Should be subject to ESRB ratings, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.96.227 ( talk • contribs)

Proposed new section for WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not "entertainment software". TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Damn, you beat me to it. Yes, ESRB is a mainly video game rating system, and Wikipedia, to most people, is not a video game. Wikipedia isn't censored either. — Someguy0830 ( T | C) 01:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not subject to RIAA, MPAA, PEGI, etc. ratings either. - Jéské ^{( v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not censored", sometimes it is necessary for pictures with adult content be hosted here to elucidate a particular matter, however we do try and keep these to a minimum or we should. -Icewedge 06:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll host as much unrated hardcore porn as we want, thank you very much.

Equazcion • argue/ improves • 06:38, 09/20/2007

Equally relevantly, Wikipedia is international, whereas ESRB ratings very much reflect the priorities of North American culture. Different cultures find different things offensive. TSP 09:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to start getting rid of things a lot of people find offensive, the article on Britney Spears won't last very long. -- Dweller 09:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget all the Junk Food pron like Cheetos the gallery of McDonald's menu items:). There is a legal limitation. Anything that qualifies as sexually explicit imagery under 18USC2256 has recordkeeping requirements under the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act with criminal penalties for noncompliance. That used to cover just hardcore but as of 2006-2007 they added softcore too. There's no critical commentary / educational exemption. We wouldn't want to deal with that. Wikidemo 13:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Over the last few weeks, intense discussions have been ongoing at Wikipedia talk:No original research about the seciton on "Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources". It is proposed that this section be replaced with a new section entitled "Recognising the Right Source Materials". The intent of the proposal is not to change any of the basic premises of WP:NOR. The proposed change shifts the focus of the policy section in question from deliniating types of sources (and what sorts of statements they can be cited for) to deliniating types of statements (and choosing sources that properly support the statement). Instead of discussing "Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources" it discusses "Statements of fact, Statements of opinion, and Statements of analysis/interpretation/conclusion).

The editors involved in the discussions seem to be close to consensus (on concept if not exact language), and the time has come to seek broader community involvement and comments. Blueboar 13:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As one of the involved editors over the last month or so, let me also state the following. This proposed change may effect other policies as well. Much discussion has revolved primarily on the issue of the various terms, usage, and definitions of of "Sources", since each of the major policies has their own section on this. over on WP:NOR we are attempting to simplify this problem. Doing a cut and paste from a previous comment I made there:

However, when the proposal is 'advertised', I would state that what this policy is doing with the current 'Sources' section and this proposed version, may be the first step in also getting similar changes done on WP:NPOV, WP:V, and possibly WP:BLP as well, so the main policies can become more standardized in this area, using common criteria, definitions, and examples, eventually leading to less confusion in interpreting the policies and their use. Add something else about creating a "guideline" for the source issues (probably incorporating WP:RS, which is still somehow different from WP:BLP#Reliable_sources, which in turn is linked from WP:V). This would help highlight the current convolution of the various policies referring back and forth to different 'things', whther they are the same in context or not, it leads to a lot of confusion. If they all linked to the same "guideline", much of the confusion of interpretation would be alleviated.

So, for now the 'discussion' is only about how this pertians to 'no original research', but people interested in the interpreations of the other policies should take part in the discussion as well. It would be highly beneficial to Wikipedia to get this 'isssue' standardized across all the applicable policies and guidelines. Thanks. wbfergus ^Talk 14:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've commented there that I like and support the change as now discussed. However, I do think the distinction between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is useful and should be made somewhere. Even if it's not going to be a clear-cut policy to follow, when I was a newbie that one rule was the single most important thing in my getting a conceptual fix on what Wikipedia is all about and why we say and cite some things and not others. It's very useful that our editor base has that analytical framework for how knowledge gets generated, synthesized, and reported. If it's getting removed from WP:OR I think it should be put into WP:RS or in a separate guideline, how-to, or approved essay. Wikidemo 01:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, they are greatly appreciated. Myself and several others are of the mindset that a very brief discussion of "sources" is applicable in the policy as it pertains to that policy only, with further details, examples, etc. 'centralized' in one spot that all other policies and guidelines can link to similarly. I really haven't looked all that closely at the other policies or guidelines though to see how (or if) their similar "source" sections could be simplified. It may be that it is to much work, or to intricately tied up with other parts of the policy, but I think that it would (if possible), help eliminate confusion on how to interpret and apply the various policies, if they all referred to the same 'thing' (sources, their definitions and use), the same way. I also don't think anybody (yet) has really looked at or worked on, what we would link to if we do replace the long section with a more succinct and applicable section. Hopefully, whatever we'd link to would have at least the (eventual) status of a "guideline". wbfergus ^Talk 10:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) An attempt to present primary, secondary and tertiary sources independently of NOR has already been taking place at Wikipedia:Classification of sources. Vassyana 12:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and link. I've only been watching and particpating in the NOR discussions lately, it was getting so confused and time consuming. wbfergus ^Talk 13:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It can even get confusing at points to those of us who've been active in the discussion. :-P Vassyana 20:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I keep reading how the "trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia policy", and I wonder: why? Because it's not in keeping with the usual "encyclopedic" standards?

Let me tell you something: it's precisely "trivia" what sparks people's interest and helps KEEP the knowledge thus acquired where it belongs - in the memory (instead of in books).

So the only thing you should ever worry about is to keep the "trivia" accurate and free of slander. That's it.

If you choose to go the usual, old-fashioned "encyclopedic" way, you might end up like those old-fashioned encyclopedic volumes: gathering thick layers of dust.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.54.94 ( talk) 03:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe... but maybe not. If you're reading about Winston Churchill's life, do you want to know if, as an 8 year old, he had tapioca pudding one Wednesday evening? This may indeed be (as you put it) "accurate and free of slander", but it's not encyclopedic. No encyclopedia worthy of the name would include such trivia. If something is worth including, it's worth including in a relevant section of an article. That's why we discourage trivia sections. "accurate and free of slander" are criteria applied to all additions, however, we also apply a subjective eye for appropriateness. Hope that helps. -- Dweller 12:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem with trivia sections is that they are almost completely Original Research and without sources, reliable or otherwise. And then when the addition is questioned, you get, "Go play the game", or "Go see the movie" or "Go rent the DVD", as if that's a reliable source. And a hundred single-line trivia entries like "In the movie Fred and Ethel go to Mars, when Fred is staring out of the space station and looking at Mons Olympus, he's standing just like Winston Churchill did in the famous painting by Grandma Moses". Corvus cornix 17:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So tag 'em with {{ cn}} and get rid of 'em after a while. Same as with any other info. Just observe verifiability and notability rules, same as with any section. "The main character wore blue pants, and the actor who played him is also known to wear blue pants." -- This is just not notable and wouldn't survive too long in any other section either, so just get rid of it. We have guidelines to prevent everything you just expressed a concern about, even without the so-called "trivia guideline". I think the original poster brings up some interesting points.

Equazcion • argue/ contribs • 17:37, 09/17/2007

In my mind, there are different kinds of trivia. There's the stuff that is just pointless, like every single time any media has ever mentioned the subject (this is a lot of it). But there is also interesting, relevant trivia. For example, let's say that we're talking about Winston Churchill. The fact that, say, Bart Simpson once dressed up as Winston Churchill for a Simpson's Halloween episode (not true) is the kind of pointless, one-off trivia factoid that should be deleted. On the other hand, lets say that Winston Churchill is the most written about U.K. Prime Minister in history and there was a cite to a reliable source. Now, this is also trivia, but it's the kind that I think adds to one's understanding of the subject, even if it isn't essential. The problem I have with trivia policies is that they tend to be indiscriminate or vague and throw out the baby with the bathwater. - Chunky Rice 18:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Good example. And that kind of trivia could be included in various different sections of an article, as an example of just how notable he is, or his legacy etc. It doesn't need to be in its own section. -- Dweller 18:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree. My concern is that with some of the policies that we have, editors may just delete the entire section without evaluating which items are worth saving/integrating, and which are not (this has been happening). - Chunky Rice 19:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the guideline ( WP:TRIVIA) says "Such sections should not be categorically removed" so I'm not sure how we're gonna make it clearer. The uncited stuff can be removed regardless of where it is. Trebor

Sure, but WP:NOT simply says, "Trivia sections. Large sections of indirectly-related details should be avoided as they diminish articles' overall readability and utility." - Chunky Rice 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I find myself uninclined to strictly police trivial sections so long as the information in them is accurate etc. At one point we had a popular culture section in the Bible article that had references to the Bible in Family Guy episodes. Such a section might seem odd for an encyclopedia. But Wikipedia has an in-depth article on every single Family Guy episode and character; it certainly doesn't cover the Bible in anywhere near the depth and detail. Perhaps the high-culture folks should be grateful the popular-culture folks are still interested in making references to their works. The fact of the matter is, Wikipedia has a really good popular culture repository. And we're not massively deleting the stuff despite the fact that we have tens or hundreds of thousands of arguably unencyclopedic articles. We're all tacitly accepting it in the big scheme of things. Given this big picture, it might be better for the project to make our peace with popular culture and not to have an endless series of little guerilla wars at the margins. I understand some trivia really is to trivial, but a light hand and a somewhat liberal interpretation and live-and-let-live attitude on these things might be best. Best, -- Shirahadasha 05:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The quotes above from WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT are not at all contradictory. They shouldn't be removed=they should be cleaned up and merged into the article proper, increasing the readability and giving context to those items that are more than just "indirectly-related" to the topic at large. I can't tell you how many times I've gone seen a Trivia section popped off where 80% of it could be merged into the article proper seamlessly, and, since the bulk tend to just be popular culture references, reliably sourced with relative ease when appropriate. ( ex) This is more true in WP:BIO, geography, and science articles than in television episode articles, as the latter do tend to consist of a bunch of fan-cruft and unsourced/unsupported listings of potential "mistakes" in the subject work. MrZaius ^talk 09:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good example of this in action. Here ( [1]) is an old version of the Donald Bradman article, from 1st August this year, before a group started a push towards FA. There were 12 bullets of trivia. Some have been retained, but placed in appropriate sections, some were removed as unencyclopedic. It's hard to show the difference using a diff, because so much work's been done on the article, but here's one of the steps that made it happen, showing some deletion and some moving into existing and newly created encyclopedic sections. ( [2]). Hope that clears things up. -- Dweller 10:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the policy concerning the citing of sources that can't be readily checked, such as citing a TV interview or DVD or an article that can't be found on the Web? A link to the policy would be nice as I can't find it anywhere I've looked.-- Bamadude 03:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps a book? Citing these things is fine, and in some cases almost mandatory as they are the best available sources. If you doubt the accuracy of the citation, and it's not available on the web, go to a library. Dsmdgold 03:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ask the question at WP:NOR, there was certainly some discussion there about it before. My inclincation is that ephemeral sources probably don't meet the criteria for persistence and authentication to be sufficiently reliable.

ALR 11:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If the question is just about the format to use when citing different kind of sources, I believe that most answers can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources and at Wikipedia:Citation templates, including templates for books (obviously), TV shows etc. -- Goochelaar 11:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links & info. Wikipedia:Citation templates shows a template for using a video as a source, which works great for a video published on the Web and maybe even including a DVD that can be readily purchased on the open market (if you want to go that far to verify something), but it would be impossible to verify a TV interview as a source when you can't find it on the web, in a library, on a DVD or in an archive, so I would think per Wikipedia:Verifiability that non-archived TV interviews are not good sources for citations as they can't be readily verified by the reader --- comments, please?-- Bamadude 18:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding, WP:V means that you have to be able to verify the fact, not necessarily the source. If the video is the only source for a fact, and is likely to be the only source for the fact, then I would leave it out of the article. Otherwise, I think you should be able to cite using the video, and also include another source. Karanacs 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

TV interviews are definitely sources, and the ease of verifying a source is almost always not a consideration (the world is bigger than a mouse click). On a more helpful note, if it's a news program interview, try looking for transcripts of the program. Sometimes these are easier to obtain and easier to use than the video (if the transcript is not on the web, try Lexis-Nexis which is available through universities sometimes, not sure how prevalent L-N is at public libraries though). R. Baley 18:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but these are both bad examples above. If you have a 2nd source that's readily available, you don't need the video, Karanacs. And the point of having a citation is being able to readily verify it, not necessarily with a mouse click per se, but actually having the ability to do so, R.B. A one-off, non-archived TV interview is nearly-impossible for anybody to verify in my opinion. Lexis Nexis is subscription-only and not everyone has it as you realize and it's really impressive, but it doesn't have everything as noted here.-- Bamadude 19:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely, the above isn't intended as an agrument against the use of print sources such as books? -- Pleasantville 19:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so because print books offer vastly superior benefits (in my opinion) to web resources. I have actually seen web sources be "revised" to drastically change the meaning it was being used as a references for and reposted on the web. A print source with a link to the ISBN is much more stable of a source and is readily available through libraries or booksellers. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 19:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has disputed books as being a good source, and we're talking about books that can't be found on the Web. Of course, that means books that are either in print or available at a library, i.e., not hard-to-find or extinct (see below my quote from WP:V on this).-- Bamadude 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The television company will sell you a video copy of nearly any news program provided you know the show and when it aired. Or put another way, they archive basically everything. While we may prefer sources that are easier to get at, we don't exclude sources that cost money or require considerable effort to locate. Hence TV interviews should be fair game. 128.32.95.38 19:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Purchasing a video from a TV station is not what I would call a "readily-verifiable" source. Have you ever tried to do this? I don't think a majority of users would think so either. We need more people checking facts to eliminate the preponderance of "printing the legend" as many users do. WP:NOR states "As a rule of thumb, the more people engage in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." It's hard to do that if most of all users either can't get to the source or don't have the time or inclination to investigate it.-- Bamadude 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Especially for articles about actors there are sometimes "Unofficial" recordings around .How therefore does citing in these cases work as for copyright reasons we can't link to YouTube etc but ,for example, I have never heard of any official way of getting hold of Tonight Show recordings or transcripts . Garda40 22:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're correct --- that's another issue why many video sources aren't good sources. If you can get the program on DVD, or it's available thru reruns, or on a web site that owns the rights to it and will stream it on-demand, you're just about out of legal options (and "readily-available" options) to get to the video source to verify the citation in the article.

