The <ref>/<references> system was a godsend, and I kiss the devs every day for it. I am asking for a second, identical system - one for footnotes, which would use <note>/<notelist> or what not. For example, take a look at List of Governors of Alabama. The only use for references is as footnotes to the long table; I intend to start using this on my congressional tables articles, to replace things like the 'passages table' ( This is an example, the senate part).

However, this ceases to be great when you have a situation with notes AND references, an example being List of Governors of Colorado.

Should I submit a bugzilla feature request, or what? This would be great for list/table articles, where we need both footnotes and separate references. I think it's unfair to the reader to mix the two, especially in the common tiny font size for references.

An added bonus would be if we could trigger refs from inside notes, keeping the list/table that much cleaner. -- Golbez 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at how it was done in Harisu. Adrian M. H. 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Where is the use of that wiki-code explained?

{{ref_label|A|a|none}}

{{note_label|A|a|none}}

I think the code is similar to that used on this template:

Template:Summary of casualties of the 2003 invasion of Iraq -- Timeshifter 23:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I ... apparently submitted this to Bugzilla a year ago. =p -- Golbez 22:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but I accidentally put this into policy, not proposals. :( -- Golbez 23:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, it happens. At least you caught the mistake :). Jmlk 1 7 04:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That just shows that it is still a valid need. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the Wikipedia:articles about footnotes and you'll find things such as m:WikiCite (which I think is currently being tested). ( SEWilco 12:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Response to Timeshifter's question: I'm not sure, actually; I wasn't aware of that method until I saw that article at RFF. Adrian M. H. 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

See Template talk:Ref for the documentation on {{ ref}} and {{ note}} (or {{ ref label}} and {{ note label}}. I've done it in a confusing way at House of Leaves for citations within footnotes, which I'll look into improving now. – Pomte 16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering, if images are in the Commons area, it is ok to put them in image categories here, correct? Example Image:Ogle County Burlington Chicago and Quincy depot Oregon Il.jpg is in the Commons, but I have tagged it to a category here on the Wikipedia. I see other projects have done that, so I was doing it with them all that I found on Illinois. Just want to make sure that I am doing it right. Also put a project tag on the talk page. Thanks for letting me know if I am violating any policy.-- Kranar drogin 00:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Splash - tk 00:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. Just wanted to make sure.-- Kranar drogin 01:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions for details. Badagnani 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw a page where some anonymous IP put up an AfD, but never created an AfD discussion for it. Can I remove the orphaned AfD as vandalism? Squidfryerchef 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't remove it as vandalism, and if you know why the IP wanted to nominate it, it would be courteous to just create the discussion page for them (because IPs can't do that). But you can remove it if you don't know why it was nominated, just don't treat it as vandalism. - Amarkov moo! 16:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What about removing it as "nonsense"? Anyway I think the article should be kept, so I'm not going to nominate the article myself. But, no, this one-time IP didn't add any tags or discussion or even an edit summary. Squidfryerchef 16:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need to call it 'vandalism' or 'nonsense'? Do you have some reason to assume that the tag was placed in bad faith, and not just by a newbie who didn't know that he wouldn't be able to finish the nomination? You can just remove the tag with an edit summary indicating that the corresponding AfD was never created. (Alternatively, if the article probably should be deleted, you can finish the nomination yourself.) TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, even if you don't think the article should be deleted, it might still be courteous to complete the nomination if you can figure out why the person who added the tag wanted it deleted. While creating the nomination page, you can indicate that your own opinion differs but that you're creating the page on behalf of the original nominator, something like this:

Fixing incomplete nomination by User:127.0.0.1, who tagged the article for deletion (with the edit summary "kill it with fire!!!") but, being an unregistered user, was unable to create the nomination page. However, they did write on the talk page that "This article is complete nonsense and should never have been created!", which I presume to be their reason for nominating it. While I personally disagree and think the article should be kept, I'm creating this nomination page so that the matter can be properly discussed on AfD. --~~~~

Of course, if you can't figure out the reason for the nomination, then there's little you can do except remove the tag. The same goes for cases where the nomination seems obviously absurd, like nominating the featured article of the day for deletion (without a very good reason). In any case, you should definitely contact the user on their talk page (even if it's an IP, just in case they're still using it) and explain what you've done and how to tag an article for deletion properly.— Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 16:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, i just wanted to make sure that removing the tag wouldn't cause anything weird to hapen, like the page being removed after 5 days without a deletion review, or if removing the tag was verboten in this case. There really weren't any clues as to the reason for AfD. I still would be disinclined to nominate an AfD i didn't agree with ( AfD can be Russian Roulette for articles that aren't widely watchlisted ) but I might be inclined to tag the article. And yes there is a healthy bit of "who does this guy think he is" in my reaction. Squidfryerchef 17:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the original information in the first post, a deletion on the basis of "vandalism" denies WP:AGF. Keep in mind that the current policies involving AfD are no more than a year old, and many long-time editors use IPs for various reasons (and in my case, I don't know when the cookies that are stored upon my computer upon login are deleted - and my work computer rejects cookies). Some IPs are of the impression that any editor can propose an article for deletion, only to be blocked at Step 2 of the process. Unless it is clear that the IP has been involved in vandalism recently, I'd recommend assuming good faith and finish the process, even if you disagree. All you have to add in the justification "Finishing incomplete AfD listing for xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" with the IP mentioned. Invalid AfD proposals usually are dealt with rather quickly. B.Wind 17:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sometimes people won't wait for the completion of Step 2 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unused highways for such an example. B.Wind 17:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what some people here are advising, NEVER take any action on wikipedia which you personally disagree with. This is a cardinal rule, and can't be stressed enough. The wikipedia consensus system relies on every person acting on their own personal conscience.

What would happen if 5 or 10 different people all acted like they thought they ought to as opposed to doing The Right Thing; and no-one caught your mistake?

Placing a nomination on articles for deletion means that you wanted it nominated, as a matter of actual fact, no matter what the contents of your nomination message claim. So make sure that this is actually what you want!

If you don't think the article should be deleted, or are unsure, (and the tag has been there for over a couple of hours... someone might still be formulating the articles for deletion page, after all ;-), remove the tag.

If you do think the article should be deleted, consider again, would proposed deletion do as well? PROD reduces the strain on AFD and on admins considerably, so it should be used in preference.

If you think the article should be deleted, and PROD is inappropriate for some reason <mutter> PROD should be made to always be appropriate </mutter>, then complete the listing on AFD, as advised above.

-- Kim Bruning 17:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree wholeheartedly. I actually think it's somewhat insulting to suggest that someone should wait for an interested party that agrees with them to move discussion forward. Say what you like, but "I personally don't agree, but think there is merit in discussing it" is a perfectly valid nomination on AfD. If someone has placed an AfD notice on an article, as the instructions on it state, it should not be removed until the discussion is closed, even if that means having to create a discussion to get rid of it. PROD would be a suitable replacement if it weren't for the part where you don't need to provide a reason for de-tagging it. 81.104.175.145 18:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh? If someone wants to move a discussion forward on AFD (however ill-advised the use of such broken process is :-P), let them move it forward then. They shouldn't have to recruit a 3rd party. Wait... did someone change AFD rules to bar anons from nominating articles? -- Kim Bruning 19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh...     CENSORED       ; due to scaling issues, AFD (now) of course forces page creation, which is banned to anons. How stupid is that.

I didn't know, because I stopped using AFD years ago (and never successfully used the current Categories for Speedy Deletion either, opting for PROD only.) This is a WONTFIX for me personally. AFD should just be left to wither on the vine. (Possibly we need a heavyweight PROD, say.. Pure Wiki Deletion to replace it).

If you simply must do an AFD deletion as an anon, ask a friendly editor who agrees with you to do the AFD page creation. Naturally you don't have to actually wait for one. :-)

-- Kim Bruning 19:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Who edited as an anon for ages, and finally tried for admin to spite Rick "anon messages to my page will be deleted" K.

Indeed. PROD needs to either be strengthened or tightened up. Currently, it's "anyone who wants to deprod an article, can, without giving a reason, with no comeback - even the vandals", and on a number of occasions when someone deprods an article the reason given is "no reason for prod". A while ago I lost count of the number of contested prods turning up at AfD where the only user wanting to keep them was the person who took the prod tag off in the first place. But that's a discussion for another day. 81.104.175.145 03:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, templates like {{ wrongtitle}} are to facilitate rare cases where capitalisation would be incorrect, or look too clumsy (e.g. pH, iPod, µ-law), and not to excuse abuses of grammar common in commercial branding (e.g. wagn, STAPLES). In particular, they are being used to endorse stylized typography such as odd capitalization or particular formatting ( bmibaby - some egregious examples in Category:Articles with titles unsupported by Unicode which are pure typography). In the last few days, I have removed {{ lowercase}} and {{ no unicode character}} from a few clearly gratuitous uses (including one case where it was used because the letter O in the title was "the wrong colour"). Am I the only one who finds our rules on stylized typography in the MOS are not strictly enough enforced, and these templates overused? I would do so myself, but suspect that the proprietors would ignore it in the usual "Oh, that doesn't apply to this article" way (generally with the justification of "because I said so"). 81.104.175.145 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Reluctant agree. – Pomte 03:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

At least 75% agreed. If I was writing the names of these companies down on paper as part of a sentence, I would use normal typography. Yes, I would write pH, iPod, µ-law, but I would also write bmibaby or possibly Bmibaby - and I wouldn't pull out a blue and a red pen to do so just because that's what the logo has. Confusing Manifestation 06:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It confuses me that the original poster thinks "iPod" is fair cop, but "wagn" or "bmibaby" are not. They are exactly the same. It seems like one rule for the "big guys", another for the rest?

Going on a crusade and "fixing" multiple articles is very counter-productive and disruptive to the articles - leave it to the article's editors. It's not a big deal.

In the bmibaby example is really does piss me off when people go to the article and change en-masse. The article currently has "Bmibaby Limited holds a United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority Type A Operating Licence, and is permitted to carry passengers, cargo and mail on aircraft with 20 or more seats." where the reference actually says "bmibaby Limited". Thanks/ wangi 07:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I direct your attention to WP:MOSTM. 81.104.175.145 18:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that on many articles, images are removed quickly and consistently, when these images do contribute to the article. Wikipedia's policy is to not be censored, but people continue to censor images.

For example, the feces article has a brigade of fervent editors who believe that a photo of poop would be offensive and "disgusting." I see absolutely no reason why a photograph of poop should not be permitted on this page. It demonstrates the article's subject.

Less extremely, the folks at fellatio refuse to allow a real-life illustration of the article's subject, such as Image:Fellatio1.jpg, which is obviously a useful image.

