a given string of letters when they're well-intentioned, and prohibit "otherwise acceptable" strings of letters when they're not.

Also, it's worth making sure that you're looking at Special:ActiveUsers, rather than abandoned or already-blocked accounts. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point, there's no point blocking inactive or deceased users. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

How about User:Sexyredpolish -- Tyw7  ( ☎ Contact me! •  Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not even close to a blockable offense, it's a reference to nail polish, how is that offensive to anyone? In your other post [18] you made reference to "taboos," it's not helpful to think of them that way, it's the context that is important, as pointed out in Whatamidoing's examples above. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What about usernames that consist entirely of random letters (e.g., hjhkjgkh ( talk · contribs)). Are these allowed, or are they blockable? Immunize ( talk) 19:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusing usernames are discouraged but not blockable in and of themselves. On the other hand most of the time if you see a username like that it turns out to be someone up to no good, so they end up getting blocked anyway for vandalizing. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If the user turns out to be a ocnstructive contributor, then is it possible to force them to be Renamed? Immunize ( talk) 19:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is a borderline case, then the matter should be discussed openly by established users at WP:RFCUN. An attempt should be made to discuss the matter with the user first. -- Jayron 32 03:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I am confused ... and concerned. Why so much interest in controlling other editor's choices of names? Sure, offensive names are undesirable for the comfort level of others but who in the end (barring truly malicious/hateful names and trademarks) I think an editor's name choice should be left undisturbed. Would User:BraAndPanties be considered offensive? Even if the editor was a professional lingerie designer editing on related topics? Let me illustrate with a couple of real life examples: I once worked with a guy named Dick Fuchs and I went to school with a girl named Sally Kuntz. Should we get a court order to force these people to change their real names because they might be considered offensive to some people? What about User:BBROYGBVGW ? Is that name a problem? Ask anyone with any experience in analog electronics and they will tell you this name makes perfect sense. As does User:TQRFJOTLBD to any typist. Just because YOU don't understand the name doesn't mean it has no meaning or value. As far as I am concerned, dabbling in censoring and altering user names is WP:CREEP that is a needless distraction from building Wikipedia. 66.102.204.126 ( talk) 01:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is the final arbiter of the verifiability of a source? The article's original author? Can his/her "decision" be appealed to some kind of verifiability committee? If an article's author can nix an addition just because he doesn't like what it says (even if the addition is verifiable) it doesn't say much for the "free" part of "Wikipedia; the free encyclopedia".......

Orthohawk ( talk) 22:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The article's originator's opinion is in no way special. They do not own the article. -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The first step is to discuss the issue with other editors on the article Talk page. If that fails, you can go to the Reliable sources Noticeboard.-- SPhilbrick T 23:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If there's a source that is hard to access then you can ask for a quotation from it to verify that it's been summarized correctly. Use this tag inline: {{Request quotation|date=May 2010}}   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In practice, the ultimate decision on this or any other content question is determined by numbers, persistence & cunning of those interested in participating. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"numbers, persistence & cunning" can be influential, but all editors have to comply with WP:NPOV, including WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. If the statement cites a good source, then per WP:UNDUE it's a matter of number between sources, not editors:

• If the source(s) support(s) the statement without "but"s, no-one has the right to remove it. If any tries: revert it immediately (use your watchlist!); then immediately go to the article's Talk, explanation that your opponent(s) have start a edit war without following WP:UNDUE, and request for an admin to examine the issue.
• If your sources (must be plural) are in the majority, both sides will be looking for additional sources, it depends in which side has the majority and on the size of the minority, per WP:UNDUE. The majority must be described as the majority in the article. The minority make be a decent minority, and should be treated as the minority in the article. You should check the size in majority minority in both absolute number and percentages - some subjects only have only a handful of real experts in the world (I know a few zoology subjects like that). So in a subject with a handful of experts 1 is a minority and treated as the minority in the article, but if 1 are up against a larger number the 1 is like to be WP:FRINGE and the statement can removed. All this analysis come down to one of:
  • If you have a few only 1 or 2 sources and the subject has only have a handful of experts and your opponent(s) have a few sources, yours are the majority, the opponent(s)' are the minority and the groups must be described as the majority and minority in the article.
  • If you have a few sources and your opponent(s) have only 1 or 2 and the subject has only have a handful of experts, yours are the majority, the opponent(s)' are the minority and the groups must be described as the majority and minority in the article.
  • If your opponent(s) have a few sources and you have only 1 or 2 and the subject has only have a handful of experts, yours are the minority, the opponent(s)' are the majority and the groups must be described as the minority and majority in the article.
  • If both sides have a decent number of sources, the groups must be described as the majority and minority in the article.
  • If one side has only 1 or 2 sources and the other has several, the "handful of experts" criterion is irrelevant and the minority as probably is a case of WP:FRINGE.
• If you have a minority that is a case of WP:FRINGE, give up.
• If your opponent(s) have a minority that is a case of WP:FRINGE: revert it immediately (use your watchlist!); then immediately go to the article's Talk, explanation that your opponent(s) have start a edit war without following WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and request for an admin to examine the issue. -- Philcha ( talk) 12:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

One point where your wording is liable to be understood as not in accordance with policy: "described" should read "presented" or something. WP:RS says any statement in an article that all or most experts hold a particular view must be supported by a citation that says exactly that, not simply by the fact that WP editors have so far found this many saying this & that many saying that. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Apart from that, I think you've fairly accurately described the theory. However, in practice, people can invent all sorts of excuses:

1. It's not a reliable source
2. It doesn't mean that
3. &c

And they can talk gibberish ... And, realistically, what's the chance of getting administrators to deal with things properly? I recently asked at RSN whether, in practice, they managed to reach consensus & it would be enforced by admin. Nobody seemed prepared to claim that. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider this scenario. The article Sealand-Conch Republic relations is nominated for deletion. In the first AFD there are 6 !voters aside from the nominator and the creator. Users A B and C !vote "delete", users D E and F !vote "keep". The AFD closes "no consensus". A few months later the article is nominated again. It stays open for 4 days but only A, B, and C have shown up. Would the creator be justified in informing D, E, and F considering that ABC are already there? I think many would agree that he is per WP:UCS.

Scenario 2. Same article except it's 2 years between nominations. ABC have retired from the project, DEF are still around but haven't !voted and there are 3 new !voters, G, H, and I, all !voting "delete". Would it be acceptable for the creator to inform DEF in this case? Maybe not so clear cut.

I could go on coming up with more scenarios each more vague then the next. The point I'm trying to make though is that I understand why some who are accused of improper canvassing proclaim their innocence despite a "letter of the law" violation. If he sees that the "other side" already has its ducks lined up, he thinks he should be allowed to go line up his ducks.

So I guess what I'm asking is, if a policy discussion (not just AFDs) starts out extremely one sided, could we overlook someone trying to "recruit" other "good faith" editors to give some balance? Of course off wiki canvassing shouldn't be allowed under any circumstance. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As a result of the growing belief that mere possession of an uneducated opinion and a heartbeat makes people qualified to hold forth on a subject, I have witnessed all sorts of idiocy in AFDs. For example, I'm an activist and union organizer. I've been part of numberous AFDs in which random Wikipedians whose expertise (if any) resides in minor characters from Dragonball Z and Family Guy quotations vote to delete labour-related articles or biographies on the basis that they've never heard if it (or him/her) and it mustn't be very important. Well maybe if you got YOUR FAT WHITE GRUB-LIKE FACE OUT OF YOUR ECCHI COLLECTION for longer than it takes for an occasional wank, you might have had some chance of encountering such entries. So yes, I have in the past deliberately and with malice aforethought canvassed for people with actual expertise in the subject to weigh in on the AFD instead of allowing whatever runny nose happens to wander by to decide the issue. SmashTheState ( talk) 23:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a fine line between canvassing those who you think will agree with you and canvassing those whom you deem will have the proper "expertise". History has shown that if judgment of proper expertise regarding a decision is left up to an individual who has a strong opinion regarding that decision, he may inevitably feel that those who agree with him are the ones who are experts. It's best to canvass individuals who might fall on both sides of a debate, or to refrain from doing it at all. For better or worse, Wikipedia runs on allowing whatever "runny-nose"d individual happens to walk by to weigh in on any issue. Regardless of whether or not you like that, you aren't permitted to try and "fix" or circumvent it -- but if you do feel that strongly against this truth, perhaps you might want to spend your time elsewhere. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This whole "no canvassing" thing is ridiculous. Yes, I'm always accused of making statements that violate WP:Battleground blah blah, but you know what? In a discussion there are two sides and even though we put a nice little ! in front of vote how many times does the closing admin mention the vote count? Too many to count! They are taken into consideration despite pleas by people like me who try to remind those that !vote not to put "per xy" and stupid sh*t like that, come up with a well thought out reason in your own words. So, canvassing can "rally the troops" as long as who you are going to is someone with a vested interest, knowledge on the subject, and has intelligence to speak their OWN thoughts. Going to a wikiproject that covers an article and saying "this article is up for AfD help out" is not canvassing. Going to other editors who have had a bad experience with editor xy and saying "i just took xy to AN/I thought you'd like to put your opinion there" is bad canvassing. Canvassing in a true attempt to further the goal of IMPROVING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA is gooooood, canvassing because of non-encyclopedic policy-wok issues or politik discussions like an/i etc is bad canvassing. Oh and ditto the above post without the mentioning of "wanking". Camelbinky ( talk) 23:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The policy is written the way it is to make it easier to apply. Who you canvas doesn't matter as much as why you canvas. The problem is that in both cases, its really not very clear. Sure, the creator might just be canvassing to get all the people who voted before to vote again, but he also might be doing it because he knows they'll all vote to keep. In the general sense, discussions do not need artificial balancing (especially ones where we're trying to get a consensus). If a discussion appears to be going one-sided, it may just be because most of the community agrees with that side, in which case bringing in people with the opposite view to "balance" it will actually be making it worse by giving the appearance that one view has more support than it really does. IMO, the only canvassing that should be allowed is "non-targeted" canvassing where a message is left at a relatively neutral location (like this page), rather than targeted at specific users. Mr. Z-man 18:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So User talk:Equazcion basically, WiKKKipedia: LOVE it or LEAVE it! I think it can be reformed. The problem is that intelligent people will never want to spend as much time on this project as obsessive nerds who will make Wikipedia in their own image. Okay, so maybe we should all just concentrate on fixing the outside world first. Mundilfari ( talk) 02:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the inital question, I think it is helpful to review the guideline WP:CANVASS. In particular, it does not say one is prohibited from informing individual editors about an issue. It provides guidance to help understand what is allowed and what is not.