Furthermore, WP:V states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that ANY reader (my emphasis) should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." "Any reader" could be interpreted to mean those who don't have the money to purchase source material or have the mobility to leave the dwelling to obtain it at a library. What's the true intent? I don't know . . . ask Jimbo Wales, but I'm betting that hard-to-find sources are bad sources.-- Bamadude 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a bet you lose. Fpom WP:RS:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Most instances of this kind of source are out of print, or only available in university libraries. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd call it a tie. Where did this argument get off on a book-burning tangent? What we have here is a common occurrance of a conflict of WP policy. I quote one policy, you quote the other policy that states the opposite. Now what? You also assume that an old book in a library is not outmoded info, but I find that's usually not the case from experience. You're also forgetting that the book actually exists in the library, and we're talking about sources that either don't exist or can't be found readily, not library books.-- Bamadude 01:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you lose. WP:V says nothing about a source being easy to locate unless you're taking "any editor" to mean something far broader than common sense would dictate. Any editor can verify nearly any printed source -- if he makes the effort. It's a bad idea to pander to the lazy. If someone has the gumption to impeach a source, he should have the wherewithal to check it himself. How hard can it be to get access to the library at a local community college?

And we didn't go off on any tangents. You questioned the utility of print-only sources right at the start of this topic. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with many of the people here. Saying, "no you can't include that in an article because it isn't on the internet, only a book" is not just wrong, its downright stupid. Chances are, something from a book published by a reputable publisher or written by a reputable author, or about any recent textbook, is going to be far more reliable than most things found on the internet. Same goes for a TV show on a reputable channel or a documentary by a reputable filmmaker. If one can prove the book, TV show, or film exists, it should be more than good enough for basic verification purposes - what happened to assume good faith here? Why are we now all of a sudden assuming people are going to try to stick original research into an article and cite it with a book so that no one else can verify it? Above was mentioned the Tonight Show, why would we be citing that? What we need here is some sort of "Source Board" where people can go to ask for verification so that people with access to large libraries and online reference material can provide verification if that is needed. And vice versa, if someone needs a citation for a fact and cannot find a source with the materials they have, they can ask on the board. Any policy that restricts sourcing based on availability on the internet or local libraries is IMO stupid, counter-productive, and horrible from a reliability standpoint. Mr. Z-man 23:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you're reading about 15% of a post and forgetting about the entire string here. Nobody has advocated eliminating books as a source, but to imply that a book is always inherently more reliable than a Web source is ridiculous. And how would you prove a source exists ifyou can't get to it to verify it? Others users should have the ability to examine the source without undue difficulty doing so, as the more fact-checking done, the better. As far as a repository, your idea has already been taken by Lexis Nexis and other companies who charge a fee for the service because they have to pay to use copyrighted material, so having a board that swaps copyrighted material free of charge is against Federal & international law --- ask Napster; YouTube is next, just wait and see. And WP:AGF doesn't address this argument anyway. I'm sorry I shot down all your ideas, but they do seem pretty emotional and not well-thought out, I'm afraid to say.-- Bamadude 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You obviously misunderstood my suggestion, I'm not suggesting a repository. Here are a couple scenarios: User:X is fact checking an article for FAC, it uses a book source and the info cannot be found on any online source. It is an old article so he cannot determine without searching through over a year of edits who added the source. His local library does not have the book. He posts the article and citation info to the Source Board. User:Y attends a major university with a massive library that does have the book. He checks it, and reports whether or not it does cite the info from the article. Scenario 2: User:X is writing an article. He knows what he wants to add is true, but none of the sources he can find will cite the statement. He posts the statement needing a citation on the Source Board. User:Y has a textbook that will cite the info. User:Y puts the citation info (title, author, editor, publisher, etc) into the references. Where are the copyright issues with that? I'm not advocating we scan source material and create a page full of PDFs.

"And how would you prove a source exists if you can't get to it to verify it?" - Look it up on Amazon or Google. I don't have this book; I know it exists though. I read the whole post, don't patronize me and just dismiss my comments as emotional, I thought them out plenty. How does AGF not apply here? You say that if you can't easily and freely obtain source information then no one should use it. Why not, do you not trust people that do have the source material to use it properly? If I use a history textbook to cite a fact in an article (and I've done so in the past) and someone comes along and says "Nope, I can't get that book without paying $150 for it, I can't verify it, remove it", how is that any different from saying "I don't have that book so I can't prove that you didn't misinterpret the source or make up the citation, remove it?" If someone says they have a copy of a video interview and they use it to cite a fact in an article, and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise, why should we not trust them? Mr. Z-man 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See if this makes sense --- If you can link to a book page on Amazon, there's your existing citation and it's a good source. if the book is readily-available on Amazon or the library, it's a good source. If you can't find a video citation that can be verified by others, it either doesn't exist or is very difficult if not impossible for some users to verify it and it's a bad source. You are arguing 2 different points.-- Bamadude 01:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that I never said "If you can't find a video citation that can be verified by others, it either doesn't exist or is very difficult if not impossible for some users to verify it and it's a bad source." I think you said that. I said, if someone claims to have the video and says that it does cite what they say it cites, unless there is reason to believe otherwise (examples: they claim its a recent CNN interview but CNN.com has no record or they use an interview with a historian to cite a biology article) then we have no reason not to believe them. Its not a very good citation, but its better than no citation. Mr. Z-man 01:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean "imply", not "infer". And nonsense. Any foob can put up a website and say absolutely anything he wants. A book at least has some measure of editorial oversight -- as long as it's not self-published anyway, and for that reason self-published books ought to be deprecated as reliable sources. Usually a book is self-published because no publisher will take it, and there's usually a good reason for that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not to say a book is always going to be a reliable source, but it's much more likely to be one, and this is an advantage that is not outweighed by easy online availability. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Who said "any web site"? We're still talking reliable sources here, not just any web site like a fan site or blog. Reputable web sites have plenty of oversight --- virtually every newspaper in America publishes its articles online and retractions/edits are a keystroke away rather than permanent errors. And who said we're attacking books?!? How's this for clarity?: Books can be an excellent source. Sorry for the grammar typo earlier; you are correct. As far as a book being more likely a better source, that's saying that because it's in a book, it's typically more believable, which is not true; in fact, I find it the opposite. Think about this: web sites are dynamic, books are stagnant. I have hundreds of them and I'll bet you 80% of my non-fiction and reference books have outdated info or info found later to be outmoded or just plain incorrect.-- Bamadude 01:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is over a preference for online sources over printed books. "Stagnant" is a loaded term; a neutral antonym for "dynamic" is "static". That's not necessarily a bad thing. Are 80% of your books outdated? How do you know? For one thing, as Raymond points out, they're dated, and a website isn't necessarily. Websites can also be just plain wrong from the outset and very often are even if they're neither fansites nor blogs. And some blogs are highly reliable. They need to be evaluated for reliability from the ground up before being referenced as a reliable source; in a printed source from a reputable publisher much of that work is done for us. And an outdated book isn't entirely useless. A field almost never changes so dramatically in the course of, say, a decade or two, that all knowledge in it must be thrown out. One balances older sources against newer ones, which may themselves be focused entirely on the subset of the subject being advanced and be inadequate to cover a subject as a whole. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting point. Books list their dates of publication, which allows their content to be evaluated against the state of knowledge at the time they were written. Many (perhaps most) web pages are undated. In fast-moving fields such as technology or climate change we need to know whether a web page was published in 1997 or 2007, and very often we can't tell. Raymond Arritt 01:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned the Tonight Show was that I have heard an actor saying something on a interview that if it appeared in print it took a long time for it to be appear . Garda40 00:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no deadline. If we have to wait before information appears in a reliable source, then we wait. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And what do we do if it never appears in print .You might argue such information may be non notable or trivial enough not to mention which may be a valid point but are we to make it appear that the person didn't say it because I can't cite the Tonight Show . Garda40 02:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And many newspapers and magazines use subscription based archives. After a certain time, old article are not available to the general public anymore without paying a fee. Should we remove all old newspaper refs because not everyone can pay to verify the facts in them? Mr. Z-man 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. There's nothing wrong with posting articles that are archived as they actually exist --- it's the ones that can't be found or found without tremendous difficulty that are the problem.-- Bamadude 01:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I also apologize to Z-man as he didn't advocate posting videos, I only implied that he did ... I mean inferred that he did, and incorrectly at that.;-)-- Bamadude 01:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue here. Of course non-web sources are fine. And sources that are hard to find are also fine. While web-based sources are nice in that anybody can look them up, rejecting non-web based sources simply because they are not immediately accessible is not founded on any Wikipedia policy and runs counter to several. - Chunky Rice 02:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think some common sense is called for here. There are bad sources in all types of media, and reliable sources in all types. An article from the New York Times is a reliable source, whether it is on the website or from a 1942 edition. If a major presidential candidate declares his candidacy on the David Letterman Show, then that fact should be sourced to the show, not an account of it. For some topics, books are the best sources, and remain so for decades. (I write articles on illuminated manuscripts, sometimes the best source is for a particular manuscript is from the nineteenth century.) For topics that advance quickly, a website that can be updated may the best source. However, as has been noted above, given the mutable nature of the web, just because a website said something at the time it was referenced, doesn't mean that it says that now. Print sources have the advantage of being stable, if a certain edition of a work says something, it will say that until all of the copies are destroyed. The existence of any book can be verified via the web through Worldcat, the Library of Congress catalog, or other such sites. Almost any book can be acquired via inter-library loan from almost any library. (I have reguarly used ILL in my home-town public library, and have borrowed the 19th century works mentioned above. I live in town of 35,000 in Oklahoma.) Any editor can check any source, if the editor is willing to put forth the effort. Dsmdgold 03:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, here goes the rant meter right off the friggin' scale . . .

Common sense? Don't understand the issues? It's utterly obvious that hardly anybody understands the issues here, probably because virtually everyone who comments fails to read all the previous posts in the string to make sure they know what the issues are before they start typing away on an entirely different point. Don't feel too bad; 90% of the posts didn't understand the issues and made a statement --- what is this, a presidential election or something?

If you'd read the initial posts and follow-ups and digest them before you respond, you'd see the issues are the using of sources which either don't exist anymore, are non-archived, or can't be found readily to verify, and that this problem exists almost exclusively with non-Web sources, and that non-Web sources are fine as long as they actually exist, are archived somewhere & can be readily found, like maybe your local library in a book that actually exists. Unfortunately, 1 person mentioned books for no reason at all, the next person thought somebody said we shouldn't use books as a source, then it snowballed from there. Talk about Chicken Little!

The discussion actually started talking about videos used as sources that aren't archived, not about books. 90% of the respondants addressed the book issue because they aren't reading the entire section to know exactly what we're talking about here. How about the ones where I advocated that everyone stop reading books because it's too much trouble, and where I said that everything on the Web is totally true? Did I leave out where I advocated book burning? You'd think I wrote those 3 opinions also based on the responses I'm getting.