Too many people are calling image uploaders "freaks" and "perverts" when they are uploading useful, illustrative images which some may find inappropriate. Let's create a Wikipedia policy specifically addressing this unconstructive censorship. Thoughts? Steevven1 ^{( Talk) ( Contribs) ( Gallery)} 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought WP:NOT was a policy. Tell them to get over the "disgusting" pics. If the images add value to the article, they belong. — Someguy0830 ( T | C) 23:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, people argue that these images don't add value, like at fellatio, where they claim that animations suffice. I still claim that there is no reason not to include a real image. Also, at an article such as feces, where images are being strictly censored, how would I request moderator intervention? Steevven1 ^{( Talk) ( Contribs) ( Gallery)} 00:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It really depends on who's for, who's against, and how many of each. If they're discussing or not also helps. A posting at the noticeboard might help gather opinions on the issue to achieve something. — Someguy0830 ( T | C) 00:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Use your head man. If you can do the same thing and not make someone vomit, then what is the problem? We don't make the background of articles a bright yellow, with GIF animations and MIDI music in the background like some e-card. Being pleasing to the eye, and including the exact same information is never a bad thing, and should not be confused with censorship (while it might technically fall into that definition). -- Ned Scott 00:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to topics like "fellatio", animated pictures would be best. Otherwise, who's to stop someone from replacing the image with "this is better"? For it to be free, it would have to have been uploaded by the person in the image, or at least the person taking the picture (which is generally the one in the image). Then, not only are going to have to stare at someone else's dick, but we are going to open the door up to every Bob, Dick and Harry (pun intended) that wants THEIR picture on Wikipedia. Next thing you know, we'll have an orgy (intended again) of Wikipedia editors uploading pictures of their privates. We'd have personal webcam captures of people have missionary sex, anal sex, oral sex, foot sex, boob sex, handjobs, jizz shots. Animated pictures would be the best solution. It keeps people's egos out of the equation. We won't have people fighting over which picture is best.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly this things can be explained without pictures. My impression is people want to add the pictures not because the article needs pictures, but because they are amused by the fact they can show a picture of a pooh, or they can add porn. OK, I'm not able to actually read thoughts, I just think I can;-) Still, we should show some respect to the fact Wikipedia is not censored - this also means we should be able to put some restraints on ourself. Greswik 13:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is actually a pretty widespread problem anyways - i.e. see cat. I'm pretty sure the community will eventually mature to the point where these articles can be treated without trying to impart any implicit morality - but not today, it seems... Wily D 15:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been known to see (and even been in) an edit war where the other side will only remove or add something in an article with no reason given either in the edit summary or the talk page. I tag it or revert it (keeping within WP:3RR), invite the other editor to dicsussion to try and resolve the dispute, but find that my invitation to talk goes unnoticed and then soon after, they add or remove the information again, again without an edit summary or make any attempt to talk. It's not vanadalism to do such things, but it is very difficult to try and communicate with other people when there is no attempt by the other editor to come to an agreement as to how the dispute can be resolved. Is there guidance on how to go about resolving this type of dispute, because nothing I can find covers this eventuality, and I write this because I am finding it occuring in one article I have on my watchlist. -- tgheretford ( talk) 22:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• The simple approach is to (1) ask for outside opinion (if there's a handful of editors involved, use WP:3O, otherwise WP:RFC); (2) usually some kind of consensual compromise follows from this; (3) it is disruptive to revert war against consensus; if you see people doing so, consider asking an admin (e.g. on WP:ANI) to step in. >Radiant< 14:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia policy about including external links to pages written completely in a language other than English?

I am referring to off-Wiki links in the "External Links" section added at the bottom of some articles. My question is not about books or references supporting specific content of an article where the books may not be available in English, but only to the generally related external links.

For example, in an article on any topic, let's call it "Topic A", would it be appropriate to add an external link to a website with a piped title in English, such as "(French language) History of Topic A", with the link leading to a website completely in French with no content in English?

I have not been able to find specific policy on this issue. I am aware of this policy: WP:ENGLISH, but that addresses words appearing in the Wikipedia text, not to external links.

I've seen this in a couple articles and it seems it might not be appropriate, so I'd appreciate some guidance on this question. Thanks. -- Parzival418 _Hello 19:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL can provide some guidance: Is it accessible to the reader? Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Also: English language links are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a foreign-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English, when the link is to the subject's text in its original language or they contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables, per the guideline on foreign-language sites. Mr.Z-man talk ¢ 19:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfect - that's exactly what I was looking for... Thanks for your quick response! -- Parzival418 _Hello 19:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a proposed guideline for naming the Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia (Greece) at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). Please come, read, and comment; we would like to have a guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I created the template on articles with how-to content a year ago, and I've been following the topic area since then. There haven't been much innovation or direction in the topic since then, even tho many have adapted the view that how-to's are generally unwanted in Wikipedia. So all seems to work, and my work seemed to hit a good spot.

This is one more try to get feedback, ideas and the chance to get something decided. My views on how-to content in wikipedia have been briefly described in here.

User:Santtus/view_on_how-to

I would really love to get this issue decided, so that people would know what to do with different kinds of how-to. People really seem to need these things decided, according to what talk pages I've read.

Please dont take it that I think that my ideas are the best and the only ones. I just want to share some observations I have made and the resulting conclusions. I invite you to share yours. Santtus 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a new contributor so I'm sure there are things I haven't got the hang of yet. But my first article was kneejerk-tagged with 4 negative tags by one person who clearly had not read it and who left no explanation on the talkpage. When I contacted him he said it was on the basis of the automatic filter that connects the author with references/weblinks. In my case the references (respectable published sources, and a website to an official English charity where I am one of the trustees) are entirely appropriate to the article which is serious and highly specialised. However he did not answer my request to point out specifically what he thought was unverifiable, not neutral, of unclear interest etc. This same objector then 'wikified' the article in a way which made nonsense of it (eg wordlinks were to similar words, but with a different meaning, such as 'supervisor' which in Wikipedia is specifically about factory supervisors, whereas my word refers specifically to academic supervisors, so it is quite mindless to direct a reader to it - and against Wikipedia guidelines on 'when to link'). Obviously all this sort of thing will sort itself out when or if other people take an interest, but it is timeconsuming. My suggestion is, could it be a requirement for a tag that whoever puts it should also put a more specific detailed reason for it on the article talkpage? this would at least make people stop and think how to justify their automatic dislike. Otherwise it invites unreasonable and instinctive reactions, and it is hard to argue against something if there is no argument only a stamp of disapproval. ArtLit 11:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: The article under discussion is Donald Meltzer. Placeholder account 13:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove unexplained tags - if it isn't clear why they're there and the placer won't explain (but make sure he gets a bit of time. If wikilinks are inappropriate, find the correct target, or remove them. No harm done. In general, if something isn't right, just fix it. Wily D 13:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia editing guideline that addresses the use of extended <!---interpolated commentary---> in Wikipedia articles, either in lieu of or in addition to comments on the talk page? In my opinion, extended critiques of other editor's material belongs on the talk page, not embedded into the article itself. These types of comments remain embedded in the article long after consensus is reached and talk pages are archived. If everyone did this, it would be nearly impossible to edit an article. In that sense it seems disruptive to me, and perhaps a sign of ownership issues, but I wanted to see if any specific guidelines address the practice. Regards, MoodyGroove 12:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

The short answer is no. Commentary belongs on the talk page. >Radiant< 13:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There are cases where such comments are necessary. For example, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, in one section (spoiler), there is a statement: Dumbledore believed there were a total of six. Since there've been speculations on line that there are 7, and several users tried to "fix" this "fact" there, the wiki text here is:

Dumbledore believed there were a total of si<!--

PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE NUMBERS IN THIS SENTENCE. This sentence is directly quoting Chapter 23 of HBP; see the talk page for more details. Any edits to these numbers will be viewed as speculation and will be reverted.

-->x

This is a situation where such a message would get lost on the talk page (and I haven't found the original discussion about it), and must be there. Od Mishehu 13:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Would a simple source tag not suffice? >Radiant< 14:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to interpolated comments like this and this. MoodyGroove 14:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I don't think there is a 'clear' answer to this one... the example given by Mishehu shows how interpolated comments can be useful in an article ... but the examples given by MoodyGroove do seem inappropriate and would probably serve the article better if raised on the articles' talk pages rather than as an interpolated comment. My call... they may be used, but should be used rarely and with discression. Blueboar 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I only looked at the first of MoodyGroove's links. I have no particular opinion on the SGML comments in this aside from the first of them. This strikes me as the kind of thing that's very helpful. Yes, where you think something may be "improved" (not!) or edited away too quickly, by all means flag it with an SGML comment. -- Hoary 09:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm clear on what you mean here. I don't see how it's reasonable for only one side of an editorial dispute to be embedded into an article. Should I respond with my own interpolated comment so that future editors get both sides of the story? And isn't that what talk pages and edit summaries are for? MoodyGroove 17:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

It seems that admins have taken to speedy deleting userpages and/or indefinitely blocking users for not having enough contributions to the encyclopedia. I'm not convinced that this is a good idea, so let's have some discussion on it. - Amarkov moo! 04:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking the lost myspacers is a good thing imo. -- tjstrf talk 04:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, if someone persists in using Wikipedia as MySpace v2, then yes, they should be blocked. But what about those who just have to be told that they are expected to edit the encyclopedia, and not just userspace? If I log on one day and all my pages are deleted, I'm going to assume that Wikipedia is just stupid and never edit again. But maybe if I'm just told "hey, how 'bout some encyclopedia work?", I'll be a productive contributor. - Amarkov moo! 04:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the issue is also why would someone join Wikipedia and not edit? I mean, there are plenty of other websites out there that are just socially based (Facebook, MySpace, etc.). Wikipedia is for editing and expanding knowledge first and foremost, and a social gathering secondly. Keep in mind that this is just my opinion, and while I do enjoy the social interaction here, I am here to edit mainly. Otherwise, I'd be spending my time on my Facebook account. :) Jmlk 1 7 04:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There are blocks being handed out? Deleting useless pages I can understand but blocking? Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it once or twise, but usualy only when someone persist in re-creating such userpages, or otherwise keep pestering users with requests for signing guestbooks and what not. -- Sherool (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What blocks are you referring to? I remember seeing a couple but those were users who were really trying to use Wikipedia as a chatroom, and had been talked to about it, but persisted. If WP:NOT#BLOG means anything, we have to block users that persistently try to use Wikipedia in this way. But I agree we shouldn't be blocking these users without talking to them first: you never know, someone could spend a lot of time on their user page and then start working on the encyclopedia. Mango juice ^talk 13:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, without some specific examples, I can't get too worked up over this... if someone is turning their userpages into MySpace profiles, then yes, they deserve to have their pages deleted. Blocks, I dunno... depends on their reactions to the "this isn't MySpace" comments, I suppose. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong blocked someone indefinitely the other day for social networking. I believe it's described on his talk page. -- nae' blis 15:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

These blocks are not punitive. They are simply preventative so that these users are stopped from not contributing. ... but maybe that is not quite as clear as I'd like it to be. Thincat 15:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A block to stop someone from not contributing? Isn't it more like a block to stop someone from contributing the wrong kind of material? - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 19:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So ... the purpose of the blocks is to prevent contributions from users who already do not contribute? Huh? :) Since I don't know the specific circumstances of the blocks, my comment is intended more in jest than anything else, but I do not think blocking users for inactivity is appropriate. First, it seems to go against current blocking policy. Second, it does not seem to have any value (it just wastes time). Third, it can be counterproductive. I registered an account and edited in July 2005, making only 4 edits to an article talk page. I didn't really start actively contributing until October 2006. I don't know what I would have done if I'd come back to discover that I'd been blocked, but I probably wouldn't have been too pleased.

The speedy deletion of userpages that are not test pages, vandalism, advertising, copyvios, or attack pages (or that meet any of the other CSD criteria) also seems unnecessary ... why not just {{ prod}} them? If the user is inactive, the page will most likely be deleted anyway. -- Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 19:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If a user has been inactive for a long time, consider adding a "Former Wikipedian" tag on the user page. There isn't any need to block them if they did not contribute to the encyclopedia, while keeping their user pages complying with the user page guidelines.-- Kylohk 18:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My reaction is similar to Night Gyr. I routinely nominate userpages for deletion on the basis that they're unencyclopedic and the user hasn't contributed to the project at all. (Users with solid contributions generally get a free pass from me to have a little fun in userspace.) But it takes repeated violations of this rule to warrant a block. Yechiel Man 05:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

One example: warned user to not use his talk page as a chat page - blocked user for 24 hours for continung the behaviour - indef block for still not getting the message. [1] This user had no contributions outside his userpage. I see no reason not to block this kind of users. Fram 13:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I use wikipedia just when I want to find information, and I've sometimes considered editing, but have been afraid to do so because I was afraid I'd accidentaly write something false and I didn't want to misinform so many people, and because I was afraid I'd unintentionally break some regulation I didn't know about and be permenently blocked. Now I find out I may be blocked because I haven't edited enough. I feel I may well work up the confidance to contribute and am don't want to have been blocked before then. As Wikipedia is quite popular as an encyclopedia, even for people who have nothing to contribute, I presume there would be many people like me, and people change, so someone who previously had no reason to edit can always find one. Blocking people who don't contribute is meaning they will never be able to edit. Also, as Wikipedia's slogan says "which anyone can edit", it seems to be claming such peoplehave comited a particularly exeptional ofence. Or am I missing something?