One of the key items is transparency. Don't simply put a notice on the talk pages of D, E and F notifying them of an AfD. Do that, but add a note to the Afd, indicating that you have notified D,E, and F, because they had voted before. Perhaps someone else will note that while you think C is retired, they really haven't and add a friendly notice to that editor as well.

This doesn't change your observation that one can dream up new examples, where the conclusion is less clear, but I think the general advice given is decent.-- SPhilbrick T 16:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel that given that the ultimate outcome of a vandalism only account is typically an indefinite block, we should use a different warning template that makes it clearer that if the user vandalizes after last warning, not only will they be blocked, but they will be permanently blocked. Immunize ( talk) 20:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I see the point. Chances are that a person who has already ignored two or three warnings to stop is not going to be impressed by that. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Still, I feel it is inappropriate to use the same warning templates for an IP vandal, who will probably get a 24-36 hour block (if there is no prior block history) and a vandalism-only account, who will likely receive a permanent block. Immunize ( talk) 20:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it is inappropriate. It makes no mention at all of block duration, which is why we can use it for both types of users. Keep in mind that an indefinite block is not necessarily an infinite block, they can still request unblock in the usual manner. I have seen ip accounts that are repeat offenders get blocked for as long as five years, which might as well be forever. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And we have a few editors who began as vandal-only accounts, and have since turned out to be fantastic editors. They obviously weren't "permanently" blocked. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I see specific examples of where this has happened? Immunize ( talk) 15:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't emphasize the permanence of a block, because it dares the vandal to re-register, use public computers, or otherwise evade the block. Threats we can't enforce are the opposite of "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Art LaPella ( talk) 03:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The vandal immortalized in User:Xenocidic/RFAQ went on to become a constructive contributor. They were originally an IP-vandal, though. – xeno ^talk 22:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion originated here.

Lately, images have been added to the infoboxes of a lot of Chicago building/sculpture/etc articles that display a map of the area immediately surrounding the article's subject (see McDonald's Cycle Center for example). Bascially, I find these images to be rather useless considering their size. I also think they are redundant with {{ Coord}}, which gives readers immediate access to a better, more user friendly map. Finally, I think the prominent placement of these maps gives undue weight to the locations of the subjects of these articles and takes away from other more relevant information in the infoboxes. Wikipedia is not an atlas. Considering the fact that this feature has been implimented in several infoboxes now and can be used in any articles, I would like to know what everyone's stance is on these maps in articles and what kind of policy there is concerning it (if any). -- Torsodog ^Talk 18:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As stated in the original discussion, I feel maps are as useful for buildings/structures as they are for municipalities. I am always disappointed if I look up a municipality and it does not have a map. I feel adding maps to other features would be helpful to the reader. A map is not redundant with the coordinates for buildings just like it is not so for municipalities.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I should have also mentioned, that I'm not against maps entirely. For example, I'm not against having maps for municipalities, as I believe that information is much more relevant to the subject than it is for many of the building/POI articles. -- Torsodog ^Talk 18:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Torso, all places on wikipedia have coordinates. Coordinates however do not visualize the location of a place on an encyclopedia page. Digits mean nothing to the reader unless they look at the place in satellite detail externally. By your perception of this all maps on wikipedia would be redundant because the article has coordinates. Maps are encyclopedic, and it is not as if we are going into overkill here. See Merle Reskin Theatre. I've made a pushpin locator of the Chicago Loop showing its street location and it has a window in the corner indicating where in Chicago it is. Now if people don't know where Chicago is they click the wiki globe or visit the article. The question is whether or not the article is imporved having this map or whether or not it is actually better off without it. I think a simple locator identifying its place on a set map is perfect to casually give the reader an idea of where it is. Then there are Template:Location map United States Chicago to display places further afield giving a wider view. These options are surely a good thing, once we import the French wiki technology with clikcable maps then people can have the choice to zoom in at different levels. But what Torso is seemingly saying here is that all maps on wikipedia are redundant because we have coordinates. No we are not Wiki Atlas but a limited number of maps which inform the reader where the suject is is encyclopedic in my view. Anybody diagree with my view that a map or two locating a place is perfectly acceptable and useful? In my view the current map which Tony changed to, McDonald's Cycle Center because of your concerns about it being redundant to the other map is actually less useful because the Loop map now has a side locator where in Chicago it is. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the coordinates themselves mean very little, but those coordinates link directly to external maps that are much, much better and much, much more useful than anything we could supply. For example, look at the map in Merle Reskin Theatre. I challenge anyone that isn't already familiar with Chicago to decipher what is going on in that image. Especially in the thumbnail size in which it is presented in the article. If it is virtually unreadable in the thumbnail size, why include it at all? In short, the argument I'm making here is that readers gain virtually no knowledge from the maps as they are displayed in the article, making them useless. And no, I'm not saying maps are completely useless. For example, the map in Chinatown (Chicago) is very useful to readers. -- Torsodog ^Talk 19:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The infobox location maps are not only unhelpful, but actively destructive. They rob valuable screen space away from actual information at the top of the article. The coordinates link to a map just fine. -- Knulclunk ( talk) 23:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The infobox maps in question, which I dont know if they are limited to Chicagoland area articles or not, are as Torsodog says extremely hard to desipher. I believe if I remember correctly from my GIS classes in college that any map with colors that arent inherently easy to decipher shouldnt be used, I have no idea in those maps the colors of the different roads. The support I see coming out here for the inclusion of the maps seems to be in opposition to the idea that Wikipedia is not a travel guide... Camelbinky ( talk) 00:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the maps add quite a bit to the articles. I looked at the example above, and it increased my understanding quite a bit in about half a second. I was only vaguely aware of the coord thing, and I don't think the average reader has any idea of what it can do, and probably doesn't want to leave the article to do it. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 03:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It increased your understanding of... what exactly? Do you think the amount of user attention it immediately grabs is best used to show a tiny map of where a building is located within a city? That space could and should be much better used. Maps have their place, but they should not be inserted into the infoboxes of every article having to do with a structure or building. -- Torsodog ^Talk 03:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I too believe that the map is a useful addition to the Merle Reskin Theatre article. However, I would suggest that it should be at the bottom of the infobox. (Have both an image and a map at the top looks a bit too much...) Bluap ( talk) 03:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• As a resident of Chicago (and therefore perhaps more able than most to interpret the maps in question), I concur with Torsodog that these maps have minimal informational value. (I was unfamiliar with the name "Merle Reskin Theatre", only having been there when it was still called the Blackstone, and the map in that article seems basically useless to me—especially since the enlarged view one sees when one clicks on the map to go to the file page has no indication of the theater's location.) The interactive mapping services linked through {{ Coord}}/GeoHack are of much greater usefulness to our readers. Deor ( talk) 01:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• This discussion may be better placed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes) where people who are more involved in infoboxes might be found; and if there is some consensus as to the use of maps within infoboxes, that page is where such consensus would be usefully placed. SilkTork * ^YES! 17:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that is simply taking the discussion away to a tiny corner of the wikipedia-verse that would be over-populated by users interested in arcane infobox protection. This is a question for the community-at-large actually affecting our articles. It should be handled by those of us that actually edit articles. More open the better. Camelbinky ( talk) 06:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Torso and others. Given the scale, the maps are useless unless one is already somewhat familiar with Chicago. Moreover in, say Merle Reskin Theatre, clicking on the map to get a better resolution doesn't work since you simply get the background png. I don't see it as a question of redundancy with the coordinates but it is true that the reader would be best served by getting a map from an external website. I also agree that the maps eat up valuable space and the resulting height of the infobox can collide with images below. On my screen, this is already the case for Chicago Loop (which is not a great example since at least one of the two maps there should be included). Pichpich ( talk) 12:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