Jeez, folks --- when we don't even source what we're commenting on by looking right in front of us, i.e., if we can't even stop to research the same friggin' section we're adding to, then what's the friggin' point of having a discussion about sourcing & verification --- let's just close this and move on because it's absolutely ridiculous. I'm walking away from it now before I lose my ever-lovin' mind.-- Bamadude 03:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You titled the section "Non-Web sources" and asked about "articles not available on the Web" in the very first sentence of your original post. If people haven't been commenting on the DVD question or video question per se, it's because you kept dragging it back to whether or not a source, any source, is available "on the web". It's this web-availability thing that's been the real issue all along; non-webified books are just a convenient example for the sake of discussion. You seem to think a source isn't truly verifiable if it isn't on the web (book, video, article, whatever) and that simply isn't the case. If your argument on the non-verifiability of non-web sources amounts to "it's too hard", as it does except for ephemeral broadcasts not archived on any medium, that's no one's problem but yours. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Well, I actually did read the above discussion. I would generally tend to say that this is covered by the requirement that sources must be published. A DVD which was offered for sale to the general public is a fixed, tangible medium of publication just as much as a book is, and is likely to be available at libraries and the like, even if processes such as interlibrary loan must be used. On the other hand, a TV show which is not available in a fixed medium is not really published—for verification purposes, the source no longer exists, it only existed while it was being broadcast, and is not likely to be available through any means other than contacting the TV station (and they are perfectly free to deny requests to purchase a copy). In practice, it is not a source which actually allows verification. "Published" generally implies publication in a non-ephemeral medium. TV shows are broadcast, but not published, unless they are later offered on a fixed medium. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That might be an interpretation for wikipedia, but for the rest of the world broadcast is publication. Broadcast material has been cited in wikipedia. Additionally, certain radio and TV broadcast programmes are available online afterwards. Tyrenius 05:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But the question is about reliability of the archiving. A library that maintains copies of old journal and newspaper articles does so in a reliable manner, that is, barring an unusual error, you know an old copy will be available should you want it, and since it's a library, every effort will be made to make the information available to you. Rarely is one specific library the only archiver... even regional newspapers are usually archived by both a public and university library. It might not be easy to get a copy, but it's certainly possible. However, TV/radio shows, if archived at all, are almost always done so by the broadcaster... and this doesn't seem to meet the definition of reliable archiving. It might very well just not be there one day, subject to the whims of some webmaster or executive, and there's nowhere else to go, really. -- W.marsh 14:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That can be true of newspapers as well as this article shows . Garda40 14:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that's a mainstream concern... like I said, it is a pretty unusual error that a mainstream newspaper actually has an issue totally lost. My local paper is hardly of any national prominence, yet is archived back 125 years in at least 3 places. It's pretty reliable. -- W.marsh 19:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere in this thread, another important wiki-principle got left out, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. A hard to verify source is still verifiable (even if you have to buy a copy from the television studio, for example). But unless there is some reason suspect the statement being supported by the video citation is inaccurate, then there is little reason to worry about it. It is basically reasonable to assume the editor saw the show and reported it accurately, unless some evidence to the contrary exists. However, if the facts being supported by that citation are called into question (for example by other contradictory sources), then people should attempt to verify the citation, and if it can't be verified in a reasonable manner it should be removed. 169.229.142.143 22:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I mentioned it at least twice for the same reasoning, I just used the WP:AGF shourtcut : ) Mr. Z-man 04:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am a new user and I haven't edited much since my employer didn't allow me to use my work computer for non-work related purposes and I didn't want my IP traced to his work. However, I was a frequent reader and follower of Wikipedia, and spent many hours at work reading different articles and policy pages in order to familiarize myself with the site. In any case, I was notified today that this would be my last week at this job because my fascist employer said I spent too much time on Wikipedia. I am very upset and was wondering if this was very common, and what I could and should do about it. Thanks, Haute Fuzze 22:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess we need a policy that says "Don't go on Wikipedia when you should be working."... What can you do about it?... nothing. Your employer was absolutely within his rights to fire you for spending time on Wikipedia instead of doing what you were hired to do... work. What should you do?... stop surfing the web when you should be working. Blueboar 13:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Or you could use your hosts file (or download leechblock) to block yourself from the site entirely, or use Wikipedia:Wikibreak extensions to profile to enforce the hours when you shouldn't be logged in. In a perfect world, you should be able to be more responsible on your own, but if you find that difficult, make with the above. It'll help get you over the hump of your Wikiholism. Do it now, for all hours when you normally work and try to salvage the job you've got. Be polite and admit you screwed up, tell 'em you fixed it, and maybe it'll help. Chances aren't great, but it's worth a shot. MrZaius ^talk 13:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you have no one to blame but yourself and I would hardly call your employer fascist. Most employer's tend to overlook it when their employees occasinally doing personal stuff when they're supposed to be working. But I don't think many employers will tolerate an employee who spends many hours doing personal stuff when they're supposed to be working. I suggest you stop editor wikipedia from now on since it appears you are unable to control yourself Nil Einne 13:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Most established companies have a computer use policy, which should have been explained to you when you started or in a hand-out, employee handbook, or the like. At some jobs it's perfectly okay to fill idle time on the computer, or to use wikipedia for general research. But perhaps you were on here when you should have been doing something else. Other companies discourage or forbid personal use of computers. Using Wikipedia to look things up having to do with work is part of your job usually. Using it to goof off, probably not. How id your boss find out? Was he spying on you or monitoring your computer use? Is he entitled? If your job is valuable and you think the termination was illegal you need to ask a lawyer. The laws about termination and eavesdropping on employees vary a lot from one place to another. You could also be covered by a work contract or union that limits the right of termination. If it is a part time, temp, low paying, or beginning job, it may be too late now but if your relations with the boss are good (beyond you calling him a fascist), you might ask him for a second chance and promise you will make it up for him and not do it again. If it's a more substantial job, your boss has probably thought this through and is less likely to change his mind. There are much better places than Wikipedia to learn about employment matters - resources all over the web. Use google to start looking. Also, it sounds like there could be some other issues too like motivation or performance problems, and your Wikipedia use was just the most obvious thing to mention. Wikidemo 13:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Let's not forget the example of some British police officers who got disciplined over misuse of Facebook... hopefully they won't misuse Wikipedia! -- Solumeiras ^talk 13:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

For example this image contains a watermark for rocketman.org, which is where the image originated, but that site is quite spammy and I don't think it would be allowed as an external link (the first text on that site is "Official Rocketbelt Flight Gear On Sale Now!!!")

I'm more aware of this site because there have been attempts to promote this site in the Jet pack article, it was previously mentioned and linked to many times and the related Dan Schlund article looks like an advert to me. Should images like this that have spammy URLs watermarked be removed? Basil Richards 19:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope... Image_use_policy states "Also, user-created images may not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself." (read for context, its a bit contusing). Seems to me it would fall under spam guidelines and in addition make the image unencyclopedic. Since the image is licensed to permit derivative work, couldn't it just be cropped out or photoshopped over? --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 19:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

However, the GFDL and CC-BY both require that any copyright notices be preserved in all derivative versions. Hence under those licenses it is inappropriate to remove embedded text that is acting as a copyright notice. 76.240.228.205 20:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so, GFDL does not require that the copyright notice be contained within the image... Also, that copyright notice does not satisfy the requirements of GFDL anyway. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL does not require that copyright notices be contained within the image, but it does require that if there is one in the image, then it is preserved. (See section 4. d. of WP:GFDL. This requirement to preserve copyright notices is indifferent to whether or not they are well-formed copyright notices. In summary, we can't remove this copyright from the image, so this image is not in compliance with the image use policy. Sancho 22:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That being said, perhaps the copyright holder didn't realize that they are given credit on the image description page. We could probably convince the copyright holder to remove the watermark and upload another version. Sancho 22:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL and CC seems irrelevant in this specific case. According to the summary, the copyright holder releases the file for any purpose provided the copyright holder is properly attributed. It doesn't specify any form of attribution as necessary so IMHO removing the watermark would be fine. The GFDL & CC never come in to this as the copyright holder did not release them under the GFDL or CC, at least according to the summary. It is probably possible to license these under the GFDL & CC but this is unnecessary. However the bigger issue is that I see no evidence the copyright holder has released this image for any purpose. There is no mention of this on the rocketman page. If this was permission was received through e-mail, this should be done via the OTRS. Edit: Actually I didn't notice the uploader claims to be the person in the photo. In that case, the image license really needs to be clarified. Is it GFDL+CC or GFDL+CC+all rights released but attribution required or all rights released but attribution? Nil Einne 17:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case? list on PUI since I don't belive the uploader. Geni 00:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So, lets say there is a non-notable entity. Lets say, for arguement, some random Led Zeppelin tribute band that seems to play in a few clubs in Chicago. Lets also say, that this band, for the sake of arguement, is entirely non-notable. Now, what if said band creates a user page in the exact style of a wikipedia article for the sole purpose of advertising themselves? See User:In The Light (band). What do we do about this? -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 04:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User pages aren't soapboxes for advertising or related purposes, as per WP:UP#NOT. You are free to remove the content, but I would recommend conversing directly with the user concerning this breach of policy before making significant edits to that page. However, if he refuses, feel free to remove the soapboxing. Sephiroth BCR ^{( Converse)} 04:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Except, it looks like a bogus user, as the name of the user account itself seems to indicate that it is attemption to look like an article. Look at the actual page and the name of the user in question? Does this violate the username policy, at least in spirit? -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 04:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've actually woken up, it does, as per WP:IU. Given that that user's only edits are to his user page and the image he placed on there, I would say it's entirely for advertising. Feel free to report it to WP:UAA. Sephiroth BCR ^{( Converse)} 04:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello I have proposed a change to {{ PD-Art}}. At the moment the template ignores one of the basic property laws, by making it sound like if the uploader is in the USA, they may release a work into the Public Domain, even though the copyright is legally detained by a person in another country. If you are interested in discussing please see Template talk:PD-art#International issues, Thanks. Jackaranga 02:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment on there was too long, sorry, so I reduced it to 3 lines 3 line version, please read if possible, PD-Art on wikipedia and on the commons are almost entirely different, needs to be corrected. Jackaranga 04:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is currently an uncertainty as to if we should put references and citations in the lead section of an article. The main problem arised when I do GA reviews and editors debate whether or not there should be references in the lead section. I personally think that there should be references in the lead, just to be consistent with the rest of the article. Oidia ( talk) 00:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The lead is a summary of the article. Anything noted in the lead should be expanded upon in the body and sourced there. Also, WP:GAR does not require it. Lara Love 00:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead must be as accurate and as balanced as possible. Summarizing material for the lead can introduce several problems (1) improper synthesis (2) undue weight for obsolete theories in historical articles (2) unduly narrow definitions which exclude certain traditions in political, religious, philosophical articles (4) incomplete definitions which neglect important values in political, religious, or philosophical articles, etc. Rechecking the lead against the sources can help avoid/correct these problems. Jacob Haller 02:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you stating you are opposed to summarizing information for the lead? Lara Love 02:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying, cite sources. Jacob Haller 06:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have always been neutral on the issue of citations in the lead. As LaraLove stated, they are not usually required, as the lead should ONLY contain information that is referenced elsewhere. As an exception to this, direct quotes, even in the lead, should always be cited, as well as statements of superlatives (so-and-so is the best selling, etc.) and other material likely to be highly controversial. However, if someone HAS cited in the lead material that is ALSO cited elsewhere, I would never advocate removing said citations. Basically, if the material is cited elsewhere, it does not HAVE to be cited in the lead, but even if it is, I would not advocate removing the extra citations.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 04:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For anyone interested, similar discussions are also taking place here and here. Lara Love 05:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably best to consolidate the discussion to one page and Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#Citations_in_the_Lead seems the most appropriate. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 06:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of us may not know that Wikipedia is not a trivia collection has been removed from WP:NOT.

This proposed guideline is so that WP:NOT#TRIVIA can be returned to Wikipedia. It is distinct from Wikipedia:Trivia sections in that it is a content policy, not a style policy. This guideline states that trivia may be removed.

While some editors will regard this guideline as obvious, even common sense, there is currently a tremendous amount of opposition to Wikipedia having limitations on trivia. As this proposal is specificly a content guideline, it may receive even greater opposition than Wikipedia:Trivia sections has been subject to in recent months.

I could use specific suggestions and general feedback. A guideline (which this is proposed to be) does not need to contradict itself, so contradictory philosophies need not be introduced, but I would also be interested in feedback from people have problems with excluding trivia, especially if they have specific suggestions on how this guideline can be made better.

(This message is cross-posted in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not.) / edg ☺ ★ 14:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's still at Avoid Trivia in the LEAD - "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. In order to keep Wikipedia articles encyclopedic, unimportant information may be excluded from articles. Large sections of minute details only indirectly related to an article's topic should be avoided." That said, WP:NOT doesn't have to summarize each and every policy. MrZaius ^talk 14:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I didn't make this very clear. Wikipedia:Avoid trivia is the guideline I am proposing. It is less than one hour old. / edg ☺ ★ 14:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Aie. Thought you were talking about Wikipedia:Trivia sections initially. MrZaius ^talk 22:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Instead of proposing another guideline page, why don't you incorporate your ideas into one of the existing pages and perhaps rename that page to reflect the broader purpose? -- Kevin Murray 15:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What guideline would you recommend I attach this to? This had a home in WP:NOT, and was deleted (at least three times this month, restored this morning). WP:TRIVIA has become positively a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and certainly will not sit still with this modification. I suspect any other guideline modified to include this principle would be reverted as aggressively. / edg ☺ ★ 15:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. If there's a lot of opposition to the idea as you say, how would you expect there to be consensus for it to be a guideline? We don't create new guideline forks simply because people have rejected something or there's an edit war where it now resides. That's an "asking the other parent" problem. I find the new proposal redundant, unnecessarily long, full of policy creep, and laden with statements of unique personal opinions about how Wikipedia works. It's got a long way to go before it's ready for showtime as a guideline proposal, and I question whether it's wise or necessary. We already have a guideline on an identical topic, WP:TRIVIA. Wikidemo 15:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback. WP:TRIVIA has been subject to some fairly aggressive editing in recent months; renamed twice, nominated for deletion 3 times (not meaningfully, I suppose) by at least 2 different editors, and with substantially beefed up "what this guideline is not" edits. In the last few days a link to the entirely pointless Wikipedia:Relevance of content was added as a trivia "inclusion" guideline, and defended heartily on the Talk page. I figured if someone could promote Wikipedia:Relevance of content as de facto policy, a more specific Trivia exclusion guideline might be an improvement. I don't see a solution for this now.