As some people know, amnesty international just launched a campaign to help people to circumvent censorship over the internet.

Some people in foreign country like China can't have access normally to wikipedia. But are able to circumvent censorship by passing through open proxy.

The problem is that they are able only to read an article, and if they want to correct something, to improve wikipedia, they need to drop the protection of the proxy and expose themselves to danger.

While the block of open proxy is based on a legit concern about libel and vandalism. Some people are silenced by the actual policy.

The last word of Jimmy Wales on the matter is that if it is dangerous to edit wikipedia, those people simply shouldn't do it. Today we encourage people to gather knowledge and give tips about how to access wikipedia freely, but we do not help them to contribute with the project.

So how can we help people to join wikipedia from this countries ? The actual block system function as follows : If an ip is blocked, then all people from this ip that use their registered account can't edit from this ip. This is meant to block vandal from circumventing ip block by creating a user to continue their ugly purpose.

I propose the following change :

A list would be created containing username that will let them to edit through ip blocked for the criteria of being an open proxy (read : not from a vandal ip).

The condition of entering this whitelist could be : having an history of good editing (is that problematic ? We can say that such user is a good editor, we do it for RFA procedures). Or being sponsored by a (good contributing) user through a consensus based debate. Example :

{{whitelistrequest|Nameofuser}}

I created this account for a relative living in china. He would like to contribute to wikipedia but his unavailable to do so because of the filter in place by the chinese government. — Esurnir 21:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Esurnir is a good guy and bribed me with a cookie. — Example

The obvious problems : How to prevent sock pupet being admited that way ? How to prevent vandale to introduce their libel through that door ?

Well, if the user self nominated himself with a short history then he will perhaps not pass through the process, or simply be blocked with an expiry time of indefinite (with his first non proxy edit ip recorded in the database).

If the user has been sponsored ? Then by sponsoring the guy the user become an obvious suspect in a case of sockpupetry. And, in the case of vandalism you may imagine that future nomination by this user may well be less kindly regarded.

"What about the old sock who sponsor some guy to introduce libelous attack ?" Well I think that a vandal will allways have a way to post on wikipedia, and that the sock don't really need to have an open proxy to do his libel.

Another objection I thought are the technical improvement to the mediawiki software will be needed to implement that. I think that for the freedom of speech, creating a new user permission is not a lot of work to do (I'm no developer so yes I know it's easy to say, but do you think the goal doesn't worth it ?)

So what do you think about that proposal ? — Esurnir 21:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Has there been a discussion about verifying identity? I am not making such a proposal. If there were confirmed identities, then the sock problem may disappear or greatly shrink.

• There has been discussion about verifying credentials, i.e. if you say you are a professor of history, identify yourself specifically and link to proof of your status. Even that has been rejected by this egalitarian community.

  Regarding your question, we have WP:CHECKUSER to deal with cases where someone's identity needs to be checked. Otherwise, we just let it slide. Placeholder account 13:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • It's not egalitarianism. It's simply that our trust model does not involve such things. Uncle G 10:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion on WT:RS#What kinds of sources do we want to distinguish?. It started out about Sri Lanka conflict related sources, but it may be interesting from a more basic point of view. Please join the discussion there. — Sebastian 18:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved from the Proposals page Firsfron of Ronchester 07:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the WP:NOT#DIR be changed to allow schedules of newscasts on TV stations as they currently are now. An example of a newscast schedule looks something like this....

• ABC3 News at 5:00 (5:00p-6:00p)
• ABC3 News at 6:00 (6:00p-6:30p)
• ABC3 News Tonight (11:00p-11:35p)

In some cases, the names of the news anchors, meteorologists, and sports anchors are included in these schedules. Since these are programs that are produced and broadcast (in 99% of cases) live and are anchored by staff of the respective stations, they should be noted on their respective pages.

No syndicated programming nor any national programming is listed.

So, I asked that newscast schedules (with or without the respective anchors, etc) be allowed on TV station page and that WP:NOT#DIR rule be changed so that is is specific for TV stations. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why such information is required in the article, and if so why it cannot be presented in prose ("News is broadcast at 5pm, 6pm, and 11pm")? 81.104.175.145 08:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles should link to official websites, which will no doubt have their own schedule page. WP:NOT#DIR is there to prevent exactly what you propose. Notwithstanding the fact that schedules change, rendering wikipedia schedules inaccurate, and the fact that wikipedia is not a repository or mirror for everything on the internet - Tiswas^{( t)} 10:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what Tiswas said. >Radiant< 10:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you copy a schedule from another webpage, it violates copyright as well, which is why I proposed the addition to WP:NOT#DIR, and created {{ schedule}}, alongside other concerns stated above. -- tgheretford ( talk) 11:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the notability of the information itself. Wikipedia isn't TV Guide, this isn't the place to find out when your favorite show is on. If you had relevant content around it, like maybe how the 6pm viewing compared in ratings to the 11pm viewing, but that would turn it into prose and wouldn't fall under "WP:NOT#DIR". But a simple list of when a show airs during the day, it just doesn't strike me as encyclopedic content.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• No. Schedules may safely be left to the stations' own webmasters, who will keep it up to date. Plus, the rule was designed to prevent the addition of this kind of ephemeral crap, and changing the rule because it works is a Really Bad Idea. Guy ( Help!) 11:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You could link to the TitanTV page, but that may also violate WP:NOT#DIR. Since you are advertising a directory. So...what exactly do you do? - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 19:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not against linking to directories, it's just not a directory itself. – Pomte 06:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• No This is extemely indiscriminate, subject to change, and also nn. Would Brittanica possibly have this? No. Reywas92 ^{Talk Review me} 19:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I take issue with the "would Britannica have this?" response. Britannica doesn't have articles on my local television stations in the Susquehanna Valley DMA. There are lots of things Wikipedia has that Britannica does not. -- myselfalso 05:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing I do is going to get this changed. You all are having a good ol' time threatening me and having a good laugh at my expensive. Laugh it up and knock yourselves out. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 19:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is "having a laugh at your expensive". Seriously, this a very bad idea, but there is a difference between editors pointing out that fact their opinion and laughing at you. We appreciate the fact that you were willing to put forth an idea, because if no one did that, Wikipedia would probably not exist in its current form. May not exist at all. Adrian M. H. 19:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is threatening you. They've given their reasons for why this sort of thing is already not allowed. Take that for face value. I don't particularly think that anyone is "having a good laugh at [your] expense" here. They're just letting you know about why the policy was created and why something like this won't fly well. -- 13 ² 19:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This page was ruled as "inactive" in April 2006. However, if you look at the talk page, you can see that the supermajority of people actually supported this idea. So, why is this page inactive and not actual policy? Diez2 06:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Primarily because WP:AGF and WP:CIV, themselves both long-standing policies, are pretty tough obstacles to overcome. I also don't see this "supermajority" you're talking about. 81.104.175.145 09:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Secondarily because policy isn't created by a supermajority, and thirdly because the people commenting on this give a skewed representation of the actual community, and fourthly because prescriptive policy doesn't work, and fifthly because it contradicts editing and talk page policies. >Radiant< 11:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Boo! I was looking forward to the seventeenthly and (a particular favourite of mine) twentyeightthly reasons... ;~) LessHeard vanU 20:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make it so that all project banners of any kind (including WikiProjects, WP1.0, ArticleHistory...) are positioned exactly to the right of the TOC? This way would solve two problems: 1) WikiProject visibility (they are positioned at the top of the page), although I think BannerShell would still be a good idea, and 2) TOC is immediately accessible at the top of the page so its easier to skip to content with only one click (rather than using SkipToTOC banner which requires one more mouse click and increases banner clutter). Only problem I see might be with lower resolution users (I use 1600*1200) and long section titles. OTOH, Talk:Linus Torvalds is also a good idea. Banners are moved beneath the TOC, scrolling shows all the banners, using TOC skips all the banners. Problem with this is of course lower prominence of the BLP warning and WikiProject banners overall. Shinhan 15:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know if I am allowed to write an article about an official international fan club of an artist. It would include its history, establishers, and its branches around the world. Of course I have independent sources recognizing that organization. I just ask it because in the Spanish wikipedia it is unofficially not allowed (I emphasize the word "unofficially", because in the Spanish wikipedia some admins are deleting things according to unofficial and not yet accepted rules that I consider incorrect, so I ask it also here if the English version has an official rule for that). Thank you in advance. -- Zoltan 13:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there notability to their existence? Have they accomplished something, or are they just a fansite that was approved by the band? There's a chance they are not notable enough for an article, but acceptable for an external link.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, they are present at many events where the artist participates, many times they are in the TV and interviews. They also have an official web site in 3 languages. Or, another idea, is it possible to make the article like a sub-page of the same artist? -- Zoltan 13:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And of course, it is not just a website, they are real people, and also a special magazin about the artist has an entry for the official fan club (that I would use as source). -- Zoltan 13:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It seems more like they would warrant inclusion on the artist's article, in their own section, but I'd be interested to see what others thought.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You can see the Spanish article here (while they don't delete it) -- Zoltan 14:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my spanish is a bit rusty (i.e. non-existent) so it isn't beneficial to me to view it because I'm not sure of the information. For the time being, you should work up the page in a personal sandbox (here: User:TheMexican2007/sandbox) and while it's being discussed you could have it all worked up, in english for those of us that are not spanish savvy, so that your case will have further strength (not that it would need it..others may feel it is just fine to create the article, but just in case).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your information. -- Zoltan 14:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it's easier to get a feel for what's notable when you can see the information first hand. I don't know what the band is, or the fanclub, but if you worked up a page for everyone to read it would probably be easier to say "oh...I get it now, yeah that's fine", or "It doesn't really seem to warrant an entire article, maybe ....". Or something to that effect. But that's just me, and others may differ.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the version on Spanish Wikipedia, I see only sources cited which are affiliated with the article subject. For an article here, significant reliable source material written by those independent of the subject must be available. The policy on verifiability and guideline on notability give some more information you may find helpful. So in answer to your question-it depends whether significant independent source material is available. If so, create away and cite those sources, if not, it's not an appropriate subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think it over, you would never be able to find a really independent source about a fan club. Because a fan club can be mentioned ab ovo only in a publication, magazine, website, etc. which is about the related artist. So, for that reason, it is very difficult to find a source mentioning the fan club that is NOT about the artist. MDC is really an official fan club that was recognized by the artist and all the record labels. -- Zoltan 14:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to chime in here. I would think that information about the fan club is important, but does not necessarily mean that the fan club needs its own article. It may be quite appropriate to add relevent information to the article of the band in question, but unless an organization generates significant press outside of its own events and publications, there aren't enough independant sources to build a well referenced, neutral article on. My recommendation is to add a short, maybe 1-2 paragraph, section to the article of the band in question. That seems to be appropriate here, as long as you can verify that this is really a genuine organization with a sizable membership, and not just some website started by some really big fan.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 19:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all. I think this last one will the be best solution. (Just note: in the Spanish Wikipedia they don't even allow to add an external link to the official club site in the article, because the admins there hate this artist. Spanish Wikipedia would need some superior instructions to put end of its admins' autocratic and dictarotic power based on their pre-judgements.)