xtra note. After looking at a few examples, I'm definitely convinced that maps are a plus for areas (neighbourhood, district, etc.) and a minus for points (buildings, venues, etc.). Pichpich ( talk) 13:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See here. Please comment. But I'd have to disagree with you about maps being useless for local buildings. I'm not from Chicago, but I think the map I added to Merle Reskin conveys encyclopedic information. I can look at it and see roughly where the building is located in relation to the coast and also what area of Chicago and Illinois it is from the corner window. This to me is much more informative than no map at all in my thought process. A lot of people do not want to leave the page and looks at google maps. I agree that the ideal would be a zoomable map locator in which the reader can zoom in to exact street level with the building and streets clearly marked and then zoom out and see where it is. This would be ideal, but it may be along time before we get that kind of technology. As it is I've made a clickable mapping proposal for different scale map viewing. Buildings are still locations and as an encyclopedia we must provide the best possbible information of its location to the viewer. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the French wiki's trick is cute. Nevertheless, my own preference would be to leave out the map for buildings but keep it for areas. But I have no solid arguments beyond what I think looks best. Pichpich ( talk) 21:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak to the Chicago article maps, as my focus is more on bridges. A bridge generally doesn't have an address, as a building does. The {{ infobox bridge}} maps give a general idea of where a bridge is. If you want a more specific understanding, you click the {{ coord}} link. I suspect the usefulness of {{ location map}} may be rather article-specific. - Denimadept ( talk) 16:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, is there a template, more general than {{ location map}} or {{ coord}}, to which you can give a street address and get a map? I'd think one which could take a street address or a coordinate pair would be quite nice. It'd also be good if its implementation of the "scale" parameter was easier to understand. - Denimadept ( talk) 16:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, I never really thought about the fact that buildings have specific addresses. Thinking it over, I think I'm against using these maps for anything that has a physical address that is already in the infobox. That is the only location information needed, in my opinion (there may be special exceptions, of course). If a reader wants to see what is close to the building or how to get there, they can either click the coord template we already provide or look it up on their own. I don't think that information is really needed in an encyclopedia. These maps are good for areas, mountains, bridges, etc though. -- Torsodog ^Talk 16:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am copying this from the WikiProject:Chicago talk page as my opinion is unchanged. "I really like maps and I like the series of locator maps Dr. Blofeld has made - thanks again! At the same time, I am fairly familiar with Chicago (though I have not been there for several years, alas), so I look at those maps and they are clear to me. However, I am not sure how useful they are to the average reader. A slight digression - when I lived in Europe I kept a small map of the United States in my pocket as I found that many people (even those who were well educated and interested in the US) had only a very vague knowledge of the location of most of the states. I am guessing the average reader of Wikipedia would have a some difficulty putting a dot on the exact location of Chicago on a world or US map. If that is the case (and I could be wrong), then I am not sure how useful a map of the Metro area or Loop is. The French Wikipedia has a really cool feature where you can toggle back and forth between a map of the country and of the state - see fr:Parc d'État de Black Moshannon for an example. If we could do something like that, I think that would be really cool." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any user group who can view (but not undelete) the deleted contributions of a user? I feel that this would be useful in a number of ways, including being able to, at an RfA, view a candidates deleted articles as well as there CSD tagging. Immunize ( talk) 13:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, only admins and crats can view deleted contributions. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 13:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And its going to stay that way, its been explicitly vetoed by the foundations legal counsel, [19]-- Jac16888 ^Talk 13:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Support for that idea withdrawn. Immunize ( talk) 13:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Very, very minor point of clarification: it's admins that can view deleted contributions. Bureaucrats can view deleted content simply because all bureaucrats are also administrators (due to tradition, rather than because of any technical reason). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The 'researcher' usergroup can "Search deleted pages" and "View deleted history entries, without their associated text", but is assigned only by specific order of the Foundation. – xeno ^talk 14:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like to proposed the creation of a new CSD criterion, CSD#A11, for use by patrollers, vandal reverters, etc.; to cover the rapid removal of any and all totally unsourced BLP pages which exist on WP. I have recently come across an article which fitted the above description, gone to tag it with Twinkle, and discovered that not one of the available CSD criteria fits Unsourced BLP.

Since the material was potentially libellous, I added a db followed by the reason, and was told "Please check WP:CSD for Valid Criteria". I'd say that wholly unreferenced, potentially libellous material about someone most people wouldn't know from a hole in the floor is a damn good reason to get it out of here, and quick.

Your thoughts please? BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 21:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you link to the article? And did you look to see if there were possible sources to be found? Silver seren ^C 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't have A7 or G10 applied? (For future reference, you can use {{ delete|1=reason}} if CSD criteria don't fit but the page clearly needs to go.) By the way, the page that you nominated (if it's the "murderer") had references, but they were inline. – xeno ^talk 21:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, the article has since been deleted, and off the top of my head, I can't remember the exact format of the article name. However, I did look for sources, and could not immediately spot anything, if there was stuff - I apologise. As for the CSD - Maybe A7 or G10 would have applied, but I'd consider a separate specific one for BLPs to be faster than trying to guess which Criteria an article falls under. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 21:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Was it the murderer, though? This was linked inline. – xeno ^talk 21:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, yes it was. I didn't see the ref links for it, and no links at the bottom. I tagged it using twinkle, so I didn't even see the editable version of the page. I boobed, ok? :) Either way, let's move off the article, and onto the purpose of my putting this here, the proposal for the new CSD. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 21:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not trying to get you in trouble; just wanted to be sure we were on the same page. As for your proposal, isn't it adequately covered by G10 "negative unsourced BLP" ? – xeno ^talk 21:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That could be the problem then. I need to talk to Amalthea and get them to change the script for Twinkle, in which under CSD G10 - all you see is "Attack page" and the description mentions nothing to do with unsourced BLP. I'll speak to them about it and get that rectified if poss. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 22:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC) (this and previous message from Xeno bolded for clarity)

Sounds like a plan =) – xeno ^talk 22:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Outdented: Done. Plan in place :) See here. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 22:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If it had references, then an admin shouldn't have deleted it. It should have gone to AfD. What's up here? Silver seren ^C 21:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've pointed the deleting admin here. – xeno ^talk 21:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, back on topic. I don't think there should be a CSD for BLP's. My opinion on this is partially influenced by the fact that I do not agree with the automatic deletion of unreferenced BLPs as it is. I think they should be taken to AfD or PRODed if nothing can be found for them. PRODing is probably the best bet in these situations. A perfect example of how I feel, written by someone else. Silver seren ^C 21:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me add that if it has libelous information, that's different, but isn't that covered by some other CSD protocol? Silver seren ^C 21:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec x2) :Should an Unsourced BLP really be speedily deletable? We have templates to urge people to source the articles and a bot to notify projects, so I would expect at least a prod unless the page is patent nonsense or blatant slander. — Ost ( talk) 21:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Generally agree. An unsourced negative BLP is covered by G10, an unsourced positive/neutral BLP should be sticky prod'd. – xeno ^talk 21:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict times 4) Unsourced negative BLP articles are already covered by the "attack page" criterion, for other unsourced BLPs there is the new WP:BLPPROD. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I also dislike that there is great misuse of the new PROD, with people tagging unreferenced BLPs without even looking for sources. We've lost some good articles here and there. Silver seren ^C 21:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That isn't misuse of the process. Not requiring people to look for sources was an important part, otherwise its no better than what we had before. Articles that are actually unsourceable do not need a special process. Mr. Z-man 22:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Another simple approach is to delete unsourced statement(s). We debated this last year and the consensus was that an editor is not required to try to find references for unsourced statements in BLP articles – and may delete unsourced statements even if they don't obviously harm the subject. For example, an inadequately sourced claim about a BLP subject's age, education or work experience may be summarily deleted because we do not know what harm could be caused by an incorrect statement. After deleting these statements there will either be a core that is trivially easy to verify, or an almost empty article. In the latter case 'No content' (A3) or 'No indication of importance' (A7/A9) will apply and the article will satisfy the CSD criteria. - Pointillist ( talk) 21:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I would support a new CSD criterion to be used on unsourced BLP's. Immunize ( talk) 22:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. I suggested making new unsourced BLPs speedy deletable in the RFC earlier this year, however the consensus that emerged lead to the sticky prod. I'm not clear from the discussion above why some people want to reopen that debate. Sticky prods allow a reasonable time for unreferenced BLPs to be referenced, and this system seems to be working well. If people want to change the sticky prod process I'd suggest reopening the 7day v 10 day debate rather than the speedy v prod one. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that sticky PROD is the best approach. Once editors have edited out unsourced statements, there's no great urgency to dispose of the article. - Pointillist ( talk) 23:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that some patrollers tag articles within seconds of their initial creation—and that new editors frequently "save page" a couple of times before adding references—I am opposed to any effort that makes it more likely that a page will be deleted while a new editor is still adding sourceable content and/or sources to support it. I think that the current system is adequate. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