Not interested in joining the edit war myself, but there has been plenty to go around. [3] [4] [5] [6]

I can mark the new proposal as rejected if that is considered a good idea, but it currently seems like Wikipedia will have no trivia policy per se in a few months. / edg ☺ ★ 16:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Demo; this seems like an end run around the consensus. Like it or not it appears that the WP community might prefer a bit of trivia with the hard facts. Initially I opposed trivia sections, but after being involved in a few discussions at articles maybe it's just not that big of a deal. -- Kevin Murray 16:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There have been objections to the idea that WP:NOT#TRIVIA can mean both style and content. / edg ☺ ★ 16:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow... it must be my birthday. :) Kevin, it's good to see someone else whose concern lies more with what the consensus is, than with vehemently sticking to one side. Thanks.

Equazcion • argue/ improves • 17:11, 09/23/2007

I think we do need a page for this, or we will be fighting about it indefinitely. But the present proposal is in any case too vague to be meaningful, and will be subject to continual attempts to adjust it for the various positions. There are however possible trivia guidelines that might be supportable, and that would at least approximate the present consensu--divided though it is. It would need to be

1. worded neutrally. This means avoiding the word Avoid, and not including the word not (this doesnt mean it should say "include trivia" either. And I don't like the word "trivia" which I think prejudges the issue. But it may be impossible to avoid it. "WP:Trivia in articles" perhaps or just "WP:Trivia"

2. it should say specifically what is not trivia: later versions of adaptations of literary works are absolutely not trivia, significant uses of significant artistic of cultural themes of characters in other significant works are not trivia, significant details about the production of artistic or other works are not trivia, biographic details of significance to the career or the character of a person are not trivia, monuments or memorials to significant cultural figures are not trivia, etc. In each case the key term is "significant" (which needs expansion, or we'll be fighting over that) DGG ( talk) 19:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The proposal Wikipedia:Avoid trivia is closed, not useful. Redirecting to WP:TRIVIA, where I found it. / edg ☺ ★ 00:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Very significant number/percentage of pages on Wikipedia can be put under some (respective) smaller geographical area (city/district/county etc), it would be better if one can know which other Wikipedians belong to the city he/she reside/belong helping in better collaboration for pages belonging to that city.
For this user account creation page can have combo box from which user can select the city/district/county name and this selection can be kept optional. For existing users, they may be notified in some other way to enter that (optional) info. Vjdchauhan 18:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC).

People can always use userboxes (with accompanying user categories) for this purpose. SamBC( talk) 18:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have seen that in the german wiki rhere has been a discussion on what should make up something like a "relevant software" [ [7]].

Is there a special coded policy for software established yet here? -- CasaMeaEuropea 01:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that I know about. We do have Wikipedia:Notability (web) and that's sometimes applied to articles about web services with mixed results. I do think the general notability guidelines work pretty well for software - is it a subject of multiple significant reliable sources? Does it matter to people? Etc. Also, some software articles are really about the company that makes the software. In my opinion most web-based software articles (e.g. an article about myspace) should give due attention to both the company and the web service it offers, and would fly if either is notable. A larger company like Microsoft, obviously, could have an article about the company itself as well as articles about its various software offerings. Wikidemo 01:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, you might be interested to see the defunct proposal, Wikipedia:Notability (software). Wikidemo 01:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Very often software w/contested notability is the only product or the flagship product of a small company. WP:ORG seems to apply, but, barring that, WP:NOTE is often more than adequate. All it takes is multiple verifiable sources, and you need that to back up install-base/market-share info that is software specific, and there really isn't much else that is. MrZaius ^talk 09:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• I doubt if your discussions will result in a clear definition of "relevant software", as software seems to be a very complex area, and essays such as Wikipedia:Notability (software) are unable to even start to defining what should or what should not be included in Wikipedia. However, I sympathise with your problem, as a policy guideline is desperately needed because so much spam is written about non-notable software and development companies. -- Gavin Collins 23:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the Wikipedia logo is copyrighted, is this use a copyright violation? Corvus cornix 23:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the same kind of fair use as when we use a copyrighted logo in one of our articles on the corporation or organization that the logo represents. Postdlf 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Where does it make any fair use claims? Corvus cornix 23:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't have to make any such claims unless and untill it is taken to court and wishes to use fair use as a defence. Geni 23:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

From a practical standpoint, if it were really a problem they'd most likely get a Cease and desist letter from the relevant representatives of the Foundation. As the previous answers have already stated, this instance is a garden-variety fair use. dr.ef.tymac 00:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Geni is right that fair use does not require a pre-made claim, this is only something Wikipedia requires. Since it is a critique of Wikipedia, I would say it is a legitimate use of theirs. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Showing the logo to illustrate an article about Wikipedia seems like just as much fair use as it is when we show a corporate logo to illustrate an article about that corporation, like we do on IBM and Disney for instance. *Dan T.* 01:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the responses, everybody. Corvus cornix 16:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This evening I stumbled across an editor's talk page where he and another editor conspire to edit war against another editor, avoiding WP:3RR by each only reverting twice. I'm assuming this is against policy, what should I do? Justin talk 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly common for POV-pushing editors to do this (usually not on user talk). It's fairly common for non-POV-pushing editors to do this to push back. Jacob Haller 21:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So thats acceptable? Kinda makes a nonesense of WP:3RR, does it not violate WP:CANVASS? Justin talk 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Report it on WP:AN/I. Planning to edit war (in tandem or alone) is unacceptable. Wily D 21:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A standard which cannot be applied consistently will be abused arbitrarily. Jacob Haller 00:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You might take it to an WP:RfC, or if their revert-warring becomes disruptive, report both of them in the same report at WP:AN3 with diffs of the Talk page to show their collaboration to disrupt a page. -- Kesh 21:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is still a revert war, so the page can be protected. Prodego ^talk 23:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. 3RR works perfectly well against lone trashers/POV-pushers. When multiple people take each side, it's time to go to the talk page and hash things out. Jacob Haller 00:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While it may not violate WP:CANVASS, it's certainly gaming the system. Talking should be the first option, but users collaborating to disrupt an article through edit warring is still a breach of conduct here. -- Kesh 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT a beaurocracy, neither is it a den of lawyers. Being disruptive is being disruptive. WP:3RR specifically states that "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. " Conspiring to dodge the rule on a technicality is clearly disruptive, and if we have evidence that editors are clearly doing this, all involved should be blocked. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 16:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Having read about the #German Wikipedia limiting editing to trusted editors in a couple of newspapers, is there anything in the English Wikipedia area on the topic? How does it work - and how would newcomers become "trusted editors"?

"On first impression" the policy is likely to create problems - most people are ressonably responsible (and mistakes and fingers in a twist will always occur). The policy will not prevent edit wars and more subtle forms of "creative rewriting": there are too many backlogs for "all newbies/occasional users' entries to be double-checked for the (first 50) entries" or similar - some sort of compromise or visible means of working up to trusted editor status is required. Jackiespeel 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions, Wikipedia:Flagged revisions and the corresponding discussion pages. Garion96 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Could a link be put "somewhere more visible" to the above? If a form of kitemarking with clear reasoning being presented I think most people could see the point of the exercise (except when their "carefully prepared articles" fail to reach the standard (g)). Jackiespeel 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia does not have "trusted editors"... or anything like it. Anyone can edit. Blueboar 16:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I wondered if there would be a discussion about his, was going to start one if there wasn't. This is copied word for word from the Daily Mirror, admittedly not the most reliable of sources.
Online encyclopedia Wikipedia is stopping the public posting information on its website after complaints of doctoring. Instead, only "trusted editors" will be allowed access to it. Web users will still be able to suggest changes to entries - but they will have to be vetted first. The move comes after some info on US-based Wikipedia, viewed daily by 7% of all Internet users - was deliberately distorted, leading to complaints that the site is inaccurate. CIA staff changed the profiles of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and US Congress staff removed embarrassing and negative information about some senators. The new checking system will be tried out first on the German version of the site. Wikipedia's David Gerard Who? says "Nothing has been set in stone, but its almost certain that changes will be made to the German version of the site in November. Depending on how the trial goes, we will consider applying them to the English version." A screening device called WikiScanner Is it? is also being used and has picked out doctoring by the Vatican and Disney. And software rating the reliability of editors is also now in useSince when? Is this just nonsense or is there some truth behind it? I was pretty sure that consensus had gone against his move many times, not to mention, it would dramatically reduce the number of edits, both with people unable to edit, and the "trusted editors"(Who would these be and would would pick these), would be utterly swamped with all the "suggestions", leaving little time for their own editing.-- Jac16888 21:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Read m:Foundation issues, no Wikimedia foundation project can restrict editing, so neither the English, nor German Wikipedias will be doing anything that would restrict editing. Prodego ^talk 21:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Daily Mirror" story is not entirely made up, but it bears very little resemblance to reality. There are plans to designate "stable versions" of articles, but those articles will still be editable by anyone. The WikiScanner and "reliability rating" software exist, but they were created by third-party analysis of Wikipedia's editing history, and have no effect on Wikipedia's operation. -- Carnildo 22:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the Daily Mirror has vandalism problems with its articles. - Freekee 15:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Damn straight! Couldn't have said it better. Voice-of-All 17:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I came across the information in "a couple of newspaper". While some topics are worth discussing, there are potential problems - potential for vandalism and the recent cases of "rogue editors" etc. Could "trusted editors" perhaps be used for disputed articles and/or articles describing rapidly changing series of events (or double articles - one for everybody to add their minor contributions, and the other with a time delay as the "semi-stable article"?) Jackiespeel 18:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again. During the last discussion about the standardisation of nationality on Wikipedia, no consensus was reached. However, a big edit war has started at Colin McRae about whether he was Scottish or British. It saddens me to see an edit war on an article about someone recently deceased.

These edit wars will keep occurring until something is done about this problem. Surely there's some way that this long-term problem can be resolved? Readro 20:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

He's both, and which is more relevant depends largely on context. Problem is, it's something that really has to be taken case-by-case because correct handling does depend on context. SamBC( talk) 11:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We should default to self-identification here. Does he self-identify as "scottish" or "british". It is not our business at wikipedia to tell him what he is. Use his own preference. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 16:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate, would that apply if someone from Scotland, with no connections to France, self-identified as French? SamBC( talk) 16:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To answer the devil's question, a Scot with no connection to France could not readily identify himself as a French national (but you knew that already). Similarly a Scot who wishes to break the connection with the United Kingdom might claim that he is not British, because he is asserting that the Union is not consentual, and therefore not binding, but this is a political statement, and is technically incorrect, because the the nationality of a Scot is currently defined by his British passport, which was created by British institutions and law (although that could change one day soon).-- Gavin Collins 17:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Switching back to the other side, it's also not incorrect to say that they are Scottish, however, as this is generally a recognised status in Brittish culture, and overseas. SamBC( talk) 18:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets limit this debate to the template used in the article Colin McRae. Since the nationality of another WRC driver, Richard Burns, is listed as being English, then Colin should be listed as Scottish. Otherwise they should both be relabled British. However, the grand prix driver, Jackie Stewart, is listed as being British, and that might be a more mainstream precedent to follow. -- Gavin Collins 21:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In the case of racing drivers, you could follow the flag that they wear on their jumpsuits (I believe). I don't know if that applies to all motorsports. In the case of participants in team sports, it's worth following which national team they play for, or are eligible to play for. SamBC( talk) 21:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically, their nationality (i.e. in the infobox) in all cases should be given as British. However, there's no problem in referring to them elsewhere in the article as Scottish, English, Welsh etc (as in "Foo is a Scottish footballer"). ELIMINATORJR 21:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:El Dorado, Kansas is composed essentially of a project banner and political commentary, including the statement "Dark days lie ahead for El Dorado. The town remains sharply divided. All persons and business owners considering relocating to El Dorado should avoid doing so. Consider yourself forewarned." Is it appropriate to blank the page, except for the project banner? Nyttend 00:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:TALK explicitly allows editors to remove such comments. You may prefer to add the talk page guidelines template instead, as a gentle reminder, but that is less useful on low-traffic pages. Adrian M. H. 00:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know if police reports are copyrighted, since works of federal employees are, but I'm not so sure about the police. I would like to know this because I need to add such an image to the Kurt Cobain article.