Sincerely, -- Zoltan 14:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would make sense to say that there should be any flat rule to include or not include articles on official (or unofficial) fan clubs... the specific notability of the particular club in question (independently of the notability of the artist him/herself) is what matters. If the fan club is separately notable, it may deserve its own article. If it's less notable, it may deserve only a brief mention in the article on the artist themselves. If it's entirely unnotable, it might be best not to mention it anywhwere. It all depends. But if this dispute is over what should be done in the Spanish Wikipedia, that's irrelevant here since each language Wikipedia makes its own community rules and policies, limited only by the basic pillars of the entire project such as WP:NPOV. *Dan T.* 14:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I included a brief paragraph about the club in the article about the artist. Please review it if it is correct this way. Thank you. -- Zoltan 14:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is probably elsewhere in here but I couldn't get the search functions to find it for me :). Is there a "proper" way to go about notifying major contributors and the like for an article that has been AfD'd, if the person nominating the article did not do so? I don't want to WP:CANVASS but I think that the contributors should be alerted. All the AfD nomination templates say the page has been nominated for deletion "by me". CredoFromStart ^talk 12:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

{{ AFDWarning}} exists for this purpose, iirc - Tiswas^{( t)} 13:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I misread your post. You could always create a template that performs a similar role, albeit from a third party perspective, and in a neutral fashion. - Tiswas^{( t)} 13:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

e.g. here - Tiswas^{( t)} 13:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there IS one! your link to the first template showed it to me Template:AFDNote. Thanks! and very commendable that it is you who replied :) CredoFromStart ^talk 13:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think can be harmful to the project as it can skew afds towards a selected group rather than be a true representation of the community's views. A perfect example of this is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott when after a user posted a note on WikiProject Peerage on 5 June a deluge of votes to Keep arrived when the consensus up to that time had been to delete. I invite all members of the community to come and express their views at the current afd so that the result will truly effect the views of the communuity as a whole. Thanks, Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

AfDs are supposed to be based on strength of argument, not pure voting, though, so notifying interested parties may allow argumentation that those unfamiliar with the topic may miss. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 16:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree- unless a group can be found that counters the obvious block voting that will result from posting it should not happen otherwise the afds will not truly reflect community opinion. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that's an assumption of bad faith -- assuming there will be a block vote to keep articles that don't deserve it. Night Gy the day. r ( talk/ Oy) 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But a valid assumption nonetheless, as a glance over any deletion debate related to US roads will demonstrate. Including the ones where they piled on "keep" votes for single-use templates. 81.104.175.145 01:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The arguments are what carry the day, so you should allow anyone who might have a valid argument to make it, else you end up placing the AFD process in the hands of AFD regulars only. Oh whatever, that's where it is already. That and hmm, I already suggested AFD is a WONTFIX earlier, so ... I'll just hush then. Try PROD instead? -- Kim Bruning 16:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Arguments are what should carry the day - However, even with the best intentions, admins have their own opinions, often make rushed interpretations of consensus, and are swayed by votes. Or, conversely, too much voting can often turn the inferred consensus the other way. It's swings and roundabouts. - Tiswas^{( t)} 16:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"and are swayed by votes" exactly. I highly doubt that most admins have the time to carefully read each afd rather than count the number of keeps versus deletes or merges or count who is from a project which is obviously going to have a view that does not represent a world a view but only that of a group of users who keep the article as their pet project. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• sorry, if you mean that admins blatantly ignore what the process is for that means they aren't good admins, not that the contributors should also ignore what AfDs are for. Malc82 19:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, AFD is no longer very reliable. This has actually been known for a while, but folks haven't been able to agree on a replacement yet. -- Kim Bruning 16:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, though, canvassing is generally not a very good idea. So the answer to "how to notify people" is "generally, don't." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think notifying the WikiProject that an article/cat/template falls under is a good idea; they could very well have an idea of alternatives to outright deletion (ie: merge it with another article, or it can light the fire under their ass to improve the article, etc.). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, AFD is not a exclusive clubhouse. Deletion results that came from people completely uninformed about the article's subject matter have tended to be rightfully overturned later. 'Avoid Canvassing' does not mean 'Exclude people who don't normally take part in AFD discussions'. Notifying the relevent wikiprojects has been the previous good practice, and was not considered 'canvassing' until recently. -- Barberio 17:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So, it turns out it wasn't as simple as I thought. I certainly think that having the original AfD poster notify wikiprojects and contributors isn't canvassing, but if they don't do so, it *might* be canvassing for someone who didn't originally nom for AfD to request people who contributed to respond. Clears as mud! :). I'll have to do a little further research on this one and see if I can't come up with some kind of answer from precendent. CredoFromStart ^talk 19:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just inform them! Keeping some articles that might have borderline notability is hurting the project much less than mass-deleting good material that valuable contributors have spent a lot of time on. The problem with AfDs is that oftenly people think they should comment although they don't know jack about the subject. You can find a great example for this here. Malc82 19:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Notifying the related WikiProjects may be a good idea if you are sure that they can help in fixing the article (with reliable sources and such). However, the notice must be as neutral as possible. Just tell them that any opinions will be greatly appreciated. I've started some AfDs before, but in the course of the discussion, reliable sources were found, so the article is kept.-- Kylohk 20:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Do most people put articles they really care about (one way or the other) on their watch list? I default my watchlist to include any article I edit. I then periodically go through my watchlist and remove references to articles I no longer care about. I'm curious what other people do-- Work permit 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people keep items on their watch list to patrol of vandalism, some keep an eye on articles that are frequently edited so that they can improve any not so good good faith edits, and so on.-- Kylohk 21:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the main contributors will usually have the article on their watchlist anyway. I personally think it's very productive to leave notes for any WikiProjects that included the article. This might be the best way to ensure that "experts" are involved in the AfD process and also helps against canvassing. Malc82 21:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This just sprung up all of a sudden. Please comment here. Thanks. Quadzilla99 15:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

er, where? Johnbod 23:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

in amongst this horrid big discussion I'd assume. Just seems to be a feww folk jumping in with support and oppose to a long and winding discussion (rather than a specific merge discussion). Thanks/ wangi 23:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems like an appropriate place for this. I have been redirecting single episode articles because they don't meet this guideline's requirements of real world information backed by sources, and they don't show any sort of promise for improvement. After being mass reverted for a reason of "no consensus" (though it was really for other reasons), I have placed silly messages on episode list talk pages. As I expected, few have been actually noticed, and most won't really bring in any attention. Should I just screw the people that think discussion is required for this kind of thing, or should I just wait for people not to respond to the messages for a few days in all cases? It seems really pointless because, either way, they're going to be redirected. It is only worth it for high traffic articles. TTN 18:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation of WP:EPISODE. If there is nothing notable about the episode beyond the cast info and the plot, then it should go into the list. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll try doing it my way again. He doesn't seem that interested anymore. TTN 21:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you do this on List of Futurama episodes or List of The Simpsons episodes first, and see the reception of your "redirecting" before doing the ones that "nobody will notice". — Zachary ^talk 21:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons will stay because they have proven themselves with a few featured articles and around thirty good articles. I'll get to Futurama at some point. I'm doing smaller ones right now because I have a large load coming up with the ones that I have posted messages on. TTN 21:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons articles are featured because they have existed for YEARS! You're redirecting episodes that have only existed for a few months, not even giving them a chance to get to GA or FA status. I find that disturbing. — Zachary ^talk 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is more because they have people that actually work on them. They also have an abundant amount of sources at their disposal. If these conditions are met for other series, I'm fine with their existence. Episode articles are required to have this information ready before creation anyways. TTN 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, it is more because they have been given the opportunity to evolve into featured articles. It has nothing to do with the quantity of editors, it has to do with the quality of articles. — Zachary ^talk 22:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, without editors, you cannot have articles; they wouldn't become anything without good editors. There are plenty of episodes articles that have done nothing but sit around for years. The amount of time doesn't matter if nothing is written. TTN 22:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Then redirect ONLY the ones that are NOT making at least SOME progress towards a GA or FA status. — Zachary ^talk 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you'll be doing the same to List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes, List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes, etc. — Zachary ^talk 22:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not redirected one article that could easily reach GA status with little effort. They all would require more work than people are willing to put in, and most probably don't have the resources anyways. I don't know about those yet. I haven't looked at them. TTN 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If we would have redirected "Homer's Enemy" back in 2006 to the episode list, it wouldn't be a FEATURED ARTICLE today. — Zachary ^talk 00:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We have histories for a reason. Once people gained the resolve to fix it up, all they would have to do is revert. That is what anyone can do with these if that does indeed happen. TTN 00:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop recklessly redirecting articles. If you have a problem with them, flag them instead of redirecting. Damn. — Zachary ^talk 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

With what? A cleanup tag only works if people are willing and information exists. These fail the guideline, and they shouldn't even exist until they can easily pass it. TTN 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is taken right from the television episode page you are linking to, and most articles are have been redirecting have followed the initial guidelines for starting a page for an episode. If clear that most articles dont have these when they are started, but given a little time to develop as more people become knowledgable about wikipedia then they have a chance to grow into decent articles. by doing what you are doing you are just messing up the process for the article to expand. As some people that come along can add a few lines from outside official sources along the way at any time...just be patient

Here are some ideas for what information to include about a television episode, where possible:

   * A brief summary of the episode's plot
   * The episode's relevance in ongoing story arcs, if any
   * How the episode was received by critics
   * Information on production and broadcasting of the episode

68.72.141.190 22:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They cannot improved. Blanket statements cannot be used to cover that "they're starting up." The guideline requires secondary sources before creation. That hasn't happened. TTN 22:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

if you keep this reckless style up and keep editing major changes then I'll also just go back and revert the redirects and just label every episode a stub for now, until they can be improved upon. 68.72.141.190 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They need to be improved before they are brought back. Unless they can satisfy the guideline, they're staying redirects. TTN 22:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

well do whatever you want, but as soon as you move on to somewhat mainstream articles be prepared to have things reverted and categorized as stubs as you are just going on what you think without even getting input from others 68.72.141.190

That's why those will have discussions. People actually edit them, and more than one person will likely disagree. TTN 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am no fan of having these articles on episodes but I believe what you are doing is very, very wrong. If you want to redirect, you should be making sure that the important substance of the work that the editors have done on the episodes is preserved on the list of episode pages. You are deleting these at the rate of one a minute. You are never adding anything from the episode. Are you even reading them? You are spending a few minutes to delete hundreds of hours of other editor's work without even making any attempt to see if any of the content should be preserved. Do the job right if you are going to do it. Act like an editor, not like a bot. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The only information that could be preserved is the plot summary. In no way do I feel the need to summarize every article. Having not seen the episodes, I have no idea what is really important to their plots, I have no idea on the accuracy the information, and the regular editors can easily get it done. I give them quick glances, and they're nothing more than plot summaries, trivia, and unsourced information. They are free to work on them in a sandbox, bring them up to a decent quality, and bring them back, so it's not really that big of a deal. TTN 01:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at a few of the episode lists and I think that is many cases the description of the episode could easily be improved with a few words based on a cursory reading of the plot summary you are deleting, whether or not you have seen the episode. The concept of merging and redirecting (which I support in many cases) requires a merge, not just a redirect. Personally, I think the person doing the redirecting has an obligation to do the merger and not assume that some other editor will sift through the page history of the redirect page (which many users probably have no idea even exists) and finish the job. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to merge. Disagree with me if you would like; I don't really care. To correctly merge would require me to read over each and every single episode summary thoroughly, and assume what is important. Just removing links from the episode lists takes up a lot of time. I couldn't imagine going through that. Plus, the summaries are good enough for now anyways. If people spend all of this time on the single episodes, I'm sure they can take the time to do it on the lists. TTN 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I should probably clarify "correctly merge." I could take the time to add a couple sentences here and there like you seem to have suggested, but that would be worthless. Correctly merging would require detailed, but brief summaries. People that are active with the series can do a much better job than I can with that. TTN 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Correctly merging would require detailed, but brief summaries." Exactly my point. You are deleting content, not just restructuring the coverage. You are asking someone to recreate the content because you can't be bothered to slow down and do it. You are not improving the encyclopedia. Instead of pruning overgrown shrubbery with shears, you are using a chain saw and assuming someone else will come along and replant the hedge. To me, that is plain wrong. -- DS1953 ^talk 02:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That would take me many months (possibly a good year) to do, and it would be a complete waste of time. I'm just cleaning up. I'm not promising quality. It's sort of like the people that have expected me to bring a character list up to FA standards because I merged some stubs. It isn't my job to do anything. I'm just placing one piece of the puzzle. And trust me, the fans won't have problems with it after they cope with the loss of the articles. If anons are willing to take a while to build single articles, it won't trouble them too much to type a few summaries (which is why I would be wasting time). And really, most of these don't need more than a sentence or two, which most already have. TTN 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"That would take me many months (possibly a good year) to do, and it would be a complete waste of time." What's the rush to do this? Does it have to be done immediately? You make it sound like the world will end if you don't redirect these by next week. If it has to be done, at least use the {{ merge}} tag, and then someone else (NOT YOU) can either properly merge them or improve them.