ec Agree with WereSpielChequers and Pointillist, the sticky prods seem to be working out fine and the number of unreferenced BLPs has been dropping steadily. J04n( talk page) 00:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy deletion of unsourced BLPs was overwhelmingly rejected by the community. We just spent a lot of time and effort developing the sticky PROD alternative, and it will suffice perfectly fine. Reso lute 02:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible alternative? What if we had a rule that unsourced BLP’s could be userfied on sight (adding a no-index template). This avoids biting of new contributors who don’t know the rules; their contribution isn’t zapped into the ether, but moved to an appropriate location. Adding the no-index means it is darn hard to stumble over, reducing the exposure created by an unsourced BLP in article-space. A new editor can’t move it back into article space without help, and the help presumably will ensure that sourcing exists. SPhilbrick T 12:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Although that sounds like a good idea, I would be concerned that some users would move there articles into the articlespace without adding refs, in which case I suppose we could use a BLP sticky PROD. Overall, however, the best idea still sounds to me like a CSD criterion to eliminate these articles. Immunize ( talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Userfying is still a rejection of someone's work, and in my view rather more bitey than someone prodded it for deletion, but then someone else referenced and rescued it. But more seriously userfying still leaves it on the internet, and though we can no index it that doesn't stop stuff being used for cyberbullying etc. Speedy deletion would make sense if both:

1. Few of the prods were being referenced and rescued and
2. There was a greater risk involved in having these articles sit around for a few days until referencing or deletion than much of our other material.

As neither seems to be the case, I suggest we leave the sticky prod process as one that gives several days to reference an article, and keep speedy deletion for uncontentious and obvious deletions. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: This proposal was initiated by someone who didn't realized that G10 could also apply to 'negative unsourced BLP'. Now that they do, they've withdrawn the proposal. There is no need to tweak it, modify it, oppose it, etc. If there wasn't a long-standing convention not to use archiving templates on pump threads, I'd be wrapping this one up. – xeno ^talk 13:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don’t see the issue as being fully resolved. I see two cases:

1. Unsourced BLP with negative information
2. Unsourced BLP without negative information

This discussion has clarified that Case 1 is covered in CSD as a G10. However, I don’t think we have clarity on what happens in Case 2. I think userfication is the best approach, but poking around, I see that I need to read more background on sticky prods and other related discussions, so I’ll try to do that before making a formal proposal. SPhilbrick T 15:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sticky prod. There is no specific speedy criteria for unsourced BLP without negative information (other criteria may apply); and as Resolute notes above, such a criteria was already handily rejected. In any case, new speedy criteria should be discussed at WT:CSD, not here (a note here pointing to the discussion is fine). – xeno ^talk 15:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying out the RevisionDelete feature on my sandbox, I'm finding it useful, but I'm somewhat confused — is there any situation in which I would be prohibited from using RevisionDelete but in which it would be appropriate to delete the entire page history and restore it minus one or two edits? In other words, imagine that there's a page with eight good edits, then one RD2 edit, and most recently a good edit — if it's appropriate to delete the page and restore the nine good edits, would it ever be inappropriate to use RevisionDelete on the RD2 edit? Nyttend ( talk) 02:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The policy that exists for use of this tool is at WP:REVDELETE, that has all the information on appropriateness. The Wordsmith ^Communicate 02:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you see, I linked to that page, which I've read. I'm asking for clarification of it. Nyttend ( talk) 02:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really. RevisionDelete makes that procedure somewhat deprecated. RevisionDelete does the same thing, but with increased accountability, and a wider range of options (three, instead of the traditional "delete everything about the edit"). The delete/restore thing continues to be useful for history merges, however. I hope that clarifies it a little. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Questions like this are probably best asked at WT:REVDEL. – xeno ^talk 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Two versions of the section of the NPOV policy alternatively entitled "A simple formulation" or "Assert facts" ( WP:ASF) are up for comparison. Please comment at WT:NPOV#RfC: Which version of "assert facts" do people prefer?.-- Kotniski ( talk) 08:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Subject_style_guide#RFC Gnevin ( talk) 09:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, we have currently a discussion in the Spanish Wikipedia about the benefits and problems of allowing any user (also IPs and non-autoconfirmed registered users) to create new pages. In this Wikipedia that's not possible. What we would like to understand is:

• since when you block suchs users to create new pages?
• what was you motivation to do so?
• what was the conclusion / impact?

Can somebody help me with some information? best regards, Poco a poco... ¡adelante! 08:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(1) Since December 2005 (2) Seigenthaler incident; it was done unilaterally by Jimbo (3) We can only speculate; I don't know of any analysis of the effect. Presumably, less articles are created, but then some of those would have been complete crap/libel, and it also slows down the flow of new articles, possibly making it more manageable, but we don't really know; this is just a naive "orthodox" speculative analysis. FWIW, no one's seen fit to turn it back on, though I think it's been discussed a couple times. Perhaps someone will point out those discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt answer, -- Poco a poco... ¡adelante! 08:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I was one of the editors who did some quick before/after comparisons of the rates of new article creation and deletion, which is one of the side effects of this change. Overall: this cuts back on the # of good new articles created -- it drives people away. It also cuts back on the total # of new pages created, and lowers the # of speedy deletions more than it lowers the # of good new articles.

I am not sure this is a good tradeoff. I would like to do a randomized test to se how likely anons are to become long-term editors if

• their first edits are good
• their first new article creation (as an anon) is good
• they are forced to log in to create an article.

– SJ + 04:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters much when there is additional hostile attitudes towards new articles. I just created a new article here, and after putting in just two sentences it was nominated immediately for a speedy deletion... about 10 minutes after it was created. While I will admit this was the work of but one editor, I do think it shows a pervasive attitude that anything new or different is bad, including simply a new article (in that case it was an article about a rather interesting company I had just found some information about).

Mind you, I was a long-time editor well familiar with Wikipedia policies knowing full well that the deletion criteria cited didn't really apply. I had a couple other "helpers" come into the article within a couple of days of the creation of the article for other things, and I would be curious about how in general new contributors think about how their articles are prodded and poked. I'm still annoyed at some of the other "mark-up" tags that were placed immediately on this stub of an article, and a spirit of friendliness certainly was missing from some of the actions. This is in contrast to what I have experienced on other wiki projects where I've had some very genuinely friendly suggestions and legitimately constructive criticism of some of what I've written.

In other words, this is something specific to Wikipedia and the user climate here and not just editing on a wiki in general. The pervasive attitude that new users are a dime a dozen and if you scare off a few hundred, there will be hundreds more waiting in the wings to come into the project is something that for me needs to change. I don't know how to get that fixed, and certainly the learning curve seems to be increasing for those new to Wikipedia in the first place. As a casual and only occasional contributor to Wikipedia, I certainly have noticed the changes over the past couple of years alone, where more and more is expected of contributors by those who are on recent changes patrol and doing other clean-up work. I don't think it is isolated to a specific user here either. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 00:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

By "about ten minutes", Robert means "three minutes". That editor ought to be smacked (or have his Twinkle privs revoked). New pages really ought to be given a grace period of at least ten minutes before anyone spams tags into them. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Let the trout smacking commence! Silver seren ^C 00:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But the point to evaluate this implementation in other wikis is: was it a good, positive decision for this project? The rate of creation of articles increased, decreased, register any change after the implementation? Did this just avoid the creation of bad articles or also good ones? Wikisilki ( talk) 13:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it comes down to which do we want more, a continued high rate of new articles that will increase the likelihood of good ones being made and kept, but will require higher amounts of patrolling and tagging to get rid of the bad ones? Or do we want less necessary patrolling, tagging, and editor time on such things, with the trade off that there will be less new good articles coming in because of it? I prefer the former, personally. Editors need to not be lazy and work harder. Our job here is to make the encyclopedia grow, not make less work for ourselves to do. Silver seren ^C 00:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're prepared to put your money where you mouth is, then please click here and here and let me know when you're done. Clearing this backlog (looks like about 5,000 pages in the one, and 2,600 in the other, with maybe about 10% overlap) is one of the things that your "not lazy" editors need to do if they want the community to continue supporting open article creation policies. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