Also, would his suicide note be copyrighted?-- Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Police in the U.S. are units of state or municipal governments, not federal. Works of a state or municipal government are copyrighted unless that government has expressly committed its works into the public domain. So your options are to a) find a law that says works of X government are public domain, b) come up with a fair use argument for using the report, or c) explain that the content of the police report is somehow not copyrightable, because it's not sufficiently creative, it's just fill-in-the blank information on a functional form, etc. Good luck with that.

As for the suicide note, as soon as you put pen to paper whatever you write is protected by copyright. Presumably Courtney Love, as Cobain's heir, would now own the copyright to his suicide note. Postdlf 22:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The copy of the suicide note that has leaked onto the internet was made by Tom Grant (a detective in the Cobain case), with permission from Courtney, so does the copyright of that particular scan belong to him, Courtney, or both? -- Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That entirely depends on what permissions she gave him on making the copy, whether she permitted him to grant rights or to distribute it for free (as in speech and as in beer) use. In any case, as a verbatim copy the copyright remains with the author or their estate, AIUI, but IANAL. SamBC( talk) 13:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Might want to look at the relevant state's Open Records laws -- I'd be shocked to find a state where police reports aren't open records. Ashdog137 17:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I guess I missed a fourth possibility—if you can point to a law or policy that expressly gives the public permission to freely copy those reports. In other words, a license. Postdlf 17:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Be careful, though: open records laws are frequently mistaken as being free-content licenses, when in fact they are simply about being able to view the records -- at best, two of the four points of what makes something free content. -- Carnildo 01:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I was a member a few years back, and doing my bit of editing. Then, not knowing my way around back then, ended up saving a page as a blank page. A minute later, it had been reverted. All good. In my messages though "Well done, your experiment worked. We've reverted it now. Be good next time. Bye now" Not quite the phrase, but time makes fools of us all.

The point i'm striving to is how patronising can Wikipedia get? Is this really the message you want to give? Oh, and anyone who tries to argue against an admin, well bad luck. If you don't get blocked, or similar, then you're threat gets deleted ESPECIALLY if you were winning the argument. And the link to patronising "Thread closed. Please do not feed the trolls."

This is just a general rant, but I'd like to know what you all think. Is patronising anyone on here who does something slightly unusual, like delete a page by accident, or make an edit that doesn't fit the strict dogma a good idea? Do the admins just close arguments they can't win? And i do mean proper arguments, not 'you smell of wee: no, you smell of wee' arguments.

Nin82 12:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I myself tend to lose the "you smell of wee" arguments. As for the rest of your complaint, I can't really say I've encountered anything similar. It's possible you were warned by a particularly insensitive editor. In that case I would say it's important that editors use the standard warning templates when warning new users about their editing faux-pas, since it's an agreed-upon way of sending the message without offending or discouraging the user. I'm not sure about the "thread closings" you mentioned, because this is a wiki, and not a forum where threads can really "close" per se. Certain processes can end, such as a deletion discussion, but that's due to a set time period rather than how the argument is going. Otherwise, most general discussions can go on as long as someone has something to say.

Equazcion • argue/ improves • 12:56, 09/25/2007

There are admins who will pht the "closed and archived discussion template" around talk page sections, or portions thereof, that they judge to be not appropriate to continue with. This has caused some issues recently. In terms of the message, it sounds like one of the standard warnings in any case - the idea being to AGF with edits that could be vandalism and assume that they were experiments. The fact that they might be honest mistakes isn't as well allowed for IME. SamBC( talk) 13:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case I'm with Nin82. Discussions shouldn't be closed at all, and if in some extenuating circumstance they do need to be closed for some strange reason, it shouldn't be done by an admin who had participated in that discussion.

Equazcion • argue/ improves • 18:20, 09/25/2007

If this isn't currently in a guideline or policy, where would it fit? It sounds like something consensus ought to be able to establish, and would benefit from codification. If it is somewhere already, could someone point out where? SamBC( talk) 18:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably not a current guideline or policy, but neither is the explicit allowance of such a practice (to my knowledge), which is where the "burden of proof" would lie. A talk page is meant for discussion of the improvement of its associated page. As long as that is what's being discussed, there should be no reason to disallow its continuation. If inappropriate comments have been made, meaning that the discussion is not about improving the associated page (such as political discussions about the subject, or discussions about other subjects), then those comments may be deleted outright as per WP:TALK. Certainly an admin would not have participated in an inappropriate discussion in the first place. Archiving is a tool for making talk pages easier to navigate by removing old discussions that no one pays attention to anymore. If it is also to be used as a tactic for admins to end active discussions, then that's something that needs to be explicitly allowed for in a guideline.

Furthermore it's something I would oppose. Allowing the ability to decide that a discussion need not go on any further is a conflict of interest; it unfairly favors the defender of the status quo against people who might be arguing against it.

Equazcion • argue/ improves • 22:49, 09/26/2007

The proper template for blanking is {{ uw-delete1}}, it produces this:

Hello, I'm Graham87. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

--— Random832 22:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Though mainspace warnings are valid and necessary in many cases, they do junk up the articles. So shouldn't such mainspace warnings be limited to only those situations where they are a necessary disclosure to readers rather than warnings to other editors? For example, the warnings on protected articles really detract from what may otherwise be a commendable and pristine article. Here's a case I'm talking about: Greek mythology. It's awarded Featured Article status and gets a subtle tiny star in the right corner. However, it also gets frequently vandalized, and the "award" it gets for that is a big ugly boxed message at the very top of the article with a solid "keep out" padlock icon which is 10 times larger than the FA star.

Can't we do better? Would it be so horrible to simply post the lock with a cute little padlock icon under or next to the FA star and save the big boxed protected article messages for the talk pages? I appreciate that we want to really maintain the "anyone can edit" atmosphere here, but sometimes I think that we go too far, always fluffing the pillows and warming the coffee for the editors, and overlook how it sometimes leaves a mess behind for the readers. Professor marginalia 22:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But why does it have to be a case of readers v. editors? Ideally, we want readers to become editors, that's the whole point of maintaining Wikipedia as an open wiki. It would be a lot easier to maintain Wikipedia if we closed it to anon editing and made registration a requirement to edit pages, but that would defeat the purpose. Editors should know what is wrong with an article so they know what to fix and readers should know what is wrong with an article so they know how good it is and so they know that they can fix it. In the case of protection templates, they tell the readers why the can't edit the page even though "everyone can edit." Mr. Z-man 23:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We can do that exact thing (cute little padlock), it's just an option on the template, |small=yes . See Template:Semi-protect. Why don't you find the administrator who protected it (seems to be User:AndonicO and ask if they'll do that? -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AnonEMouse!! I think that looks a million times better. Sorry, Z-man. I do think the two features are somewhat distinct. As I see it, the article mainspace is best to be reserved for issues, images and copy directly related to article content. I'd allow for advisories or warnings pertaining to the content, such as content disputes or problems with neutrality, and also for warnings that the article is a candidate for deletion. But the banner warnings on protected articles is a much bigger visual notice than we even give to the open edit tab! I just don't see how visually minimizing the lockup on the mainspace presents such a huge impediment to many newbies. Just my opinion, but the template message boxes should be toned down a little. It's just getting to be a little much with editor "post-it" notes all over the place. Professor marginalia 00:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm very happy to be educated on the |small=yes for protected article notices. Is there any sympathy for my complaint or WP solution for articles that look like this? Concord Village This article is like a movie trailer. Its ambiguity of content teases readers to learn more about this subject. But its templates are like a naggy Job Jar list of things that need doing, over a year's accumulation of editors tinkering with the wikipidian To-Do list. The original To-Do identified was that the article was wiki-orphaned, and more than a year later it still is orphaned. In the intervening 15 months 3 more "attention needed" boxes have been added, essentially confirming that the article deserved to be orphaned all the while. We are are just piling up the boxes! All four are just post-its for editors, not helpful to readers who came to it to become informed, rather than necessarily looking to be put to work. Meanwhile, there is still no improvement to the content of the article, and no editor interaction at all on the talk page. Aren't we gradually starting to confuse ourselves that somehow the goal of this project is to treat each article mainspace as a recruitment platform of some kind, a WP Free Help Wanted beg-a-thon, with this addiction to mainspace boxes? I guess I'm just not very persuaded they're even effective for improving the articles where they appear. Professor marginalia 07:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I overlooked mentioning that one of the box alerts, the invitation to a page for dialog to determine if it should be "merged" with another article, linked to a talk page where no comment was added except those of two editors expressing annoyed bafflement over what the purpose of talk page was. This kind of thing doesn't smooth entry for newbies. It's a labyrinth of redirects, policy and guidelines procedures, and insider speak. I wish we would shove as much as we can of the squeaky gears of communication between editors off the mainspace, onto the talk pages. Professor marginalia 08:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Correct the problems that the boxes are addressing, and then you can remove the boxes. Corvus cornix 22:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am announcing a proposal to change certain aspects of WP:NFCC#10, the part of policy about image description pages. This proposal would simplify the data required on image description pages of nonfree images. It would also allow for certain common use rationales (like a book cover image on the article about the book) to be obtained from templates.

The proposal does not change any other part of the nonfree content criteria. But, as conversation on this talk page indicates, making the image description pages easier to format correctly would make it easier to bring images into compliance and make it easier to detect new images that don't provide required information.

The proposal is at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria/Proposal and its talk page is Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria/Proposal. This proposal was developed by conversation among User:Anetode, User:Betacommand, User:Wikidemo and me. We hope others will look over it and discuss it on the associated talk page. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 20:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

memory is the diary that we all carry about with us. -oscar wilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.228.111 ( talk) 13:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

About inserting images in dab pages, See discussion. Thanks. Lara_bran 10:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Interview Questions I am a student at the University of South Florida and I was writing a paper on the use of wikis in the corporate world. I was wondering if you could answer these five questions I need as support for my paper:

1.) Do you find wikis to be useful tools? Why?

2.) What do you use wikis for?

3.) Do you feel wikis can be used for educational purposes? Why or why not?

4.) Some wikis are used as discussion boards. Do you feel that they are being abused? Why or why not?

5.) In some businesses, wikis are being abused by employees. Employees are using as discussion boards. Some may even alter the wikis of their companies and put up false information, ultimately resulting in profit losses. How can this be prevented? Please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Mario Abreu —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperMar8 ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

See article Wiki. Thanks. Lara_bran 10:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The system analyst within Speaks again. People who feel they are attacked, people who feel harassed, people who feel others are uncivil have nowhere to go. Unlike 3RR violations the corresponding policies are seldom enforced against anybody that has been an editor for longer than a few months, and that has created an unpleasant environment at best. So i have drafted an essay on a system of enforcement that would empower the community to be the jury in cases like this while not driving anybody away. Please read and comment Community Court for community issues. -- Alexia Death the Grey 11:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with WP:AN/I? Administrators deal with personal attacks and harassment there. And the whole process seems overtly bureaucratic. The last step of such issues is Arbitation and this seems awfully close to it. A lot of harassment stems from lack of dispute resolution and if something goes wrong, WP:AN/I is the place to go. x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

They don't! They do not offer judgment on what is proper and what is not beyond trivial and they do not represent the community understanding of what is appropriate creating a situation IDEAL for the rise of double standards and under the radar hostility. AN/I is for clear cut intervention. This would be for setting the community standards. Please read the essay :).-- Alexia Death the Grey 12:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S Dispute resolution settles disputes not behavioral issues of some editors. You compare it to arbitration, and justly so. However to illustrate I bring parallels from real life, there is Supreme Court and then there are lesser courts. If supreme court would have to rule on ALL cases only the severest would get handled and all the petty thieves would be free to run around unhindered stealing anything they can get away with in spite the laws that say stealing is wrong. -- Alexia Death the Grey 12:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unneeded... ANI works in most cases. If they don't think an intervention is called for, it probably isn't. Blueboar 13:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

ANI is there for a different reason and is open to flaming and aggravating the situation. People get driven away from Wikipedia because of cases like this, where theres nowhere to go when you believe somebody is harassing, being uncivil to you or just has done something inappropriate and need Community evaluation to the case. I urge you to read the essay. I have explained there why none of the current systems fill this void. The ANI intervention does not set community standards, it just puts out forest fires with tons of water where as simple bucketfull would have been enough if applied at the right time.-- Alexia Death the Grey 14:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you need to look at WP:ESPER.... Oh, wait. ELIMINATORJR 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read the essay... I just disagree with your dismissal of ANI. I have found the admins to be quite helpful in such situations. Pehaps your experience is different, but I just don't see the need for this. Blueboar 15:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice article, that was. But, well, may be we just need to make ANI a bit more inclusive. Form what I have seen, ANI indeed is more about serious violations, not soft and careful stalking and such other stuff. If an editor keeps inches around the corner, mostly avoiding an obvious violation, it is highly possible to harass another editor. A practice like that is not disruptive to Wikipedia itself, but certainly can irritate an editor enough to leave the project temporarily, or even permanently. It can also inflame an editor enough to get into serious trouble with the policies. I have seen Zora and Rama's Arrow, two extremely valuable editors leave the project. And, if I may mention, I quite feel irritated at an editor myself for reasons like these. Sorry for making this personal, though. Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 18:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