"I'm just cleaning up." The way you're doing it is making an even bigger mess that someone else has to clean up. These "stubs" aren't hurting anything; they may need some work done, but it's hardly poor enough to clear the articles.

"It isn't my job to do anything." It should be your responsibility as an editor to not disrupt Wikipedia just because

"We have histories for a reason. Once people gained the resolve to fix it up, all they would have to do is revert." (from above) Redirecting discourages people from working on these articles. How can they improve something that's not there? And not everybody (newly registered users and anon editors) knows how to look through the history to see the old versions of the page.

It's noble that you feel so strongly about a Wikipedia guideline, but your method of "enforcement" leaves something to be desired. Especially the use of AWB at an edit every minute. Makes me wonder if you are actually examining what you're removing. I strongly suggest you begin using the {{ merge}} tag instead, or adding another applicable tag like {{ refimprove}} or {{ cleanup}}. — Zachary ^talk 06:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop acting like this will ever go like an actual merger. People don't care. They'll edit the articles if they exist, and move on if they don't exist. In all honesty, I never have expected people to actually get episodes up to standards. There is just not enough coverage on most. It's going to take "specialists." IPs or new users don't really care enough.

Stubs aren't hurting or helping people; they're just sitting around and collecting junk. They won't stop with that unless real editors really want to take the time on them and sources exist. There is no point in sitting down and summarizing them. Again, it would take forever, making me give up a quarter of the way through. The lists already have a good amount of information much of the time. They aren't going to get much from my interference. I remove the old links most of the time, so that is enough for me. And I'm not using AWB (I don't even know how that really works). I'm just using tabs and coping and pasting, so I have to take a quick look. TTN 10:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"silly messages on episode list talk pages ... few have been actually noticed"!! Please see WP:POINT "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." Squidfryerchef 02:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not. I'm just saying discussion is worthless in the case of episodes because there is no one to discuss with ninety percent of the time. TTN 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you post on the episode talk pages, you'll usually find there's no one to discuss with. If you post on the talk page of the main TV series, you'll probably get a response. Finally, you can always contact the episode article's creator or contributors. Cheers, Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 08:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It the same for both articles. If no one bothers with episodes, they don't bother checking the main article. People really don't watchlist the stuff most of the time. If someone has the main article watchlisted and they really contribute enough to care for the episodes, I'm sure they also have the episode list. Why would I really want to contact the people? I have contacted four people in the past. Two yelled at me, and the other two never replied. There is no need to force unneeded discussion just because people want "by the book" action. If people want to discuss it, it's fine to do it after (which only one of thirty does). TTN 10:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this just show you are right, this episodes shouldn't have an article each? Black Falcon, when you say he should post on the talk page of the main TV series, don't you admit it is over the top to give this epsides an article each? And, Related: Generally, when I click for random articles, I get up a lot of records or TV episodes, I don't want that. We should be tougher - much tougher - in merging this things. A popgroup with five records shouldn't have six pages, but one. Greswik 14:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN, why would you want to contact people? Because what you're doing is controversial (if nothing else, this thread proves it). Sure, some may not react well and some may not respond, but some will. Rather than performing an action that you know to be controversial and then waiting for it to be reverted, is it not better to produce at a more relaxed pace, encourage discussion, and preempt unnecessary controversy? Just my opinion... -- Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Greswik, I think episodes of some shows should have individual articles and episodes of others shouldn't. I don't think that episode articles as a whole are either good or bad. If a good article could be written on an episode, then keep it; if not, redirect it. I think it is this step which TTN has skipped; he has only checked whether a good article exists and not whether one could be written. -- Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Contacting the primary editors does nothing. Again, I get the whole discussion and consensus thing, but sometimes we're just forcing it for no other reason than "playing nice." I get that this is contraversial, but it cannot be discussed with groups or single people most of the time. At most, talking to a single editor is just to say "don't create any more." After they realize that the articles have been redirected, a discussion can be held. So far, I have only been reverted once on a mass scale by one user who had nothing to do with the episodes. Otherwise, they have just contacted me, left a note on the episode list talk page, or ignored it. This is showing me that a discussion beforehand is just a pointless formality. I'm sure I'll eventually run into someone who will revert them off the bat, but then it can be discussed. To your other reply, I am thinking of the future. It's just that is not full of episodes; only a small number of them have real hope. TTN 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

section break

TTN, I think this is being a little too strict. Episodes are fine to have their own pages, and you'd be surprised how much they can be sourced, especially for popular shows: in cases like that, don't redirect but let them improve organically. Articles don't have to be perfect. For shows that aren't as popular, it may not make sense to cover every episode separately, as the critical analysis may not exist in reliable sources. But then, the right thing to do would be to merge the articles together into larger ones, like an annotated list of episodes or articles on an entire season. I think that by redirecting in those cases you're doing the wrong thing. What you should do in that case is explain the situation on the talk page for the show or its list of episodes, or whever the merge would happen, and explain that you don't think the individual episodes in this case are covered enough in sources to be able to meet WP:EPISODE, and try to work out a solution. You might get people finding sources (which would be a good thing), or you might get people to reach an agreement that the episodes should be merged together. Or, you might find that people feel it's okay to have just a list, you never know. Or, they may disagree with you and you may have to work harder to come to a decision, such as through an WP:AFD debate or a {{ merge}} tag or an WP:RFC. But if you just go around redirecting, it'll simply remove content until someone gets around to disagreeing with you and reverting it, so it won't really lead to any improvement in the long run, just a little less cruft right now. Mango juice ^talk 14:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And to respond to your response to Black Falcon, you are proposing to follow the "Be bold - revert - discuss" process here; I think that process is generally good, but it's not so good when the changes you make are massive or hard to undo; in cases like that, more caution is warranted. Mango juice ^talk 14:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We need to be strict or we end up with junk. If we can just say "oh, they can get sources later", people will just continue to put it off. By placing the restriction (which is set by WP:EPISODE - secondary sources are required before they are created), people will need to provide the necessary sources up front. If they do that, it isn't a big deal leaving some "meh" articles. This is the case with the Simpsons. They have achieved a plentiful amount of FAs and GAs, and they have a varied amount of sources. That shows that the rest can eventually improve. Though they're crappy now, they can stay due to that fact. There is no merging to be done. Plot summaries need to be small, so what is already on the list is fine most of the time. Otherwise, others can improve them, but just copying and pasting bloated summaries to the list wouldn't work.

In general, episodes cannot improve. That is pretty much fact. Popular shows (like FOX stuff) may have the possibility for sources, but sitcoms, child geared cartoons, soap operas, and the like don't even have the possibility (in most cases). There is no need for discussion due to that, and because nobody replies to even the larger ones. On the 24 that I have proposed, I have gotten like five replies. Wasting time to follow the book on every case is pointless. If a series is likely to need discussion, I have done it in the past. But to propose something on shows that have less than thirteen episode articles will lead to nothing. It is much easier to wait and address concerns after it has happened. I understand that discussion is good, but when there is no actual discussion, time is just being wasted. TTN 16:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Use your judgement, I think. WP:BRD is fine if you believe in good faith that your edits will be agreed with by those who might be interested; if you're not sure, I'd make the effort to discuss... that may seem like a waste of time, but someone reverting all your changes because you hadn't discussed would also be a waste of time. I think the phrase of WP:EPISODE you're basing this on probably goes a little too far, as it doesn't describe common practice (which a guideline is supposed to do): generally, WP:EPISODE is just WP:SUMMARY as it would naturally apply to television shows, but you'll notice that WP:SUMMARY (a much more established guideline) doesn't make any kind of specification about how well something has to be sourced before it is forked out. Sure, the content forked out should be verifiable; because everything should be verifiable. But requiring secondary sources to be in place beforehand is novel and not common practice. Mango juice ^talk 17:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I take it back: WP:EPISODE doesn't go too far, you're over-reading it. The clause says "If there is enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes, create separate articles for them." - it doesn't say the information has to be sourced, just verifiable from secondary sources. So, I think your approach is only okay if you think the information isn't verifiable from secondary sources, not just that it isn't currently sourced. As for the existence of sources on TV shows, sadly, I think you're mistaken. People write loads of stuff about loads of topics: there are whole magazines devoted to soap operas, for instance, and episode guides exist for a surprising variety of shows, although you may not always be able to find them in a bookstore. Mango juice ^talk 17:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I will discuss when necessary as I have been doing. If you can have verified information, it's most likely going to be sourced in the articles (most people don't just keep them lying around). That's why I have said that I am fine if sources are available. None of these have shown that, and none seem to have it any information anywhere. Shows are written about, but more often than not, it's just trivia (goofs, very minor production details) or about the series on a wider scale. People need to have these sources beforehand, and they should be able to put them right to work if necessary. With this kind of thing, we need high standards because we'll just end up with the thousands of unimprovable stubs that we currently have if we use the "wait and see" method. TTN 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How are you to decide that a stub is "unimprovable" (which is not even a word, by the way)? You're not giving anybody an opportunity to improve them, and when they DO make an attempt, you say "that's not good enough" and redirect anyways. There ARE featured articles for episodes, and they started out as nothing more than a stub only containing "in universe information", so don't say that it's not possible. Sure, it may take a while to get an article to evolve from stub to FA, in some cases even years, but to say that it is not possible is prejudging the articles. These need to be decided on a case-by-case basis (an episode-by-episode basis to be specific). I have not yet seen one episode list where you left even one episode article intact. You're also not merging information to the target article (perhaps a quick read at WP:MERGE is in order), reducing 3 good paragraphs about an hour long television episode into a single sentence, flashing WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT in front of the faces of hard working editors when they revert like it's your badge for the FBI. I'm not saying that there should be nothing done about these (and have not once disagreed with the policiesguidelines in any way), but your method of enforcing this policyguideline is not cool, and I think that you should stop. — Zachary ^talk 07:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind, while it's very possible for an episode to be a great article, for the vast majority of these articles.. very little of what they are now will contribute to the better article. To put it bluntly, starting from scratch would be less work and more productive. Anyone can summarize an episode, and we are never in short supply of people to do that. It's everything else, like reception, real world impact, and so on, that we need to make these articles good. For many episodes there will be nothing different to say from one episode to the next, other than what happened in the plot, so even if we have notable info it still might not mean that every episode gets it's own article. -- Ned Scott 08:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice Mangojuice said "..as it doesn't describe common practice (which a guideline is supposed to do)..". Ok, lets get this cleared up, common practice is not always what a guideline should be, because common practice can be a very bad thing. Common practice or behavior isn't always consensus. Consensus suggests that people have been able to reasonably consider all sides of the issue and come to a conclusion. Sometimes people just do "monkey see monkey do", or they just assume that it's ok to put up nothing but plot summary and trivial information. Guidelines do not describe common practice, they describe what should be common practice. -- Ned Scott 08:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't disagree with Black Falcon about the part that the good episodes could have articles. But we will have a hard time decide what is a good episode based on objective criteria, even if we might very well agree on the subjective one. I must admit something though: I jumped in to advocate a point of view in something I thought was related (the popgroup with one extra article for each record.) Perhaps I should have sticked to the original plan and started a new debate under a new subject. Anyhow, it's a problem when to decide whats an important TV-episode: db-TV? If you see what I mean: "It is an article about a TV-episode that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject." How can that be: this TV-episode is not a subject of enough interest? Should there be a usenet-newsgroup for the series before it was allowed to have articles for it's episodes, or should there be so and so many newspaper articles? Objective criteria (not just "this one is good" and "this one is just another mass-produced episode".) Anyhow, and to get back to what I planned to suggest: I wonder if there could be some sort of mecanism for not removing, but reducing their hope of getting choicen, episodes and records from the random article algorithm, at least. As I said: I think I get up far to much of this if I sit and push the button. I get the impression Wikipedia is not like an ordinary encyclopdia in this, if you look at a random page in a written one you will not end up with pop-culture (who does not deserve to be called so) in nearly the same degree. Greswik 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:TTN and User talk:Chris 42