After rereading the heading to this page, it looks like this is the place to ask the question I referred to above, so here it is. I asked a similar question at the Commons Village Pump but haven't gotten an answer yet. My question is: if you want to delete a gallery from a Wikimedia page and move it to Commons, as the Wikimedia policy provides, what should be done if some images in a gallery don't meet Wikicommons permissions standards? For instance, the checklist at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_images_to_the_Commons says: Is the copyright owner/author identified, or evidence that a search has determined it was anonymous? If no, do not move. Several images in the Wikipedia Rhodes gallery have no Author: field and the contributor user name is a red link. If I'm correct that these images don't qualify for commons (and f I've got this wrong, please tell me), then I can't move the gallery wholesale, right? So do I really have to add the individual images from the Wikipedia Rhodes gallery that do qualify for Commons to Commons one at a time? And do I have to then recreate a gallery with those images in Commons? But in that case I wouldn't really be moving the gallery from Wikipedia to Commons. So I would be tempted just to not create the gallery, but then I also wouldn't be "moving the gallery to Commons" as the Wikpedia policy calls for. So the question is: what is to be done with a Wikipedia gallery that should be moved to commons if a significant number of its images aren't qualified for Commons? A related question is if the Commons tag on a Wikipedia page would bring up a set of pictures identical or close to identical with the gallery on the Wikipedia page, would it in this case conform to the Wikipedia policy to just delete the gallery and leave the the Commons tag, on the grounds the the tag provides a "virtual" gallery (see Antinous for an example.) Thanks for any opinions. Strawberryjampot ( talk) 22:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Images can only be moved to Commons one at a time, as far as I know. So you would move to Commons those images that were appropriately licensed for Commons and leave the others on en Wikipedia. Note that a gallery in a Wikipedia article is just a series of image links, albeit coded to render as a "gallery" - you cannot "move a gallery" to Commons. –  ukexpat ( talk) 00:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Images must clearly indicate their authorship, both here and there. If a file uploaded here does not have enough information, not only it shouldn't be moved to Commons, it should also be tagged as missing such information, or even nominated for deletion if that's the case.

However, this applies mostly to images created by someone else, outside Wikipedia or Commons, as locating the authorship may involve a level of work that the uploader may had neglected. When the creator (not simply the uploader) is a user of one of our projects, such as when taking a photo, then correct atribution is a mere technical issue. A red link in the author field means nothing: it simply means that this user hasn't bothered to create a user page yet. The user exists anyway, regardless of having a user page or not, and is perfectly capable of releasing a work he created into the public domain. MBelgrano ( talk) 11:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have created a request for comment on the flagged revisions trial, motivated by an unexpected, unannounced and publicly undiscussed change of configuration removing the reviewer usergroup. Please weigh in there. Cenarium ( talk) 12:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's my belief we need to discuss wordsmithing Deletion policy and various XFD guidelines, to ensure consistent wording. I'm not proposing policy changes at this time, simply clarification, but I assume policy wonks will be interested. I've written up the issue here.-- SPhilbrick T 16:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been proposed that Wikipedia_:Subject_style_guide be marks as a guideline. See Wikipedia_talk:Subject_style_guide#RFC Gnevin ( talk) 16:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Could I propose a minor change in interpretation of this speedy category? At present artles only qualify if the words or the syntax are at variance with normal English usage; that is to say, if that do not make sense. From time to time articles are submitted wherein the usage of language as such is correct, but the actual message of the article itself could be seen as nonsense. Example "my mother is a horse and sleeps in a stable". Obviously vandalism, and speediable as such. But not, within current definitions, nonsense, although it clearly is. There are perhaps more marginal examples, which most of us have seen. Given that the usual safeguards regarding WP:DRV remain in place, is there a consensus to widen the definition of nonsense to encompass this type of edit? I recognise that this requires a slightly greater degree of initiative on the part of the closing admin, but i feel that we are capable of this. -- Anthony.bradbury ^"talk" 21:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

oppose Admins are capable of greater initiative. But I don't think the community wants admins to take greater initative wrt speedies. I know I don't want admins to. Taemyr ( talk) 22:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I was only trying to tidy things up a bit! -- Anthony.bradbury ^"talk" 22:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a very good idea, though I suspect it would be best to propose at the talk page of WP:CSD and then post notices here and any other appropriate places inviting folks to the discussion. Don't let one person's opposing you make think it is an invalid idea, certainly seems worth discussion at the least. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 22:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

DRV isn't much of a safeguard - it's hard enough to use when you are already familiar with the article in question, but for speedied articles, which one may not actually have seen, it's useless. Also - DRV is offputting to experienced editors, let alone to newbies. Speedy criteria need to be very tightly drawn precisely because they exclude the community from the decision process. I'm sure many admins are capable of initiative, it's their insight I worry about. DuncanHill ( talk) 22:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Your example is already close enough to "incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history" to be speedily deleted. There is no meaningful content and it is gibberish. Nobody could in good faith argue that this is not patent nonsense, no matter the wording of our policies. Fences& Windows 00:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well "my mother is a horse and sleeps in a stable" is an obvious hoax - i.e. WP:CSD#G3. Regardless of that, there's always IAR and WP:CSD#G6 for totally uncontroversial stuff that doesn't quite fit any other criterion e.g 49507. CIreland ( talk) 01:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Categorization ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Sources ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Per comments of Jimbo on Commons, there is now a new interpretation of the existing polices regarding sexual content. Basically all images that might potentially require 2257 record keeping and that do not serve a current educational purpose are to be deleted instantly. Undeletion of these images can be discussed on a case by case basis. The effects of this new policy can already be witnessed by the removal of images in our articles by CommonsDelinker. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, if it is used in an article shouldn't it at least have an initial presumption of having an educational purpose? (Though there are plenty images that did not appear in articles too.) Dragons flight ( talk) 12:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The talk page you linked doesn't exist. Where can we discuss this with Commons people? I would say, if we (or any project) are currently using an image, then it does "serve a current educational purpose". OrangeDog ( τ • ε) 12:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the talk page link above. Dragons flight ( talk) 12:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What does 2257 means? MBelgrano ( talk) 12:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See 2257 (seriously). -- Cybercobra (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

More specifically, see Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, a provision of US law that "places stringent record-keeping requirements on the producers of actual, sexually explicit materials". I'm not sure if the law specifically requires the comma splice or not. — Gavia immer ( talk) 12:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wether or not the Foundation is subject to that law, is in doubt, but US producers of material with sexual content definitely are. Those requirements will now be used to exercise self censorship. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not the Foundation is subject to that law, it does affect the ability of third parties to reuse such images in the United States, if only as a "chilling effect". I think it's reasonable for Commons, as a project, to care about that. — Gavia immer ( talk) 13:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well, Mr Wales is both the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of all Wikimedia projects (in as much as he has the overriding power to control both policy and content without consensus or consultation, and to ban editors on any project and globally), I suppose he must be personally legally liable for any material that breaches applicable laws, and it's fair enough for him to seek to protect himself. It is just a pity that our policies and guidelines do not reflect this reality. DuncanHill ( talk) 13:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  You know, in principle at least, Wales ceded personal and financial control to the Wikimedia Foundation long ago. He has a seat on the Board, but he should have no day-to-day editorial control (again, in principle), since Board members have no individual powers, only collective powers over certain very large scale policy. Personally, I don't think Wales does have any personal liability at this point, but if he does, it would seem to be because he chose to remain involved rather than merely accept the background role that he nominally has at this point. Dragons flight ( talk) 13:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You suppose incorrectly. Mr. Wales is not personally liable for content hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into the legalities too much, Wikipedia and associated projects are set up so that Wales and anyone else at the foundation are most certainly not seen by the law as 'editor-in-chief' or indeed anything else of the nature (well until one of them gets dragged into court and we see a ruling that says different). That's also why he has to be careful to use language like "I support" rather than "I direct". -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A support from Mr Wales means "this will happen". He has shown on many occasions that he does retain overall editorial control over policy and content. As I said, it's perfectly in order given this for him to seek to protect himself by directing the removal of content and admins he finds worrisome. DuncanHill ( talk) 13:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a cultural response to his uttering, I was talking about the legal reasons why he cannot be directive (because that *would' establish the sort of relationship he does not want). -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A support from Jimbo should mean no more or less than a support from anyone else. Believing otherwise is a major flaw of this community. That said, Jimbo is a foundation board member, and if the board agrees with him, or if Mike Godwin agrees, then that is a different issue. Personally, I don't believe the correct answer when Jimbo says "jump" should ever be "how high?" Reso lute 16:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's probably roughly what everyone here is thinking. The commons delinker summaries at Wikipedia contain "...has been deleted from Commons by Jimbo Wales because: Out of project scope". I'm not privy to the discussion that led to this decision, but it seems rather like a unilateral decree by our lord and master; a board member's name wouldn't need to be part of the rationale otherwise. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This was a drawing, so it wouldn't have been subject to any such verification. Looks like Wikipedia just isn't as uncensored as it used to be. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Today Jimmy has taken this to a whole other level by going as far as deleting art work and historic material. I cannot condone that and have retired from Commons. If the foundation does not solve this problem, I will retire from the English Wikipedia as well, hand in my fresh mediawiki commit access and actively campaign to start a european fork of the foundation projects. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that he's going against enwiki and commons consensus, and several WMF members have also disagreed, I sow the idea that perhaps someone should desysop him. Do it while he's sleeping or he'll get you first :p OrangeDog ( τ • ε) 19:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It would take a crat with pretty big balls to do that. Also, technically, he hasn't done anything on EN to warrant losing the bit. Commons is an entirely different matter though. Perhaps re-upload the art work he is destroying locally? Reso lute 19:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think if we got consensus to re-up the artwork here at EN, that would justify doing it. I'll start a proposal. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wales is out of line here. He is not the chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation; Michael Snow is. He's not the executive director; Sue Gardner is. The board of the Wikimedia foundation could order this by resolution, but they have not done so. If Wales is wound up about this issue, his proper remedy is to call a special meeting of the Wikimedia Foundation board and convince them to change the rules. Wales is the founder, but he is no longer part of Wikimedia management. He's gone on to other things. He needs to realize that. -- John Nagle ( talk) 19:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Dear god, Fox News is taking the credit. Silver seren ^C 20:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • See WP:VPR#Re-upload Commons artwork that's been deleted by Jimbo Wales. I'm going to also say that I want this consensus to succeed, but I'm not sure if I worded the proposal in the best way possible. There are more eloquent people on this wiki than I. If anyone thinks my words could benefit from tweaking or adding etc. they can actually feel reasonably free to edit my initial statement. If you do edit it, perhaps add your signature to mine at the end. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me start by saying I abhor censorship and firmly believe that adults can make up their own minds about such things. That being said, Jimbo has been pretty clear on his Commons talk page that what he is attempting to undertake is a big, messy purge that will require a lot of cleanup when it is over. They seem to be doing a general sweep, deleting entire categories of images that might not be acceptable, with the plan to go back through later and find those that actually served some purpose to these projects and were not just somebody's homemade porn that they were using Commons to host. Anyone who has looked around over there would have to admit there was an awful lot of that going on. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