While someone making decisions on behavioural sanctions could speed things up, that is exactly what ArbCom does, and I would not like to have another level of a "court" with users that can enforce things. The closest we get is WP:CN where community bans are enforced. So how do you deal with behaviourial issues? Use templates like {{ uw-npa1}}. And/or bring it up to WP:AN/I, where users can comment on the issue and Administrators enforce blocks if necessary. I just don't think it's necessary to have "ArbCom ⅛" to enforce punishment when the only form of punishment we have is a block or ban, and Administrators are the ones who can enforce it - via WP:AN/I, WP:AN and WP:CN, usually. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Punishment? Oh, no, no. I wold rather seek community mediation, arbitration, couselling and such stuff. And, there's no need for ArbCom 1.5 or something. Just a bit of expansion of the mandate. Yes, it would be very nice if the expansion didn't look forward to punishments. Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Is adding GPS coordinates to articles via Google Earth considered original research and therefore against policy. I want to add GPS to a series of Denver articles so they can show up in Google Earth and don't know how else I would find the coordinates without the program (especially for places that wouldn't logically have any documentation of GPS coordinates like parks, streets etc.) Any advice? Vertigo700 23:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any WP info to back me up concerning the use of Google Earth, so this is just my opinion, but the GPS coordinates nor the software were created by you; they're created by the Google software which anyone can obtain and use, just as you can point to a source page and others have to open up the page and look at it. I believe adding GPS coordinates as a source is fine because you didn't create it yourself, and that seems to be the intent behind WP:NOR.-- Bamadude 23:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It would definitely not be OR. GPS coords are going to be the same wherever you get them from (unless your source is wrong). WP:OR is designed to stop people from just using their own opinions and knowledge to create "facts". Its kind of impossible to do that with GPS coords. Mr. Z-man 00:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stop calling ordinary geographical coordinates " GPS coordinates"? Latitude and longitude were used to locate spots on the earth many centuries before GPS came along. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so upset TCC? Is it because of the reference to GPS "coordinates"? I don't see any reference to latitude or longitude.-- Bamadude 01:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "GPS coordinates". A GPS receiver gives coordinates in latitude and longitude, and that is in fact what Vertigo700 wants to add to the articles.

And I'm not "so upset", just moderately irritated over a common error among the young who tend to mistake old ideas expressed with new technology as an entirely new thing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Irritated? Like getting comments from people who aren't reading the entire string and making a comment on something totally different --- look at my rant above in the previous section to see what I mean and know that I feel your frustration with these obviously young folks who leave foolish comments without stopping to read previous posts to make sure they know what the issues are before commenting.-- Bamadude 04:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried searching the USGS? They have searchable coordinates for ~2 million places, accessible here. You mention parks as an example... it gives the coords of most non-tiny parks in my home county. Can't see why USGS data wouldn't be a reliable source. -- W.marsh 01:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Using a reliable source like USGS is a good idea, but even if you look it up yourself, it is a logical conclusion that is easily verifiable without specialist knowledge, the same as a simple mathematical calculation. Sure you can make a mistake, but you can also make a spelling mistake too, and we don't require a dictionary citation for the spelling of every word (yet). Dhaluza 03:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

All comments above overlook the fact that geographical coordinate systems are not created equal. For Example Lat-Long data can vary significantly depending on the Datum that you use (e.g. NAD27 vs NAD83). There are literally hundreds of different datums used to anchor varying models of the earth's surface, which are used to generate different geographical coordinate systems. USGS maps rely on NAD83, with coordinates expressed most accurately using UTM values. "GPS coordinates" are simply the values of geographical coordinates observed with a given GPS units. The accuracy of these can vary widely based on chipset, overstory of the environment, height of horizon, etc. To the original issue, supplying GPS coordinate data can not be original research, since you are applying an existing system of measurement to a known location. You can look coordinates (of many different flavors) for anywhere on the world up using another data source. I know these things because I am a professor of geography who teaches GIS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.13.42 ( talk • contribs)

Apparently noone's answered the How yet - just use something like this:

{{ coor title dms}} with args like |33|53|20.86|S|151|13|31.41|E|region:AU-NSW_type:landmark, as in the Sydney Football Stadium article at the bottom. This is a "long" accepted practice on the wiki, and does not raise any major issues. As long as the location or street address of the object isn't contested/is widely available, it shouldn't be an issue. MrZaius ^talk 11:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: Taking a GPS receiver to a particualar park, observing the co-ordinates, and entering them, is OR. using the USGS database to map a name to a location is citing a reliable source. Using Google Earth to find the co-ordinates based on the image data, not the map, is OR, since you are using personal knowledge of what the area looks like. This is no different than going there with a GPS receiver. Using Google Earth to find co-ordinates based on the map data, not picture data, is citing a reliable source, if you use an unambiguously named point. If you use a street address lookup instead of a named point, then you are citing a secondary source, but the source is in my experience not terribly reliable. Now, regarding the use of image data and your own personal experience: the rule of reason should apply, If your recognition of the location is based on "common knowledge," (e.g. the Pentagon), then I think it's acceptable. If however it's not instantly obvious to a large number of typical editors, then it's OR. - Arch dude 19:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that this proposed, and possibly unfinished page has been worked on by basically a single editor, who contributed extensively in June, not so much in July, and whose last contribution was 2 months ago. I also see a fair amount of recent opposes by established editors on its talk page. Has the time come for a final discussion on whether to accept, reject, or amend this proposal? Users are welcome to comment. Thanks. - Mtmelendez ^{( Talk| UB| Home)} 12:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't really see the point, given listcruft et al. That said, these lists would lose any value that they currently have if we just had a decent way to correlate categories and subcats. The Jewish Publishers example, for instance, could be just as easily be automatically generated if we had a tool that was capable of crawling Category:Jews and Category:Publishers. Do we? If not, can one be written that just works off an offsite cache? MrZaius ^talk 13:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at how Wikinews works; browse by topic and look at the code for one of the topics. It's inserting a list of items by cat. I don't know the options and limits of that option. ( SEWilco 16:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

I'm new here and not sure how to make a suggestion for a policy change (or whatever this idea is thought to be at the Wiki)...anyway, I would like Wikipedia, in addition to the scholarly method used to show the pronounciation of a word, also include a much more accessable pronounciation guide that even an average person can use...for example, this is from the NY Times and shows their method for helping a reader pronounce a word: "Mr. Contois (pronounced con-TOYZ) undertook a campaign to improve safety awareness."

Now can't the Wikipedia request that contributors to articles, in addition to the method for showing pronounciation now used that only scholars understand, also use this NY Times technique so that regular folks, including kids, are able to easily figure out how to say a word correctly??

Just a suggestion, but would someone put this in the right place on your web site, if this is not the right forum, where this proposal can be properly considered by the Wikipedia community??

Thanks,

12.208.203.25 15:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Martin A.

Sadly, Wikipedia has coalesced around the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) which is generally well understood by linguists but completely inaccessible to the vast majority of the general public. See WP:PRON and the discussion at WT:PRON. 1of3 21:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with ad-hoc pronunciation schemes is that they assume a specific regional accent. The NY Times example you give, for instance, assumes a midwestern US accent. -- Carnildo 00:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There are alternatives which have been around far longer than the IPA, and with which the vast majority of English speakers are far better acquainted. 1of3 01:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

While it's true that ad hoc pronunciation schemes may assume regional accents, we have contributors from many regions who can edit things to avoid that. For example, if someone writes that troff is pronounced "tee-rawf", they probably have the father-bother merger; but someone else can correct that to "tee-roff"... problem solved. A bigger problem is that there are some sounds that can't be clearly represented this way; for example, since neither of the two sounds of "th" in English has any other spelling, there's no good way to distinguish them. I still feel that non-IPA pronunciations are of value and should not be discouraged. -- 207.176.159.90 01:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. IPA is perfectly accessible if you click on the link, and is actually quite intuitive. I make no claims to being a linguist, but I find it easy to use. A problem wth non-IPA pronounciations is that, even if there is standardization, some people may not realize this and crreate nonstandard spellings. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 01:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What is "intuitive" about symbols which to most people are not associated with any sound? 1of3 02:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, any scheme, ad hoc or the IPA, must choose a specific accent when there is a choice between pronunciations. There is nothing magical about the IPA which rescues it from that dilemma. 1of3 02:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to clarify if a yearbook can be used as a reliable source on an article. The subject of the article alleges to have gotten numerous death threats (which I believe to be true) and has stated that because of these threats his identity and location were to be kept out of articles and reports (although the location is likely to be compromised soon). His identity however has been kept out but now an editor is asserting they have a yearbook in which they can prove the subject's identity. I responded that that was original research but they cited that yearbooks aren't included. So, can a yearbook be used as a reliable source or is it us doing original research? Benjiboi 00:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's always been my understanding that yearbooks are reliable sources. We allow them for Good article status. I would not publish the identity of the person, however, if he is receiving death threats. Lara Love 00:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, just to follow-up do we have this listed anywhere as well or could someone second this with a confirmation? I will continue to campaign to keep the information out until it's both widely known and published in numerous reliable sources. Benjiboi 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The information included in the yearbook would be a reliable source - for example, for a given person, a yearbook would be an acceptable source to establish their age. Using the facts in a yearbook to form a theory, however, is original research - for example, if a reliable source had said that some crime had been committed by a 17-year-old Jones School student from Tulsa, and the Jones school yearbook showed that there was only one 17-year-old from Tulsa at the school, it would be original research to include this in the article on the crime; unless a reliable source had already made that connection. See the no original research policy, and particular the section on synthesis:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

TSP 00:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is outing the identity of an individual who might thereby be subject to death threats or harassment then it's not a question of RS. Presumably the information would be deleted from articles, talk pages, and anywhere else it appears, and then purged from edit history by administrators. My guess is that if the death threat claim is credible a sympathetic administrator would be willing to do this, and block any editor who persists in putting it back in. If it becomes too much to handle through the consensus process there may be a different track to escalate this kind of thing. Wikidemo 01:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, all info appreciated. A reliable source (not used in the article) has already slipped out what i believe to be his location so I honestly believe his identity will be revealed sooner than not. If it escalates beyond reason I'll recruit admin help. My concerns are that we either identify the right person or someone we think is the right person and then they are attacked or killed so I see no reason why we can't wait until reliable sources make the information widely known. Benjiboi 01:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, is it just me or does anyone else find the balance of article subjects on this website somewhat disturbing?

Some subjects are obviously favourites with the editors notably:

- tv (eg: Pilot (Smallville), today's featured article);

- celebs minor or otherwise

- computer games;

- music that goes with computer games, computer viruses, List of computer term etymologies or really anything computer related;

- stuff about Nazis / WW2 / military things generally ...?

Am I missing something here? Is there no administrator / Wiki director who takes steps to ensure that some sort of overall balance of articles is maintained on Wikipedia? eg: more and fuller articles on literature, history (not just WW2 / wars), cultural things? can there not be a Wikipedia:WikiProject for eg substantially rationalising and reducing the amount of computer games related material?

I am not saying that any of these articles are not sufficiently notable - I couldn't care less about that; my point is that the distribution of articles by subject matter is frankly embarrassing

obviously the content reflects the nature of the people with spare time and inclination to write these articles: wiki editors are interested in computer games, they are generally not interested in writing about culture and stuff; equally it's easier to make an article which consists of a series of uninteresting facts (eg: list of Roman battles or List of wars and disasters by death toll), or describes your favourite episode of Dallas, than something more thought provoking;

but is no one worried about what kind of impression this gives to the rest of the world?

wiki editors seem to be so obsessed with wiki vandalism and tedious arguments about whether an article is adequately referenced or (horror!) contains someone's opinion; these are trivial concerns against the real issue: that (generally) wikipedia looks like it's been churned out by a bunch of high school students with too much time on their hands

Dr Spam (MD) 14:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what happens when you have volunteers – and only volunteers – creating content. They will write about the things that they feel are important or interesting. Everything will eventually get filled in, but it takes time; there are more 'experts' on The Simpsons or Ashley Simpson than on particle physics or medieval history. Wikipedia is a work in progress. The recent shift toward more emphasis on adequate references and sourcing is a good thing—it signals a move toward more academically-rigourous content and less high-school-essay-style material.