Why this project of yours to remove episode pages? Many are works in progress, and a note on the talk page to suggest they should be improved according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes guidelines would be more constructive. I note you redirected all the Foyle's War episodes without even the courtesy of a note on the talk page. Admittedly, most were stubs, but others were being worked on. You are destroying hours of work by many conscientious contributors without even engaging with them about the rationale, or discussing your actions with the wikiproject most concerned. Gwinva 06:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I put a great deal of work into making the Yes Minister/Yes, Prime Minister pages. Are you making this a personal vendetta against all TV series on Wikipedia? It's downright disrespectful to the efforts of others. Chris 42 09:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

When you speak of quality, what are you talking about? The writing qualityof the plot summaries is fine, but if that's all you can do, it isn't quality in an encyclopedic view. You need reception and development to have any sort of quality there. Your plot summaries belong on tv.com or Wikia, not here. TTN 12:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comments above. If the articles are insufficient in your view, then let them be improved by others. You can't just delete episode articles wholesale and expect the people who create/maintain them to accept it without question. How many other shows' episode articles do you intend to obliterate? Lost, The Sopranos, House, Star Trek and Doctor Who (to name just a few) all have them, and most follow a similar format. Supposing someone wanted to add the extra info you describe to the Yes Minister articles? Are you really suggesting they should start from the ground up and recreate them from scratch? Chris 42 12:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to get many redirected at Smallville, but I'm holding a discussion on the season's talk page. There, I've proposed a new layout for the season page that addresses the concern about non-free images, keeps plots in check, and allows for an area where you would put production and critical reaction type information. Sometimes it's easier to find reactions for an entire season, than for every episode in a given season, because many episodes do not even come close to what was decided in the debate over them. I'm curious about what you guys would think of my propose season page layout, since it appears that I'm not alone in my concern for the rush to create individual episode pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN, please read Wikipedia:Editing policy#Major changes, in particular the following: "So, whatever you do, try to preserve information [...] If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that." Chris 42 13:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris is right. It was rather unfair for you to mindlessly redirect those pages without the creator(s) consent. Angie Y. 14:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that many individual episodes violation copyrights. They are, just like screenshots, non-free, and we are taking a copyrighted product and not only writing just about everything that happens in the episode but not providing any encyclopedic information around it to justify its use. A list of quotes just hinders that very cause more (we have a Wikiquote anyway), and any experienced editor knows the rule about "trivia" sections. What I've seen, and this doesn't have to be for every article, is editors rushing to create individual episode articles under the guise of "it will be expanded later". Then over a year goes by and the article still contains nothing encyclopedic. I'm not saying that NO episode deserves its own article, but when you have a show with over 100 episodes, I can stake my life on the fact that 90% of them will never fulfill the requirements of an individual episode article (not on notability or plain ol "enough information").  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What I'm not understanding is why people are griping over my editing instead of actually trying to improve the articles. They say "you should have brought it up before, so people could try to meet the guideline", but now that it has been brought up and reverted, they just sit there. Only one editor has done anything (merging episodes into seasons or something). The rest just claim that they can be improved, while not actually providing a method. This is the main problem; episodes don't warrant their own existence. They have to earn it with out of universe information, and so far only a small number of series have shown that. With these crufty things, we need to have them prove their worth or we'll get nowhere. TTN 20:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

People are "griping" because what you are doing is *not* editing. You're just deleting, and expecting others to clean up the mess you leave behind. When people call you on it, their opinions are ignored. That's not how Wikipedia should operate. -- Ckatz ^chat _spy 04:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That is the way to go about this. There is no way to merge or save this information (and most of it is a little too bad to save anyways). It is summed up nicely most of the time. The problem is when people contact me, it's only their opinion that I get instead of constructive discussion. "Where are the sources?" always gets ignored or passed off. You're right, it should operate as if these people are actually following the notability guidelines instead of ignoring them to save articles that they've worked on or articles that they like. TTN 10:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a de facto time limit by which all articles must reach Featured status or get deleted, which is effectively your rationale. If you're unhappy that they're unsourced, then fine: stick a template message on them. The whole point of Wikipedia is that articles are collaborative efforts. I agree that brief plot summaries are desirable if they are part of a larger article, but the point of an individual episode page is to allow the freedom to expand on it, since it is only that episode that the page is concerned with. The Lost and Sopranos episode articles comprise mainly plot and trivia as well; are you planning on deleting those too? You still haven't answered the point I made above about Wikipedia:Editing policy#Major changes. Chris 42 11:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the guidelines to start with a series article, and then break then into a smaller article like a list of, or a season article. Then you are supposed to develop those, until a time comes when they needed to have something split off? These articles are being credit simply to have a plot summary that tells us everything that happens. This is not encyclopedic, it's actually copyright violation. We have no critical commentary to go with this non-free information, thus it doesn't even pass fair-use criteria. Yes, plots are non-free. We are publicizing detailed summaries (spoiler filled) of a copyrighted piece of material, and companies have successfully sued over this. People think that say "but we're non-profit, we aren't selling them" means that we have a license to do whatever. This isn't true. It's still illegal to tape a baseball game and then put it on a big screen to for an entire community of people to watch, who didn't pay the cable charge to view it when it was originally televised. The reason plots are allowed is because we generally have critical commentary accompanying them that establishes a fair-use reason for their existence. They are used as context. But most episode articles are 90% plot, and 10% garbage. Quotes belong on Wikiquote, and when they accompany a plot summary they do nothing but provide even more of a violation because you are copying, word-for-word, the show. Featured music isn't encyclopedic. It isn't an album. It's just some random song that appears in an episode. Unless you can say "Director Smith chose "Peaches" because..." then listing 6 songs that appear on Scrubs episode 112 is not notable. The whole point of the episode article guidelines was to prevent this type of rash creation. It was set up so that "List of" articles, and Season articles would get developed and if there appeared to be a lot of information about 1 episode, or 2, or 3, then they would be split from the main article. Unfortunately, all 100+ episodes of every television show are being created, regardless of the development of what should have been the primary focus. TTN may be going about the redirects in a rash manner (with the best of intentions of course), but creating all these episode articles, knowing full well that the vast majority will never be GA status, let alone FA status (because you are never going to fulfill the "reception" section of an episode article for every episode in every series...they aren't films, professional critics don't tend to review every episode of every series...there are just too many), is being just as disruptive as redirecting without telling anyone. I'm not doubting that all of the editors that created these articles had the best of intentions in mind, just that there are guidelines for a reason and people are ignoring them in favor of their personal opinions of a show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Section break II

This link is probably more appropriate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_deletion_of_television_articles_by_TTN

The guideline is undergoing review at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes. Discussions about how to implement the guidelines and manage the increasing number of articles which do not meet the guidelines is occurring at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episodes. If anyone is passionate (or mildly interested) in either of these, do join the discussion. Gwinva 21:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There has been a lot of debate recently around deleting lists of people grouped by ethnicity, race, religion, and other cultural groupings. Unfortunately, Wikipedia:Categorization of people deals with this issue from the point of view of categories; there is no guideline for the similar but distinct lists of people. As a result, there has been a ton of confusion on this issue. To try and lend so clarity to the situation, I have created Wikipedia:Proposed guideline for lists of people by ethnicity, religion, and other cultural categorizations. Much of the wording of this proposed guideline comes from Wikipedia:Categorization of people but it has been tailored to fit the specific needs of lists. I hope people will join the discussion on the proposed guideline and make changes as needed. Best,-- Alabamaboy 14:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd just comment that Wikipedia:Categorization of people has by no means prevented many long and acrimonious CfD's on such categories. Johnbod 14:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I know. The problem is that at least with categories you can point to a guideline on the issue. With lists of this type, there's nothing unless you make the leap that Wikipedia:Categorization of people also applies.-- Alabamaboy 16:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I know the community is at a cross roads with the entire concept of Fair Use and if community consensus goes the way of banning all non-free content, I really wouldn't have a problem. However, I am concerned with the subjective application of WP:FAIRUSE and in particularly the vague "Replaceable clause" as it applies to Fair Use images for individuals who are deceased. At its most literal point, every possible conceivable image could be deemed replaceable under the "hypothetical assumption" that under some rock, somewhere is a free image just waiting to be uploaded to Wikipedia. Banking on that rational one could successfully argue for the deletion of every fair use image. In most cases, especially on BLPs and non-human objects, the replaceable clause is quite reasonable because if all else fails an editor who wants an image can pick up their camera and go take the picture. However that logic hits a road block when the subject is a deceased individual (or an historical event for that matter). In those circumstances the pool of potential free images is dramatically reduced with the opportunity for anyone to grab their camera and snap a picture being non-existent. This creates an inherent systematic bias towards images for articles of living people and non-human objects at the expense of the encyclopedic quality and service of articles about deceased individuals. Again, if the community wishes to go the route of banning all fair use then this is a moot point but the current wording of WP:FAIRUSE, and certainly its application, seems to have this glaring hole and bias when it comes to the "replaceable clause". Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 06:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Banking on that rational one could successfully argue for the deletion of every fair use image. -- And, in fact, there are several editors who do just this. In practicality, what people don't realize -- and what should really be spelled out -- is that some of the five pillars are more equal than others. Current policy implementation values free/libre content over encyclopedic content; non-free content, even if valuable, or even critical, MUST be deleted if free/libre content COULD be created. Which is, you know, odd and counter-intuitive, but very, very Wikipedia-like. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 08:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images of deceased individuals are by definition not replaceable. Anyone that marks one as such should be shot. 81.104.175.145 09:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's an absolute but I do think there is a requirement for some common sense that the availability of "replaceable free images" are dramatically reduced when the individual is deceased. Otherwise the question then becomes "Do we sacrifice the encyclopedic quality of our articles on deceased individuals and bank on the hypothetical existence of some free image waiting under a rock somewhere?" I think the current wording of WP:FAIRUSE, in this regard, encourages this systematic bias. As a whole, I think the community needs to decide fully how we feel about fair use and if it is fair for our articles about deceased individuals and historical events to become "sacrificial pawns" to the subjective application of the "replaceable clause". Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 17:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"I don't think that's an absolute". OK, fair enough - strictly speaking it depends on whether the subject was buried or cremated, but I can guarantee you won't be able to take a picture for WP if the latter. 81.104.175.145 17:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Still not true. For example, I could provide a free-licensed picture of Jim West, who died a year ago. It's not of sufficient quality for an article, though -- the car he was riding in just happens to be visible in the distance behind the parade float I was taking a picture of. -- Carnildo 07:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So, you're of the "We have no idea what actually exists, and even though no NEW photos can be taken, there's always the possibility that maybe, somewhere, a free/libre photo might become available" school? This, to me, seems a poor strategy for writing an encyclopedia, especially one which, as of now, permits fair use. Hoping for a pony rarely becomes a pony; hoping for "free" images to magically appear seems just as unlikely to work. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think anytime a free image is produced, it should obviously take priority and "replace" the non-free image in the article-even if it is of slightly lesser quality. I have no problem with that aspect of the "replaceable clause" since you actually have something to replace. It is the vague and hypothetical assumption that under a rock somewhere there is a free image waiting to be upload is one that is inherently bias towards the articles about deceased individuals. There is obviously a finitely limited pool of resources that only grows smaller as time passes and leaves no opportunity to take any new photos. That is a glaring hole and systematic bias that is currently not addressed by WP:FAIRUSE. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 15:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A process is needed to ensure that speedy deletions of articles which allegedly violate WP:BLP, but do not meet CSD G10, do not result in wheel wars or other disruption, of the type described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. I have suggested such a process at Wikipedia:BLP Deletion Process. John254 23:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There's an article of a high school musical director. Is that allowed here on Wikipedia. I don't know where, but I'd like to propose its deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Otani