But will we find them all again? Some of them will slip through the cracks because of this. Silver seren ^C 20:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So, what, we might only be able to find 5 anal creampie images, and not all 10? Oh noes! I'm all for porn images, as long as it is being used in an article somewhere and there is merit for doing so. But alot of it is there simply because the Commons is a big, free dumping ground. Tarc ( talk) 21:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually currently we have 0 and even illustrations and drawings of such acts have been deleted by Jimbo. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that CommonsDelinker removes traces of the pic. Someone has to remember just what the pic was AND that it was there. Beyonds the facial pic, I noticed at lolicon a pic was deleted that was a picture of manga (Japanese comics) in a store. It certainly was as far from gratuitous as it gets. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 22:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And the thing you don't seem to understand, Tarc, is that a large amount of the deleted images were historical artwork by famous artists or images of that nature. Images that are essential and were in use in articles. The images deleted were not just blatant sexual pornography, as you seem to think they are. In fact, it doesn't appear that any images of gay pornography have been deleted and there are a few blatant ones out there. Silver seren ^C 22:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You can see which files were on which pages by using http://toolserver.org/~delinker/index.php. Use underscores instead of spaces in the title input. Killiondude ( talk) 22:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You can also check the diffs in User:CommonsDelinker's contribs. Jimbo's deletions contain "Jimbo Wales" in the edit summary. In fact someone with some regular expression skills could pretty easily make a list of diff links from the Delinker edits, each of which would show the image title and caption that were removed due to Jimbo's deletions. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a list of some deletions, which doesn't include deletions by other admins or deletions before May 4 (but I can generate a list of those for you upon request). The word "removed" is the diff link, which if you are using default settings, could show other disturbing pictures still in the article beneath. It is rather disturbing that some of these were on an admin's user page. PleaseStand ^(talk) 00:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• If anyone noticed, Fox News updated their article that I linked to above. Yahoo! apparently responded to the allegation of Wikipedia having obscene stuff that Fox sent it by saying that they give their employees $50 charity gift cards that they can spend on any charity they want and they do not believe that Wikipedia hosts anything illegal or obscene. Thank you Yahoo! for not believing Fox's BS. Silver seren ^C 23:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Mr. Wales has done a pretty fabulous job of creating a walled garden of editorial freedom from social, culture and legal restrictions that plague modern society. His reacting quickly to an emerging threat to Wikipedia is quite appropriate. Complaints to the contrary are naive about how quickly things can go to crap. (e.g. Deepwater Horizon oil spill or Stock_market_crash#May_Day_Crash) Gerardw ( talk) 13:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Time to move Commons images back?

One thing this incident is making clear is that relying on images hosted on a site over which the Wikipedia editors and admins have next to no say is probably not in our best interest long-term. Should practices here be changed so that suitably-licensed images are no longer moved to Commons, and should we consider moving images back even if Commons does have a copy right now in order to avoid future disruption if one of the Commons admins does decide to delete them? - makomk ( talk) 11:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be an unproductive knee-jerk reaction. Becaus of a teeny tiny fraction of disputed content you flush all the benefits of a shared repository down the drain. Plus you should not be kidding yourselves, en.wp is not untouchable by the board of trustees. The same thing can happen here. -- Dschwen 13:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone construct a list of deleted Commons images linked from English Wikipedia articles? Those represent Wikipedia problems that need to be dealt with in some way. -- John Nagle ( talk) 16:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that would require a Commons admin to accomplish, you might want to ask around over there, there probably is somebody keeping a record of this. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned in the section above, CommonsDelinker's contribs can show this. Here's an example of a list I generated for the Commons images Jimbo Wales deleted after May 4 that were used on pages here (sorted reverse-chronologically, sorry). If you want other Commons admins included, you can ask me below to do so—I watch all sections of the Village Pump. PleaseStand ^(talk) 18:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If you generate your list based on Delinker summaries containing "Out of project scope", you can get a more complete listing that includes other admins' deletions as a result of the recent hubbub. There's no guarantee that all other admins used this summary, but I don't think that rationale was ever used before this debacle, at least. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Another common deletion summary (used for ~80 deletions so far) contains the phrase "porn site" (as in Commons is not an amateur porn site or similar). -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 18:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please let us address this at Commons. Trying to distance ourselves from Commons, where there is overwhelming opposition to the change and/or the manner in which it was carried out (see Commons:Village pump#Support?), is not the solution. We must address the problem—namely, out-of-process deletion on Commons of content which depicts sex or nudity—at its root, rather than trying to isolate ourselves from the problem.

Pages on Commons on which relevant discussions are taking place include:

1. Commons:Village pump;
2. Commons talk:Sexual content;
3. Commons:Deletion requests;
4. Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests; and
5. User talk:Jimbo Wales

Please join the discussions there. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 18:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd support this. Commons has deletion discussions that are essentially behind someone's back. If an image is nominated for deletion or tagged, people on outside wikis get no notice. There is no real opportunity for users on the outside encyclopedias to try and address them. This has come up numerous times. I upload there only because I know they'll be automatically moved there. However if there was ever a problem with one of my images, I'd probably never know until it was too late. I have no other reason to go there. So I only go if I've got something to upload or an image has suddenly been removed from an article. This is intermittent at best. I could go weeks or months without stopping by there.-- Crossmr ( talk) 01:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr, there's really no such thing as "too late": Images (and anything else) that are deleted can be undeleted. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