You – or anyone – are free to address any perceived deficiencies in Wikipedia's coverage by starting, expanding, and editing articles. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins do not have special authority in content issues, nor can we compel authors to work on certain subjects. However any editor, regardless of status, may fill in these gaps should they wish to. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys! helpful comments! Dr Spam (MD) 15:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe people who have the expertise and motivation to write about subjects like business and technology, or academia, are gainfully employed and find their writing is better compensated elsewhere. People who like to write about minor Simpsons characters probably have a lot of time on their hands and find a good outlet for that here. Just a thought. But if you want to help, find the most important subject you can think of that's not well covered and write or expand articles there. A random example for today: Foster Farms (poultry company) (or perhaps they're referring to Foster Farms Dairy is the 197th largest private company in the United States at $1.8 billion revenue and 10,000 employees. Yet it has only a 2-sentence article. If you want to expand our business coverage, for example, you could go down the Forbes list starting at #1 to see which ones need a better article. Wikidemo 15:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Some perspective: we now have 26,000 more articles on Wikipedia than we had on 7 September. That's more than 1000 new articles per day that have not been deleted. Yes, a large percentage of these articles are about sports figures, TV shows, schools, rock bands, etc. However, some of the new articles are about "important" stuff. The lists of missing articles and most wanted articles are steadily getting shorter. Wikipedia is not paper, so a typical user will not see the "junk" and will find the real articles of interest via a google search or by using the Wikipedia search. You only notice the "junk" if you look for it. e.g. by hitting the random article link a lot. - Arch dude 00:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

For WWII and other major conflicts, by some objective measures, major conflicts are worthy of a lot of attention. WWI and WWII had profound effects on human history, and the details of e.g. the Battle of Midway are fundamental to the understanding of U.S. perceptions and policy to this day. The battles on the Eastern front had profound effects on European history to this day also. If you feel that we need to add articles on more important stuff, then please do so. Even a personal list to important missing articles would be appreciated. - Arch dude 00:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We do have policies and guidelines to help us decide what articles to create. " verifiability" says that we can only add facts to an article if we can verify these facts as existing already in reliable sources. Likewise, " notability" says that if the subject of an article does not have any verifiable information about it, then there should not be an article about it. It's not more complicated then that. If the world finds a topic important enough to have written extensively about it, and there is enough published information in the world on a topic to write an encyclopedia article from, then the article can exist. That's it. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 02:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We do have Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. -- Ybbor ^Talk 02:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured article on the pilot episode of "Smallville" prompts me to ask "Is a TV show or any of its episodes of sufficient importance to warrant an entry in encyclopedia ?" Recently I used the random article function and was surprised to see individual songs also coming up as full entries. That makes me wonder what percentage of entries in Wikipedia are songs or TV show episodes ?

Does this burden the Wikipedia with information that is not of interest to the majority of users ?

I think that a band or artist is sufficiently important to have an entry but not a song or album; those songs or albums can be incorporated into the artist's entry. Similarly, a TV show episode could be incorporated into a listing for the entire TV series (not even sure if the entire TV series should be a listing) or referred to in an actor's entry.

Any thoughts ? Paul Gilmurray 06:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What is of interest to you would not be to others, and likewise what you find unimportant others may not. Would you honestly say Oops!... I Did It Again (song) should be merged (personally, I hate this artist, but that's beside the point) simply because it's a song? — Someguy0830 ( T | C) 06:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:NOTABILITY for how notability is classified. — Someguy0830 ( T | C) 07:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To expand further, it depends on which episode or song. Stairway to Heaven and Smells Like Teen Spirit are certainly acceptable candidates for articles, as there will be a significant amount of source material on which to write an article. Most songs, probably not, as that will not be out there. Same with TV episodes—most episodes probably don't warrant an article of their own, but there are some that do. It's not a question that's answerable with "yes, an (episode|song) should always have its own article" or "no, we should never have an article on any of them." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To expand upon what Seraphimblade has said, if XXXX has enough reliable source material to write an encyclipedia article from, then XXXX can be an article. If YYYY does not have enough source material to write an encyclopedia article from, then YYYY does not get an article. This hold true regardless of what categories XXXX and YYYY belong to. XXXX and YYYY can both be part of the EXACT SAME category, and have any number of arbitrary things in common. The deciding principle is "is there enough information that exists outside of Wikipedia about this subject to write an article about". This is true for politicians, species, city streets, TV show episodes, characters from novels, atheletes, or any other random category you can choose. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 02:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Specifics as to when there should and shouldn't be articles of the type you mention are at Wikipedia:Television episodes and Wikipedia:Notability (music) 6SJ7 03:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago the text "; remove section name if it does not apply" has been added to the "Edit summary" text on Wikipedia edit pages. There is a discussion about this under MediaWiki_talk:Summary and your participation would be appreciated. Cacycle 23:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Recently I randomly decided to try to expand on a previously deleted article. I was attacked by a sudden vfd and an army of "delete this!!" votes. I followed guidelines in Wikipedia and found substantial sources and established notability according to current policies. That was ignored, the article deleted, and my appeal was ignored. My point of this post though is not that article (and the many times I protested it's eventual deletion). My point is that I think Wikipedia has become a site where it is hard to establish new information. That article had real sources for it's information, journals, newspapers, etc... but because it had been deleted before and was for a crappy establishment, people became biased towards it and deleted my version of that article. How can we encourage a community of knowledge creators and still check for notability? Honestly I am really discouraged with the whole Wikipedia process. I'm sure this is a sign of people leaning too heavy on the delete policies. That will lead to Wikipedia's own rot. (The article that I tried to make, by the way, was about Pirate's Dinner Adventure) Nesnad 08:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If the sources were, in fact WP:RS, then go ahead and take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. The above shouldn't have happened, given a clear case for notability et al, although I'm not saying that there was one - I never saw the article. That said, the tenor of the debate in the AfD was a bit off on both sides. MrZaius ^talk 08:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. Yes they were WP:RS. People discounted them because they were from a "hispanic magazine" and other POV nonsense. But I had many many reliable sources. Yes, I also linked to Youtube and review sites, but that was just trying to give a round picture. I did take it to Deletion Review (or atleast tried) but it was just buried by people saying I was not establishing notability and then confirmed as deletable. If sources in multiple magazines, business journals and what not aren't enough, what is? I really think this is a case of dogma and I don't know what to do. It's really quite frustrating. Nesnad 17:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you really understood many of the comments in the AFD and DRV, a mention in a reliable source does not prove notability, only existence. When you use blogs, YouTube, non English sources, and minor mentions as refs, that makes it look like you are just going for the "shotgun approach," using anything and everything you can find to have as many refs as possible. Accusing others of having an agenda (against you or pirate themed restaurants apparently) or claiming a "conspiracy" and harassing every user who endorses the deletion does not help either. Perhaps it is notable - the article text did not show it. Perhaps you could try writing a new version in a subpage of your userpage instead of complaining. It just seemed like it was missing something critical, I can't quite determine what yet. If you create a new version in your userspace, I would be more than willing to help you make it into a decent article. I would recommend starting from scratch, but if you want a copy of the last version of the article, set up an email address in your preferences and I can email you a copy (ask on my talk page for any assistance). Mr. Z-man 18:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think people are rightly wary about including articles on restaurants if those restaurants aren't demonstrably important in some way. The truth is, most restaurants can expect to be covered in reliable sources, if you count local paper restaurant reviews as reliable sources... but it doesn't follow from that that we should allow articles on any restaurants covered in sources, because that would imply that we effectively allow all restaurants to list themselves on Wikipedia. You found some sources but mainly low-profile local coverage, nothing that implies this restaurant is anything out of the ordinary (apart from, I suppose, its format). Mango juice ^talk 18:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat tangential reminder: Moving content to user-space diminishes much of the power of collaborative Wiki-based editing and incremental improvement. This is marked as a "tangent" because it is just a reminder to people who consider "user-space" improvement as a desirable workaround to compensate for main-space deletions. User-spacing a deleted article is not much better than outright deletion. Therefore, let's all remember to make an effort to keep that in mind lest we mistake user-space as a "safety net" against aggressive deletion.

(DISCLAIMER: this remark has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the article being discussed here, it's just a reminder). dr.ef.tymac 19:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have created another proposal for a guideline of naming conventions for school articles. The original proposal became inactive and consensus was not established. This new proposal simplifies things a little, I would like some input at WT:NC(S). Camaron1 | Chris 17:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

How, can people here claim this is the English language wikipedia, when it would seem the official policy is to violate UK, and other countries laws. How can wikipedia justify taking an image from a British (or other country) website which clearly says "All text and images copyrighted by the Museum of xxx", then releasing it into the public domain under cover of {{ PD-Art}}, without even stating the source. Personally I believe it is illegal to do so in the USA also, but people disagree with this. How can en.wikipedia justify going against everything decided on the commons and all other wikimedia projects ? Do Americans feel no shame at taking an image that is clearly copyrighted with an explicit copyright tag on it, and then simply saying "I am American I do what I like". Many of the works pictured are older than the USA themselves, who are you to decide who owns the copyright to photos of them? How can this claim to be the English language wikipedia when it shows such blatant disrespect for the works and copyrights contracted by people in the very country the English language originated in ? This is no different than Iran releasing American films into the Public Domain and hosting warez sites over there, because they are unhappy about being rejected by the US from various international projects. Jackaranga 14:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The servers are in Florida, so those are the laws we must work under. We don't work under the laws of every country because that would not be possible. Our content is based on a neutral point of view, but our limitations to the law are based on the physical location of the servers. Without knowing the name of the image you are talking about I cannot comment much further. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Jackaranga is frustrated by the responses he got at Template talk:PD-art#International issues. 76.240.228.205 16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Claiming copyright on an image does not make it so. Under American copyright law, a copy of a two-dimensional image (e.g., a painting) is just a copy, so re-photographing a public domain work does not give you a new copyright in that photograph. This is because American copyright law does not protect effort or labor, only creative expression, and an accurate photograph of a painting does not differ creatively from the painting itself (and a work "older than the USA" is obviously in the public domain). Perhaps UK copyright law on this point differs (I don't know), but I'd think it would be unworkable in practice to extend copyright protection without regard to content, and it would substantially undermine the concept of the public domain if one could claim new and unique rights in identical copies.

Speaking of Commons (which does accept photos of PD 2-D art not taken by the uploader), I've seen plenty of photographs of copyrighted public sculptures in the United States uploaded under a claim of " freedom of panorama," which is the law in some European countries, but which is not recognized in the U.S. for sculptures; such a photo would be a derivative under American copyright law, usable only pursuant to a license or a claim of fair use. Postdlf 14:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the argument that an electronic copy of an image created on a client for the express purpose of viewing the website constitutes a distinct artistic entity is somewhat specious.

It's unclear from the above which image is being discussed, but if it's an image of an artefact, taken on behalf of the museum for the purpose of using on their website, then they legitimately hold copyright to the image. If it was taken by a member of the public and published on a private website then that member of the public holds the copyright to the image. I still don't think it's reasonable to just lift it and use it here.

ALR 15:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably worth taking the specific case to the copyright pages for review in the specific instance, WP:COPY. The rules around images and copyright tend to be enforced quite strongly and they're all a little retentive about it over there. ALR 15:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is "Don't assume just because someone claims copyright on something that they actually own copyright on it". People claim copyright on things they cannot legally claim copyright on (in the UK, US or wherever) all the time. Wily D 15:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that a policy will be needed about the representation of nationality on Wikipedia. Due to constant and massive ethnic-warring, even an honorable, encyclopedic, and accurate compromise such as

"...is a British writer from Scotland..." or

"...is a Canadian singer from Quebec...", etc.,

isn't enough to fend off warriors who want solely "British" (sovereign nation, passport, U.N. member, embassies) or "Scottish" (former nation, historical ethnic group) to appear. Each article becomes a battleground, lots of time is wasted concurrently, admins can't enforce anything without a policy on the topic. Surely something as clear as nationality, citizenship of a sovereign nation (having a passport or being able to get one) and the way to represent it, could and should be prescribed on Wikipedia on an objective basis like other dictionaries and encyclopedias?

Those interested in advance-preparation for this issue may want to consult the (con)current 3 RFCs on exactly the same point:

• at Talk:P. G. Wodehouse#RFC (British vs. English) (disclosure: that's mine)
• at Talk:Andy Murray (tennis)#Nationality
• at Talk:Colin McRae#Protected.