- 71.240.184.236 03:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've nommed it for you, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duane Otani. Notability was the term you were looking for. — Someguy0830 ( T | C) 03:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've closed it as a speedy for failing CSD A7. Dsmdgold 02:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I need your help, please. Who should I contact to denounce the Spanish Wikipedia? They are violating the most basic policies, deleting sections and articles without consulting previously with the editors, blocking user IP's just for putting an external link to an official fan club in the article of an artist, and I could state hundreds of arbitrary and unethical actions the admins do there. Thank you in advance. -- TheMexican ^{( talk)} 15:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I also added some more things into the criticism section of the article about the Spanish Wikipedia with strong and verifiably arguments. -- TheMexican ^{( talk)} 16:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground: "...do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation" -- Edub 19:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Why some administrators of the Spanish wikipedia do not follow these rules?. Why do they use their privileges as a weapon against criticism?. They consider criticism as a personal attack, while their scornful behaviour and rudeness towards normal users never remain impunished, and if you complain you just get blocked and the group of friends write insults and lies against you while you can not reply. And if you reply after the blockade, you get blocked again. They use the blockade as a dialectic weapon, they track your comments in other wikis or webpages (for example, administrator Dodo has a link to my contributions in other wikipedias in his user page), they do not follow the English Wikipedia policies (for example Edub argue with TheMexican and the same Edub blocked him, unfortunately this is usual in the Spanish wikipedia) but neither the Spanish WIkipedia policies (they block users with many editions without consulting with other administrators).If a blocked user goes to the discussion page only to talk about the blockade (to talk about the blockade with another administrators is the right procedure) misteriously the administrator who blocked him, blocks also his new(s) IP even if (Dodo made it to me).

They say that wikipedia is not a place for Human Rights or for freedom of speech; that they will take all the unfair decissions necessary for the goog of the project. [2].

You can see only a part of my expirience at [ [3]] and [ [4]](sorry, it is in Spanish) and I've seen much more since then.

By the way, did you know that in the Spanish Wikipedia they discuss on how to soften the paragraph on criticisms in the article Spanish Wikipedia and that some users and administrators of the Spanish Wikipedia have edited it?. Neutrality? Self-promotion? Rules? Even the mention to the causes of the split of the Spanish Wikipedia are biased: only mention an obsolete cause but not the others, such as: "Critical voices were censored and the opinions of editors with administrative power continually used personal wording." (see Enciclopedia Libre.

Most users and many administrators of the Spanish Wikipedia are good people, but others aren't, and they spread as a cancer and expel and intimidate. (see for example at [5] on how Dodo expeled users with 50000 and 70000 editions and how some administrators resigned for this)

Good luck to the good Spanish Wikipedians, they do need it.-- Dilvish 10 words 00:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia act independently. What happens on the English Wikipedia does not necessarily have to rub off onto the Spanish Wikipedia and vice versa. The English Wikipedia does have a little more clout but that is only because it is the most active project, and encounters more problems than other Wikipedias, but otherwise, every single language Wikipedia can make its own rules and guidelines, and can organise how the project is to be done. The article on Madeleine McCann, for example, is on the English Wikipedia, but it was recently transwikied to French Wikinews from the French Wikipedia because consensus said it wasn't encyclopedic. However, there are Foundation-level policies (anonymous editing must be allowed, be bold, etc.), that all Wikipedias must follow. See m:Wikimedia principles. On the other hand, there are doubtless detractors around. I've heard of problems on the Chinese Wikipedia and the Swedish Wikipedia. However, the English Wikipedia is not the place to complain about other language Wikipedias. If you are unhappy, then take it up with the Spanish Wikipedia's administrators first. If it is something very serious they are doing, such as widely accepting copyrighted material without licensing, then you may be able to take it up with a Steward or use various mailing lists. However, this does not feel like it is such a problem - rather, a problem someone has with the way the administrators act on the Spanish Wikipedia. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The thruth is that it is not about a problem that someone has with Spanish administrators, but many people have this problem, as administrators do not keep the basic ethical rules, and, as in the Spanish Wikipedia article is stated, they are acting according to their personal interests. I can say that not even the community votes are fair, because those who will vote against an article, are all the friends or interested people of the the admins. I did write my complaint to a Steward. -- TheMexican ^{( talk)} 08:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

To x42bn6. I understand your point, but as critical voices are silenced (comments deleted, accounts blocked, administrators hooligangs insult them...) try to understand to us. Any user or administrator of the Spanish WIkipedia knows (s)he will get problems if they take part. The rude administrators call those who don't support (actively) their peculiar punishment policies "softies" or "execrable accomplices"(of course these attacks were neither deleted nor punished). I'm afraid nobody minds what happens in the Spanish WIkipedia, but as any criticism is deleted in the Spanish Wikipedia it should be somewhere. And there are so many cases... Supersouissi, an arabist, complained in his user page on continuous islamophobic vandalism. Without any advice or comment an administrator deleted the complains. Superouissi put the complains again adducing that there was no personal attacks. Then Supersouissi was blocked for one month (and it was his first "fault") ( [6]).

Well, at least try to complete the Spanish Wikipedia article, the points that 'misteriously' were missed and control its manipulation by the administrators of the Spanish Wikipedia. This do is an English Wikipedia matter and the data on the Spanish Wikipedia split is well attested ant to mention only the obsolete reasons but keeping silence on the other ones is distortion. -- Dilvish 10 words 10:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Each language Wikipedia is more or less autonomous. See m:Foundation issues for policies that are binding on all Wikimedia projects. Basically, the only things the Spanish Wikipedia can't do are:

• Abandon NPOV as a policy.
• Ban anonymous editing.
• Abandon the "wiki process" on content issues. Examples might include top-down editorial control or binding content-related decisions from "committees". This is why the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee doesn't rule on content.
• Use non-copyleft licensing.
• Disobey the Wikimedia Board. Examples might include disregarding an Office Action or ignoring a Wikimedia-wide user ban.

If you feel the Spanish Wikipedia administrators are engaging in one of the above actions, I'd suggest emailing one of our friendly Wikimedia Trustees. That's what they're here for. szyslak 11:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanation. -- Dilvish 10 words 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And our Board of Trustees members can be found here. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In many countries, there are legal restrictions on what kind of information can be published about a criminal defendant. Some countries prohibit, or allow judges to prohibit, information that can identify a defendant before he or she is convicted, or any information that can identify a juvenile convict, or information that can influence a jury pool. This issue has come up in articles about criminals on trial in Sweden, for instance, as well as articles on juvenile criminals in Canada and even an article on a deceased convict in Germany.

Recently, a Danish editor removed information about a criminal defendant from the article 2008 UEFA qualifier fan attack because of a Danish court order. I pointed out that Wikipedia is not subject to Danish law. The other editor is of the opinion the English Wikipedia should abide by the Danish ruling.

I think there ought to be an official Wikipedia policy on publication bans -- something along the like of: "We don't have to honor them, and information shouldn't be removed because of them. But a publication ban may make it hard to find reliable sources on a person or subject, and, in that case, the information should be omitted on the grounds of WP:RS." -- Mwalcoff 23:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is a good recommandation that exist for those case. If a mention has no reliable source and can be challenged then it has to be removed. That's the way it works and it is enough if you apply it by removing unsourced part harshly.

As for the dead well why need a new recommandation for them ? — Esurnir 23:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I think it's much more dependent on the situation. As you said, censorship within one country wouldn't necessarily prevent sources being available from outside the country which aren't subject to any such restrictions. On the other hand, I've on more than one occasion seen people putting in speculation from blogs and rumor sites regarding the name of an accused criminal, and such things should be removed immediately with regard to WP:BLP. I'd be very hesitant, for this reason, to say it should never be removed-often it should. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So do you think that it would be fair to say that, as a rule, Wikipedia should not remove or leave out content solely to honor non-US censorship, including judicial publication bans, but that the existence of a publication ban may make it impossible to include the information at issue without violating WP:BLP and/or WP:RS? -- Mwalcoff 00:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Unlike the current spate of hyper-sensitive removals of information about living persons widely reported in the media, the kind of speculative information that would be covered here is pretty explicitly prohibited by BLP. I think we treat it the same as classified information -- if it's public in a reliable source, then we're not spilling any beans, but if it's unpublished or speculative, we shouldn't be including it anyway. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 00:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As noted on the article's talk page (see bottom of section), a reliable source isn't a problem. This is just an editor wanting to respect Danish law. — Someguy0830 ( T | C) 01:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is there for ethical, not legal reasons. If we name and shame here, we could potentially be in contempt of court (I'm sure Jimbo wouldn't want to be arrested on his next visit to Copenhagen. :-)). Because Wikipedia is well-accessible in Denmark ( and in Danish, too), we also run the risk of prejudice to any criminal proceedings that result. 81.104.175.145 08:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well in the case of the article cited here. You should publish the name and cite the sources after that. If someone would have a legal problem then it will be the source cited that will get the blow. Jimbo wil not get arrested at the airport don't worry :). Just state the verrifiable fact, cite the source. And you risk nothing (you source do, but that's not your problem that's his problem). - Esurnir 16:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

From a legal standpoint, this may not be the case. In at least one EU member state, anyone repeating a libellous or defamatory statement carries liability. But that's irrelevant, WP:BLP is there for ethical reasons, and from an ethical standpoint, we don't wash our hands of guilt by linking to an external site. Tread carefully here, there's an WP:RFAR under way right now for the very issue of publishing names inappropriately. 81.104.175.145 16:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Publication bans aside... If someone is contesting an issue in a court case or pending court case, it does seem prudent to withhold sections that are being contested. For instance, say we have newspaper articles that say 'Mister X stole the Pink Diamonds', but Mister X is contesting that in a court case, it might be inappropriate for a Wikipedia article to say 'Mister X stole the Pink Diamonds' even if we can cite those newspapers. For one thing, the court case may well decide that 'Mister X was framed by Mister Y'. We can certainly state that there's a court case pending or in progress, but we should be careful. -- Barberio 18:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You can always do what the papers do, listing them as alleged. So, "Mister X has been charged with stealing the Pink Diamonds" Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 20:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify one thing: Using the word "alleged" or "allegedly" does not absolve you of liability for libel. But you are on solid ground if you simply report a person has been arrested or charged.