How's that working on commons right now? It's too late because people might not be aware of which image was removed since they can no longer see it or what the issues with it might have been. Asking for an undelete when you can't address whatever the issue was (and not knowing what the issue was since page is now gone) is an arduous task most don't want to get involved in. a number of people involved in image work are far too over zealous like one editor I came across who started mass nominating images from flickr because they changed their link style and he couldn't spend the 2 seconds clicking on the still linked profiles to check the photos for the proper licenses.-- Crossmr ( talk) 06:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Progress is being made. Check out Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. Many of the images that were classic artworks or illustrated useful concepts have already been through deletion review and have been restored. On the other hand, some people were using Commons as a repository for their junk images, and those, in the absence of anyone willing to ask for restoral, remain deleted. -- John Nagle ( talk) 06:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It really would help if editors with any interest got involved in the undeletion requests. In order for images to be restored there has to be a consensus in favor. Only admins tend to take part as only they can see the deleted images. Many liberal admins (and other users) left the project when this started and the pro-censorship lobby is weighing in using the "new policy" as justification, even though this has largely been dismantled after debate on the Commons. Peter Damian is joining in on the side of a pro-deletion "consensus" and is probably organizing more via the Wikipedia Review. I think Wikipedians are sitting back, waiting and expecting this all to be fixed but all that's needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 22:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So called "consensus" does not enter into it. The fact remains that there is no valid rationale for the inclusion of this material. It seems to that if Wikipedia is going to have a picture of the emperor without his clothing, then there has to be a reason for doing so, else undue weight is being given to images that do not serve any educational purpose, in the same way image galleries have no rationale for inclusion. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 02:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies do not control Commons (a separate place, remember?), so it doesn't matter what Wikipedia's WP:NOTREPOSITORY or WP:UNDUE pages say. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find it does, but in a roundabout way. Like Wikipedia, there has to be a rationale for inclusion of controversial content. The more controversial, the greater the need for external validation for such material. Although the Commons does not have explicit polices such as WP:REDFLAG, such polices must effectively be in operation for Jimbo to actually take time out to delete content. If the Foundation has an educational raison d'etre, then I would have thought that the uploaders of pornagraphic material would need to provide verifiable evidence that such content has an educational purpose. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 09:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Collins's comment about pornographic material are a distraction. The problem is that Commons has differnet policies, procedures and IMO forms. Who wants to learn yet another bureacracy? -- Philcha ( talk) 10:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So should this ( File:Robert Wilson Shufeldt 19.jpg)this photo be banned? I'm not sure if she's 18, nor signed a release. 205.189.194.208 ( talk) 14:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Philcha, what is the rationale for inclusion? If providing support to History of photography were a rationale, then they should be kept.But since it does not link there (or to any other article), then I don't see even a hint of why it should be included. Don't get me wrong on this issue, I am no prude. What I think is that as editors, we should have right to create an article about any topic, or upload an image, no matter how controversial, but only as so long as there is external validation for doing so, which is our defence and our shield against those who oppose all images which feature nudity. On the other hand, if there is no external validation, then what is the rationale for uploading such images? What is the rationale for inclusion? What need do they satisfy? Unless an image has a verifiable educational rationale, I don't see why controversial images are needed at this time. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 21:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Some explicit pics have "a verifiable educational rationale" in articles about social behaviour, some about art, some about non-Western cultures (India and Japan jump to mind) and that's just off the top. -- Philcha ( talk) 22:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK the USA has cycles of repression and liberty (in some case licence) - Prohibition and the Roaring Twenties, which ran concurrently; the social reforms of the 1930s and early 1940s, and the associated literature, theatre and films, were following in the late 1940s and early 1950s by the House Committee on Un-American Activities; the 1960s and 1970s were dominated by liberty and social reforms, except where the Vietnam war was concerned; the 1980s and 1990s seem to be a long transitional period; now (up to 2010) the USA seems to have repression backed by religious and bureautic plus the business that pressed for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which makes it illegal to disable autorun on CDs and DVDs and thus allows the media suppliers to install rootkits on users' computers, make them vulnerable to malware. -- Philcha ( talk) 22:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

After some recent FAC attempts for School Rumble it was suggested I merge multiple reference tags into 1 link for non-contriversial statements (stuff like X number of items exist which might require 6 citations for 6 items). However, looking though policy/guidelines I find nothing to support this and talking with others I've heard other FAC requests that have them combined like that be broken up. I'm wondering what I should do? 陣 内 _Jinnai 14:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with whatever the consensus is on the article's talk page. If it goes against what the people at the FAC are saying, oh well.-- Rockfang ( talk) 18:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem with this is that the FAC requests one thing for some FACs and others for other FACs and then the anime Wikiproject (which this article falls under) doesn't know what to follow because of conflicting statements like that. 陣 内 _Jinnai 09:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a discussion at WT:FAC to agree a standard method. I suggest one of the delegates should be chairperson, and they may remember prevouus discussions.

Hopefully this would not delay this FAC, as there usually enough things to resolve. -- Philcha ( talk) 11:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am pleased to advise you that, effective immediately, requests for oversight/suppression will be accepted using the OTRS system. Please bear with us as the Oversight team becomes accustomed to this new method of receiving and replying to requests. We will strive to maintain timely service.

If you have found yourself reporting concerns to the oversight mailing list, please take a moment to add the new email address to your list of contacts: oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org

We look forward to continuing to work with the community in protecting the privacy of editors and others.

For the Oversight team,
Risker ( talk) 04:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

My suggestion is that there should be a section on WP:NOTABILITY which clearly defines that settlements or geographical locations are not inherently notable - i.e. that articles concerning settlements and geographical locations which do not meet WP:NOTABILITY should be deleted. All information concerning small settlements which do not meet WP:NOTABILITY should be placed in tables on suitably named pages: for example, if Acebedo was deemed to be non-notable, all information concerning it would be placed on the page List of municipalities in León. Currently, there is no official policy on geographical places. I endorse option two of the dormant policy Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations). Claritas ( talk) 16:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You've said What you propose but I'm not seing Why.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 16:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