It seems more discussion on this issue is necessary. Any idea if a policy statement on publication bans could be added to an existing policy, or if an entirely new policy is necessary? -- Mwalcoff 02:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It probably could be added to an existing policy, but I don't think that's a good idea. It's really a significantly different idea from any policies we have. - Amarkov moo! 02:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've put up a proposed policy at Wikipedia:Publication bans. Comments are welcome on its talk page. -- Mwalcoff 08:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I just put out an article Crimson Circle (Shaumbra), that I've worked with for quite some time, and made a disambiguation page. After two hours all my work were gone, deleted by an administrator. It is very frustraing to see ones good work just beeing deleted. Sometimes I just feel this place sucks. Resigned and frustrated Geir 14:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WMD and DP. I will assume that you have already asked the admin ( politely) for clarification and viewed the deletion log? Adrian M. H. 16:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, our conversation is here and here. Maybe not my most polite words.. Anyway, my article can be found here. I basically needed the room for expressing my frustration. Geir 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Having read the log, the article was deleted for being not notable, and that it failed to assert the notability of the subject. Just out of curiosity, what was the content?-- Kylohk 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UT

It's about a spiritual group, based around channelings -now a world-wide organization.

(Ps. The section secondary sources is added afterwards.)

I really can't see any reason why this is notable. The deleting admin seems to me to have been entirely correct and not to have been vandalising in any way. And I hate to say it, but it's really not very well written. The English is most peculiar and it's very difficult to see what you're getting at. I appreciate English isn't your first language, but articles on English Wikipedia do need to be more readable than that. -- Necrothesp 18:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your honest opinion! My intention with the article was not to make it perfect, in content or language, but to make a framwork for colaboration. I know the subject is notable in Wikipedian sense, but I guess the matter is to far away from what is common accepted. If it's so, I guess I want be using so much time here in the future. Geir 19:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the page as it stands suggests "notable in Wikipedian sense". 81.104.175.145 08:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your time and concern! Geir 13:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of arrested Bengals. Is copying something from here to sportsargumentwiki.com a copyright violation? Especially since the copy was done without attribution to the Wikipedia article as required by GFDL, and since the sportsargumentwiki is not using a compatible license. If so, is there anything that can be done about it now? Corvus cornix 06:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I understand it's a copyvio to transwiki the material to a non-Wikimedia wiki that doesn't use GFDL. No, I don't think there's anything we can do about it, except to advise the user not to do that again. Yechiel Man 05:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a breach of the GFDL copyright. This can be enforced just like any other copyright. I would guess an individual contributor could contact sportsargumentwiki.com to complain, although be careful about WP:NLT. Alternatively the Wikimedia Foundation could take action - you may try writing to them. AndrewRT( Talk) 13:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of you might be aware of WP:EPISODE, which is our guideline for dealing with articles about an individual episode from a show. Before it had the shortcut WP:EPISODE and the current title, Wikipedia:Television episodes, it was known as Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes [7]. Well, it still says pretty much the same thing as before, but some recent redirecting of episode articles that weren't seen as notable lead us to some new activity on the talk page of WP:EPISODE. We're now looking for input and comments to expanding the guideline at WT:EPISODE#Suggested expansion of guidelines. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If, in seeing the account pattern of a vandal with multiple accounts, I believe that I know some future accounts, may I create those accounts to prevent the vandal from getting them? This situation is one which happenned recently. Od Mishehu 09:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre-emptive strike then. The thing is though that if someone wants to create an account to vandalise they are not going to be put off by a preferred ID being already taken. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak 10:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at this link, you'll see a reference to a vandal who seems to want a particular set of 4 user names - of which he created 3. Od Mishehu 11:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I checked out the link before commenting. What you are suggesting is very similar to WP:U clause 5.3 so if the account wasn't used for editing and was clearly marked and justified then it could be acceptable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak 11:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Just don't make any edits with that account so that it will be available for usurpation later (unless it's a clear username violation). Yechiel Man 23:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I may have missed some announcement, or missed the big community debate over this, but for some reasons the OTRS volunteers working on en.wikipedia seem to belive they have special super-admin powers. Specifically that edits made 'as OTRS edits' can not be reverted by normal editors or admin.

The OTRS pages on Meta seem to suggest exactly the opposite, that OTRS volunteers are expected to work within the consensus lead framework of each individual project. ("OTRS is not a Badge" in the 'introduction' section.) Proposals that there should be special 'super-admin' powers granted to some vetted users has been a perennial suggestion in the past, but has never gained support.

I think we need to make this clear to OTRS volunteers that unless there's a discussion that produces consensus support or a specific declaration by the Wikimedia Foundation, OTRS Volunteers do not have special powers on this project. -- Barberio 15:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OTRS volunteers do have "special powers" after a fashion. They have access to information that you don't. If they say something is wrong and OTRS is involved, WP:AGF and take them at their word. 81.104.175.145 16:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Email the orts volonteer first. If you have a statement with a reliable source that got removed , then the orts employee shouldn't had done so. If it was an unsourced statement then he was right. — Esurnir 19:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The above linked page, and comments made by OTRS volunteers (note, volunteers not employees) here seems to suggest that some act as if they are entitled to remove any content or whole articles if they judge them to need removing, and that they can't have their action reversed. -- Barberio 19:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be because that is exactly the situation. They have access to some information, you don't have access to it. Therefore, they can make an informed decision about whether the statement needs to be removed, and you cannot. I smell a hint of WP:POINT here. 81.104.175.145 00:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In articles with no direct relation to an Anglophonic country, should American English or British English be used? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RockRNC ( talk • contribs).

Preferably whatever is in use. Take a look at: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English - Nabla 02:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Like Nabla said, it's up to you, but try to be consistent within a particular article and not to change a style once it's there. Yechiel Man 05:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The language is the same; it's often just the spelling of a word (color vs. colour, center vs. centre, etc.) that differs. But as long as it's concise and in encyclopedic, all should be good. Jmlk 1 7 08:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of consistency. Both types of English should not be used simutaneously in an article. It's either this or that. Apart from this, a popular practice is to choose the spelling type depending on the subject. E.g. if the article is something to do with Britain, Australia, etc, use British English. This is particularly true for films.-- Kylohk 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

True. The issue seems to arise in those article in which the two dialects are intertwined. I speak fluent and native English, but for those of us who don't, I can imagine it could potentially be somewhat harder when it switches back and forth. Jmlk 1 7 01:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm representative but this doesn't bother me at all. Actually, I switch back and forth when I write English, and I guess this can annoy native speakers... _R_ 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an old one. As said above, consistentency within the granularity of an article seems to be the the guideline. ~ Infrangible 19:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott I hope will be a test case for whether the Wikipedia community wants thousands of these stub like articles on non notable peers. I am not against articles on peers who have actually done anything of note but to have thousands of these articles that just say x was born and married y and then died is just pure idiocy. There is no reason why these people cannot be covered on the relevant Wikipedia article for the title in question. If you support my view please comment on the above afd. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• To me, the answer is yes. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• If we must have raw lists of information, let's at least get them into one article rather than scattered across many. Friday (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not actually seeing a reason to delete it, aside from " I don't like it". EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason is that the person has done nothing of note and the information known on him can easily be included on the main page of the title Viscount of Arbuthnott. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And the information could just as easily exist in a stubbed article. Again, I'm just seeing a "I don't like it" as your rationale (note that I don't care one way or the other, I'm merely stating my opinion). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty sure his rationale is linked to notability. I don't see anything in the keep camp's rationale other than "it can't hurt." -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 09:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• why do people always take perfectly straightforward merge-jobs to afd? redirect it to the title in question, no questions asked, no vote necessary. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 19:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Because we have done that (in the case of Baronets) but some people complained about it so I thought it better be brought to an afd where the wider community could have some input. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The place to request comment from the wider community on some issue is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Articles for deletion is for deletion, as the name states. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage in the process. Do not nominate articles for deletion unless an administrator hitting a delete button is what you want. Uncle G 10:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• The answer is clearly No, we don't need all this stuff about people who have done nothing apart from been born into a family. If the articles were decently sourced, and had some kind of information in them it'd be less of a problem, but often they're poorly written stubs with no informative content and no verifiable information. Dan Beale 20:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Got some sources on tha? At any rate, whenever the discussion is "should we have many short articles on some particular subject" the solution tends to be to merge them. >Radiant< 08:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Obviously not. Every single one of my ancestors was born in some family and reproduced. Same for your ancestors. No big deal, not assisted by the right to sit in the House of Lords. -- Hoary 09:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think having a larger, main article on a given peerage title itself - containing a good and detailed paragraph for each person who held it (if possible) - is an excellent idea. I agree that a Title is by its nature notable... but not every person who ever held it was or is. They have to have done something more than just hold the title to merit their own article. Blueboar 19:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that today so many Wikipedians feel a need to read their own morality into WP:BIO and WP:N. But the short answer is - if there's nothing to say, a redirect may be appropriate. Being a stub is not a crime (although some editors clearly believe otherwise). Wily D 19:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Peerages and the like ought to be treated in much the same way as WP:EPISODE. Start with a meta-article on the title, list the holders of the title, and as and when the holders make their own mark, create an article on them. Besides, I quite like the parallel between an inbred peer of the realm being equated with a 10 minute Pinky and the Brain cartoon - Tiswas^{( t)} 10:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea. Like a television episode, if there is enough substance to warrant an article for a given peer, then there should be one; otherwise, it should be part of a list. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 09:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a proposed guideline for naming the Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia (Greece) at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). Please come, read, and comment; we would like to have a guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a message on the talk page of WP:SPOILER addressing the apparent lack of consensus and proposing the guideline be marked historical. Please join the discussion. Vassyana 19:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here a quote from the talk page of Akhilleus, who lately deleted Toki Pona. Please reconsiderate and review together this decision. -- LaPingvino ( 192.87.49.2 08:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

Begin quote:

toki pona

Hi, why was the toki pona page removed? thanks AJ

See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toki Pona (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus ( talk) 14:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Most people in that discussion voted to keep. Furtheron, it became one of the biggest conlangs in the last years, having more than 100 speakers, and in some time will probably pass by languages like Ido. Yet it seems to be more in use than Lojban. And I often came back to read the article, because it really is interesting. And this article has many interwiki-links too, which indicates a lot too. So please put the article back! -- LaPingvino, moderator of the biggest toki pona mailing list (moderated, few hundred members), fluent speaker

End quote

• Note that AfD is not a vote. A possibility is that the people arguing Delete had better arguments than the Keep side. The lack of reliable secondary sources was what caused it to be deleted. If it were only covered by self-published sources, ir would not be enough to establish notabiliy and kept.-- Kylohk 10:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've read over the AfD and it seems like it was deleted for legitimate reasons (namely no reliable, outside sources). Like Kylohk said, Afd is not a vote. The decision over whether to delete the article is decided by the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes. It is clear that the delete arguments on this AfD were much stronger than the keep ones and easily refuted any claims made by the keep votes. -- 13 ² 12:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Also, just for the record, by my count there were 7 favoring deletion and only 5 arguing to keep. Which is not sufficient to meet the normal working definition of consensus, but does indicate that most of the participants did not vote to keep. -- Visviva 12:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Recently there has been active debate and gradual changes of the policy, which now comes to a head as some editors argue the changes have been made without consensus, and that a survey of opinion has been biased and not representative of the community's true position on the matter. We need more people to take part in the discussion so that there can be no allegation of bias in the process, and hopefully achieve a consensus on the policy reasonably soon. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection. 07:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any polices against branching pages. A page thats branches off a user page, (Noit on it, it's it's own page, but it's just branching off another page.) Cuz i made two so far and is still making some. The pages are Which Wiki are you and The Daily Journal.

§→ Nikro 23:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is covered at Wikipedia:Subpages. You might want to bear in mind that subpages can be made in any namespace apart from the article namespace. Tra (Talk) 23:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Be wary of your journal getting MfD'd. – Pomte 20:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)