See WT:N#Notability of small settlements for more discussion. -- MASEM ( t) 16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In a way that's helpful, but not completely. I read the first third of that and still haven't seen a clear statement as to why this proposed way would be better than current practice. I'll try to finish reading, but if you can zero me an specific post.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 17:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the discussion, I should have added a link to that myself. To answer Cube lurker, my major concern is that these articles are on subjects which have no notability and there is so little verifiable information about them that it's impossible to expand them out of stub form. They produce technical problems : it makes assessing articles much slower, for example. Also, people are spending a lot of time and effort creating them, which could be used to improve existing articles (I personally subscribe to WP:100K). It's basic Wikipedia policy that articles on non-notable subjects should be deleted. Claritas ( talk) 17:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I'm not really sold. I don't believe in practice that changing place stubs from stub articles to redirects and lists will somehow cause those editors to move on to turning other articles into FA's. I'm not sure that making the assesment process faster is a good reason to do anything. Seems like that leaves us with a debatable question, what is better, stub or list.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 18:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as instruction creep. The process you describe is what is already dictated by policy, no need to spell it out specifically for locations. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's indeed necessary. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodhiyar. Some editors are of the view that places are inherently notable, even when there is no significant coverage to back up that claim of notability. Claritas ( talk) 17:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That was closed as no consensus, not keep. That some users have their own interpretation of policy is not a reason to change it. Some users think that WP:N shouldn't even be a guideline, but it is regardless of their objections. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it was closed as a keep for Madhesra and Ratwara. The reason to create a policy is that there is currently not one, and consensus can widely differ in similar cases. Claritas ( talk) 17:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus and practice has always been that settlements can have their own articles, however small they are. Deletion proposals are routinely speedy closed on that basis. It's that that should be noted in the guidelines so that everyone is aware of it, regardless of the fact that a few deletion-mongers don't like it.-- Kotniski ( talk) 17:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support as verifiable evidence of notability cannot be infered, nor can it be seen through a crystal ball, nor is it inherited in the absence of significant coverage. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 17:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Since the concern of User:Claritas about Kodhiyar seems to be that it was unverifiable, isn't WP:V sufficient to have it deleted? Why attempt to change the longstanding consensus on the inclusion of all populated places under the gazetteer function of Wikipedia? Why not endorse Option Three of the dormant Notability (Geographic locations) proposal? Abductive ( reasoning) 18:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My real concern is that all these articles fail WP:NRVE. Claritas ( talk) 18:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CREEP and custom. What we need more urgently is some enforcement of WP:BURO and WP:NOTLAW to stifle the continual efforts by numerous editors to create rules which obstruct our work upon the encyclopedia. As in this case, these rules are typically original research, do not represent a neutral point of view and lack independent evidence. Colonel Warden ( talk) 18:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Additionally, almost all previous discussion in this area is linked from Wikipedia talk:Notability (populated places) (failed). OrangeDog ( τ •  ε) 18:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per precedent and as instruction creep. Also, remember that Wikipedia is in part a Gazetteer. -- Cybercobra (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a gazetteer; 5P only says that it "incorporates elements of" a gazetteer. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  Invariably in these discussions people take "gazetteer" to mean that all named populated places deserve an article. That means that whatever the wording in WP:5P, the consensus is that Wikipedia's gazetteer should contain an article on every verifiable named populated place or formerly populated place in the world. That would only be about 4-6 million articles. I strongly urge that people who feel differently concentrate on unverified places. Abductive ( reasoning) 22:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, hence the "in part". Also, didn't intend to imply that this is the only/canonical interpretation of that part of the Pillars. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as instruction creep, because settlements aren't unique in this respect. Nothing is inherently notable. However, it is extremely likely that reliable sources (meeting every single requirement of the WP:GNG, including significant coverage) do exist for practically every geographic location that is, or has ever been, within the service area of any newspaper. "My Favorite Web Search Engine doesn't give me any hits (in English) (with this spelling)" is not the same thing as "No reliable source has ever published significant information about this location." WP:N is about the second issue, not the first; notability is not controlled by what your FWSE indexes. To jump from "I didn't find it online" to "Therefore, I conclude that no reliable source has ever written about this" is a leap of logic that that enshrines WP:BIAS against developing countries. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Human settlements are one of those few topics where the notability equation (non-notable unless proved otherwise) can be safely turned the other way around. The idea of a settlement never being mentioned in any sources seems so strange and fantastic that I think it's right to put it on the deleter user to prove that there are no such sources, and to assume that there are in the lack of either evidence. MBelgrano ( talk) 22:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I oppose the idea because I don't think it's necessary - WP:N technically already calls for that , but it is merely an unwritten exception to the process that these are kept. The problem with these articles is that while it can be argued there will be sources for them, outright inclusion is simply not keeping with the spirit of WP being an discriminate summary of human knowledge. It's also the case that most sources will be highly localized, something that doesn't work for notability of any other topic (I can argue that pretty much any person in first-world countries could be called notable if we used the same standard presently in place for settlements) That's not to say we shouldn't have appropriate lists of these villages and other settlements, broken down with coords, population, etc., with redirects in place - that meets the standards for the gazetteer element and satisfies our discrimination policy. But when we include all these as their own individual articles, their existence is commonly used as a compliant about our notability guidelines being back-asswards and inconsistent. This presents a major major problem. Unless we can get consensus to flip to make WP more inclusive of fundamental topics we should cover and use notability as a last resort for all other topics, the inclusion of every human settlement remains in stark contrast to every other inclusion guideline we have.
• One of the things that I think we really should consider is a Wikiteer/Wikialtas sister project for the Foundation, where every geographical feature and human settlement can be laid out with maps and the like; that would leave WP's articles on such to be encyclopedic coverage of notable settlements. -- MASEM ( t) 23:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Masem's suggestion, if it can be implemented with some added value from our contributors (and without COPYVIO problems from map-makers etc). - Pointillist ( talk) 23:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - there is nothing wrong with stubs, you won't get people who have been creating these to go and do whatever else it is you think needs doing (people edit what interests them, not what you think should be done. Splitting off into a seperate gazetteer would reduce the usability of the Wikipedia - remember, Wikipedia isn't a bound paper book making your bookshelves creak. Would just give more opportunities to piss off newbies without giving anything of value in exchange. DuncanHill ( talk) 23:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • We're not paper, but we're also not indiscriminate. Furthermore, we're talking the major problem with articles like small settlements that newer editors would never touch, or smaller towns that editors that have vested interest in them (such as by living there or been raised there) may lead to COI issues. -- MASEM ( t) 00:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Living in a place is not like being the member of a music band or owning a commercial brand. The settlement, even if small, is still something "bigger" than the individual. Far from having a conflict of interest, someone who lives or knows a small settlement is precisely the kind of user that may be better qualified to provide the information and sources that would expand the stub into a good article that may stand on it's own right. MBelgrano ( talk) 03:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
      • But that type of information likely will not come from a reliable and/or independent source; it's one step removed from being the equivalent of self-publishing. Nor is necessarily living in a place anything special; again, the same arguments as to why small settlements can be presumed notable can apply to a lot of other topic areas that we require a lot stringent sourcing requirements.
      • Plus, done correctly, where we keep the articles but as redirects to larger lists, we still allow the ability for expansion should the notability of that settlement actually be established. -- MASEM ( t) 15:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Whenever a source is reliable or not is unrelated from whenever anyone can access to it anywhere in the world just by making some clicks in his web browser. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. It may be naive to think that anyone can write articles about anything, simply because the wiki software allows so. We can write stubs or translations with relative ease, but for really working in an article up to good or featured level, someone must have at least some level of previous expertise in the topic. MBelgrano ( talk) 17:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WhatamIdoing. While in many cases the stubby content about settlements might be more effectively presented in the context of an article about an encompassing area, whether to do so or not is best done on a case by case basis. older ≠ wiser 00:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Policy proposals should reflect consensus. The fact that villages and other human settlements consistently pass on AFD shows that this proposal in fact runs flat out against the consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't that circular reasoning?. People !vote "keep" in AFDs for small towns and settlements because "policy" doesn't prohibit them. However, propose to change the "policy" and that's opposed because people !vote "keep" in the AFDs. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 12:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but if you want to break the circle, this is not the point for doing so. Convince people to vote for "delete" at AFD, and if this approach becomes a common outcome that replaces the current one, we may consider writing it somewhere MBelgrano ( talk) 17:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• It's not circular; in AfDs people are pointing to previous outcomes in order to educate the nominators, who are usually unaware of the longstanding consensus. Abductive ( reasoning) 07:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support per my reasoning during the proposal I linked above. Given the number of times this comes up, there really is no consensus, so lets independently form one, instead of just agreeing with the previous perceived consensus. OrangeDog ( τ •  ε) 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Consensus shows that human settlements are inherently notable; witness how pretty much every AfD about a settlement is closed as keep. Sources generally exist somewhere for these sorts of articles, and deleting 10,000+ verified articles (it would easily be that many if you included every stub or one-source article in every country) en masse is not a constructive way to improve the encyclopedia. There's nothing wrong with assuming notability for human settlements; we already do so for species, top-level athletes, train stations, licensed radio and television stations, etc., and none of the one-source stubs in these categories get deleted. Settlements don't need to be different when those which verifiably exist never get deleted anyway. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction• Creation} 00:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  I don't actually think that the community supports anything being considered "inherently notable". I think the issue is only that, in the overwhelming majority of cases (but not actually 100% of the time), whenever we do sufficient research, we find plenty of sources. Consequently, if you're just guessing or working from noticeably incomplete information, the odds are very high that you're making a mistake if you guess that any given uncited settlement stub violates WP:N.
  Also, enshrining an "inherent notability" exception is pretty much painting a target on one section of Wikipedia, labeled "Hoaxers can be sure that we'll never delete articles about this subject." We do sometimes need to delete such pages. You might think of it this way: What subject is so important that we need to have a stub about it -- while simultaneously so unimportant that we don't care whether it's even possible to cite references for it? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Notability is only about the existence of the article, not about the article content. An hoax in an article about a settlement can be deleted as surely as an hoax anywhere else. And of course, if the settlement itself is the hoax (meaning, the settlemet doesn't actually exist, it's just an invention of someone) the deletion of such an article would be undisputed once such hoax is unveiled MBelgrano ( talk) 01:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that entirely unverifiable articles should be kept; in fact, if no sources can be found after sufficient effort, the page should be deleted. What I'm saying is that when settlements can be verified they should generally be kept, which does appear to be the consensus based on the result of numerous AfDs. The policy as proposed opens a huge space for stubs with one reference or easily verifiable but unreferenced stubs to be deleted because "there aren't enough sources to establish notability", etc.; pretty much what you argued in your oppose vote. The de facto inherent notability in the other categories I mentioned has not led to a flood of hoax articles because of the need for eventual verification, and I'm not proposing that we allow entirely unreferenced articles to stay that way forever. I'm saying that making an official statement that verified settlements, or unverified but easily verifiable settlements, are not inherently notable opens the floodgates for a lot of AfDs and a lot of work for the editors who write settlement articles that doesn't need to be done immediately. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction• Creation} 02:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• oppose to a shift without definition, before saying that places arent notable please define what would make a place notable because that is what isnt being said Gnan garra 11:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current practice is sensible and right. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. When sufficient research is done, references are found for even very small communities. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no reason to change current policy and there has been no good reasons stated for why it should be changed either. Silver seren ^C 20:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Wikipedia incorporates elements of gazetteers, according to the first pillar of Wikipedia. It's one of our bedrock principles. Among those elements we incorporate is a dedication to cataloging geographic information with as much completeness as is possible. We would be shirking out gazetteering duty if we were to decide that some human settlements are non-notable. Powers ^T 20:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • We are not dismissing the Gazetteer function of WP, since we can still do what a gazetteer does and provide lists of these settlements and population and location and other factual data in tables under various "Lists of settlements in X"-type articles. Gazetteers do not have separate pages about each of these, however; when we create a separate page, now we're functioning as an encyclopedia and need to treat the article as such, and if it can't be built out beyond those tabular facts, there's no point in the article. But having a page on each is difficult to continue to assert as acceptable as long as our notability guidelines are aimed at exclusive-unless-proven-otherwise. -- MASEM ( t) 21:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't agree with that assessment. Powers ^T 21:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. All places are "notable" per se and should be notable per se. We don't need deletionist micromanaging and rules creep — it it is a place, it is notable, period, be it a tiny village in Pakistan, a ghost town in Colorado, or a named section of the Antarctic ice. Carrite ( talk) 21:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)