—  Komusou  ^talk @ 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Adrian M. H. 19:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Komusou is grouping together very different issues. Some of these are athletes who competed for Britain; and for some of them, there is a question whether they are Scots or English. At Wodehouse (an undoubted Englishman, who became an American), he is insisting on "British writer of English origin", which is bad writing to begin with. In this case, British is debateable, but Wodehouse's writing, like his characters, is very English. Above all, we should not straightjacket these into a single policy; but treat each on their merits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Mr. Anderson here. WP:CREEP is a problem creating a megalithic policy by saying something like "All nationalities must refer to a sovereign state of birth" or some such. The fact is that concepts like "citizenry" "nationality" "nationhood" "sovereignty" etc. etc. don't fit nicely into the little boxes that we want them to. A similar debate went on for a LONG time over Nicholas Copernicus over whether he was German, Polish, Baltic German, Prussian, etc. etc. The fact is, it isn't our position to decide for someone else what their identity is. If person X itetifies themselves as nationality Y in a consistent manner, then so should Wikipedia. If John Smith considers himself Scottish, then Wikipedia should call him Scottish. If John Smith considers himself British, then Wikipedia should call him British. To do otherwise is for us as editors to impose our own beliefs on how he SHOULD identify himself, a decidedly non-neutral position to take. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And I thought this rejected MOS proposal about United Kingdom and nationality was sane... of course, more sane than all those absolutely ridiculous edit wars. 68.101.123.219 22:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I came across an article that includes a link to a youtube music video. Is that ok, or is there a rule against it? -- 84.167.211.29 19:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This may help Wikipedia:External_links/YouTube-- Aspro 19:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how a rejected proposal can be a valuable source of information. If there is no guideline (why not?), how would you generally treat a link to a music video on youtube in the article about the band? -- 84.167.211.29 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends whether the copyrighted material has been verifiably posted to YouTube with permission (this is very unlikely). See WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Note also that if the YouTube account that posted the video is the official account of the band itself or its producer, it probably is reliable and not a copyright violation (since permission is not needed when one is the copyright owner). Gracenotes ^T § 20:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should John Doe be responsible for deciding what's copyright infringed or not? As far as I'm concerned, the holder of the copyrights generally accept the opt-out policy of youtube. -- 84.167.211.29 20:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't waste time arguing "should"s here because the law is what it is on the issue of contributory infringement. If you know or should know that what you're linking to is a copyright infringement, don't link to it. Given the nature of YouTube, one should probably presume that any commercial content posted on it is an infringement absent information to the contrary. Postdlf 20:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks :) -- 84.167.211.29 21:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What remedies are available for blatant POV warriors who delete large portions of text which does not meet their own POV? Is this vandalism? I have seen a small group of editors delete huge portions of referenced text on dozens of pages that they personally don't agree with. They cite policy for these deletions, but their policy reasons don't stand up to any scrutinty. It simply is a way to delete large portions of referenced text. What remedies are available, other than RfC and Arbcom?

I accept other peoples view points but destructive uncompromising deletions of large portions of text are terrible. One editor in particular, has been an editor for over a year and a half, and never actually adds anything to wikipedia, his only purpose is to actively get articles he doesnt like AfD'ed.

Any suggestions? User:travb 23:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest taking this from the abstract to the concrete, but at WP:ANI and not here. Raymond Arritt 19:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Some articles have so many references/footnotes. E.g. George W Bush. I personally think that putting references into a separate article is a good idea for articles where over one third of the article is references. Currently, I don't think it is possible to directly place a ref into a separate article when we use ^[1]. So for example, for the George W Bush article, we'll have a page just for references, titled "Reference:George W Bush", and it's accessable at the top of the page next to the "discussion", "edit this page", "history", "watch". And whenever we use ^[2], the details of the reference will be automatically placed in "References:George W Bush". Oidia ( talk) 11:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This seems like a good idea to me. Thanks. Is it technically feasible? Anyone? BernardL 12:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not put the references in a template, and make use of the hide/show option? Postdlf 13:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that would make it much harder to find the references, and to check them. A collapsable template would seem far preferable. SamBC( talk) 13:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's considered a bad thing to have a long list of references at the end of an article. Putting the references on a separate page is right out; it would complicate printing an article with its references—which are an integral part of any academic work. There would also be strong opposition to any style change that affects references functionality (a single click on a footnote link should take you right to the correct note without having to open a collapsible box or jump through any other silly hoop); accessibility (any changes need to be compatible with screen readers and the like); or printing (an article should print correctly – with complete references – without complications). TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Having the references on a different would also require a great deal of manual editing as well, since all of the footnate tags would need to be redesigned to place the ref on a different page, and all of 'automatic' stuff becomes useless and meaningless. It sounds like SamBC's suggestion is the most appropriate, it keeps all the refs on the same page where anybody would expect them to be (even the various citation templates). wbfergus ^Talk 15:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The editors at Evolution experimented with reference space-saving gimmicks in June, 2007.

• Here is a version of Evolution with the references in a scrollable box
• Here's a version of Evolution with references in three columns (may need Firefox for it to work, Safari gives one column)
• Current version of the article has references in two columns (except in Safari)

As others have noted above:

1. The references are important, they should be available for use, not hidden away
2. Printing a page with collapsed or scrollable references is tough
3. Clicking on a reference number should take you to it
4. Not all browsers support the gimmicks for hiding or clicking

EdJohnston 15:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that using CSS to do this will mean that browsers that don't support it will just be stuck with the space not being saved, and I know that using CSS you can define the space-saving features to only apply to the on-screen "normal" browsers, while not including it in the stylesheet for printing, screen readers, and accessible browsers. As long as the CSS is done sanely it won't be a problem. If javascript is used, I imagine that makes it more complicated, but if the print and audio (and other accessible) stylesheets are defined clearly and sensibly then it'd probably be fine. SamBC( talk) 18:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, doing it with Javascript would cause a problem for printing, but doing it with CSS, if properly done, would be quite sufficient. "overflow: auto;", give it a fixed height, and voila. For an example of this on Wookieepedia, see wookieepedia:Mace Windu#Appearances. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, I am posting here because I need some guidance. I am a member of the Article Rescue Squadron - We are a group setup to "rescue" articles that contain encyclopedic topics from deletion (we are not Wild-eyed inclusionists). How we have been "flagging" articles for rescue up until a week ago was to place the {{ Rescue}} tag on the article page - per our instructions and this example. There are three reasons why it is important that the rescue tag is displayed on the article page, verses on the talk page (which it has been suggested is the only acceptable place according to policy, but I am yet to see the applying policy) Anyway, here are the reasons:

1. With the Rescue tag on the article page, it makes it obvious that an editor believes that this article contains encylopedic topics, and this should encourage people that are !voting on the AfD to look for soures rather than just vote (note the lack of !) - having it on the talk page would not allow this as I would estimage fewier then 10% of people reading an article read the talk page.
2. I have seen comments that Wikiproject tags should never be placed on article pages. I completely agree that things like {{ WPSchools}} and {{ WP Australia}} should not be on article pages. But this tag is different, it is not used to say "this is part of a project" but rather "HELP:This article needs a rewrite within the next five days!!!"
3. Where's the harm anyway - (I am quite well aware of WP:HARMLESS) at worst the tag will be on the article page for five days, then, because it is contained within the AFD comments (per the usage instructions) the admin closing the article can remove the tag easily, or the page will simply be deleted. If the tag was used on the talk page, there is no guarentee that admins would remember to remove it. (An example where this has just happened now is here and talk page here)

So Simply put, I would like to request "official" permission to allow the Article Rescue Squadron to use this tag on article pages. - Fosnez 02:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Rescue. -- Ezeu 17:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Yeah I have commented on that one already, I was wanting some clarification on the "Policy" concern Fosnez 03:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Private_Salt_pages. Regards, Navou ^banter 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline somewhere that covers templates used for navigation at the bottom of articles, and what should and shouldn't be included? I checked WT:NAV and didn't really find a definitive answer, but the reason I ask is that I came across an article tonight during Recent Changes patrol, and it had Template:Neighborhoods in Dubai at the bottom, which initially looked like this. Now, I've never seen templates that have commentary in them as this does, and while I hid the commentary in noinclude tags, another long-time editor removed them and placed the commentary in the box. It still seems as though this kind of information would better be placed in the Dubai article itself, but I'd like to know if there is a guideline for it to point to. Thanks in advance, ^{Ariel ♥ Gold} 05:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Navigational templates should, well, contain navigation :) If the content included in {{ Neighborhoods in Dubai}} is not important enough to be in an article, it should not be the defining criterion of a navigational template. The criterion for inclusion of links should be well defined and straightforward. There is no policy/guideline per se on this, but I think practice and precedent support it. Gracenotes ^T § 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that posting nonsense on the Sandbox should be outlawed. I am not sure if you can do anything or not, but I would like a policy forbidding nonsense on the Sandbox. Laleena 00:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way: if the kind of people who are prone to nonsense are not given an easily cleanable outlet, there will only be even more vandalism and disruptive test edits. Adrian M. H. 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus, if someone experimenting with formatting may not care what the text I am eperimenting on says. The experimenter may use nonsense text, because the point of the experiment is to figure out wiki markup. This is a perfectly valid use of the sandbox. Dsmdgold 02:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this EXPRESSELY what the sandbox is for? Would you rather that user did such work on an article instead? -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 02:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is. What other purpose does the sandbox provide if people can't make nonsense edits to it? I'd much rather have people make their "wow, so I can edit anything, huh?" edits there rather than a real article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't new sections in talk pages be on the top? That way, the newer issues can be seen more readily rather than old ones that may have been resolved already. On that note, I think it should be policy to delete sections which have been answered. I'm sure there is a good reason for the current policy, but I'd like to know. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asderoff ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Firstly, it ain't broke so it don't need fixin'... Secondly, you can just click the most recent (bottom) item on the Contents box (but the most recent subject may not have the most recent comment...) Thirdly, reading your way through the topics may encourage you to add your own comments... Fourthly, if it ain't broke then don't fix it... LessHeard vanU 20:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus, if you're attmepting to follow a disucssion choronologically, you have to do a lot fo scrolling. Down to the bottom to read the first, scroll down to read the thread, then up to read the next thread, then down again as you move through the thread, then up again... etc. -- Ybbor ^Talk 02:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Each individual thread is read from top to bottom, so why not the entire page? - Freekee 03:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu ( talk · contribs)

I don't think there is a policy that directly addresses this issue and I would like to check that my opinion has (or doesn't have) consensus.

I don't think the disclaimer on Anonimu's user talk page is appropriate. It discourages discussion. It leaves no place for other editors to talk to this editor about his/her behaviour. I think the community consensus is that users should be allowed to start discussions and place warnings, and expect that they will be read by the associated user. I asked Anonimu to change this disclaimer to allow communication directly with him/her on the user talk page, but Anonimu declined and deleted the request. This disclaimer goes directly against the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, "Wikipedia has a code of conduct". That pillar directs us to "be open and welcoming"; this user talk page is neither of those. Sancho 17:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the disclaimer (and, apparently, his entire attitude toward editing) is inappropriate. I notice he's just been blocked for a week.. I suspect if he doesn't change his tune, an indef block is probably not far off. Friday (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a policy specifically addressing this either, but it's clearly against the spirit of policy generally, given the number of policies and guidelines that instruct users to communicate by talk page. SamBC( talk) 17:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree... what a user says with his or her user space is their own choice, so long as it isn't a personal attack. If a user wants to say "Go away... Don't post things here... I'll just ignore and delete it if you do", he or she has a right to do so. On the other hand... no matter what that user may say, other editors have a right to post comments, etc. on a user's talk page (that's what user talk pages are for). If he deletes them... so what? It isn't like they are permanently gone... the comments are in the edit history if needed.

Warnings are perhaps a different issue... but again, it isn't like we can't find them if we need to. Blueboar 17:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate, what's wrong with the page? That he doesn't want (or care about) personal comments? That a message about an articles content would be more appripriate on that articles talk page? That he has consigned himself to what he deems as a futile process to contest blocks or other warnings? His comment about vandalism is pretty much on the money though. He may be unfriendly, but I don't see how that is a requirement to edit on Wikipedia. I have no idea what his previous edit history or other history is though, I may be completely wrong. wbfergus ^Talk 17:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is by nature a collaborative project. Collaborating is not optional. He can go away and be left alone, if he wants. But if he's going to edit Wikipedia, he must be responsive to feedback from other editors. Friday (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict... responding to wbfergus) Thanks for getting me to be more specific. The problem is that many policies and guidelines direct users to discuss problems with a user's behaviour (incivility for example) with that user on his/her talk page. This disclaimer doesn't leave any room for a user to do this. So, yes, it is the part about him not wanting or caring about personal comments that I disagree with. The other points I don't have a problem with (article discussion on article talk pages, not caring about block and warning process, vandalism) As for comments still being found in the history, the statement about any edits to the page being deleted without being read makes relying on the history as evidence of communication meaningless. Regarding a requirement to be friendly, no there isn't, but we have to be open and welcoming (pillar four). This disclaimer seems the opposite of open and welcoming. Sancho 18:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I understand that concept well enough then. Strangely, even though the talk page doesn't explicitly say it, I just ran into a different user then ( User talk:Orangemarlin who is of the same vein (see his reply to my quickly archived, but requested, example at User talk:Wbfergus#Please stay off my page but you'll have to check his page history to see the deletion. So, what would be the difference between simply stating the opinion and not stating it, but acting that way to begin with? One is honest and the other isn't? wbfergus ^Talk 19:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is especially inappropriate to remove warnings, blockings, and other admin notices from talks pages (other than archiving) and the only people I have seen doing this are vandals or otherwise disruptive users. Removed notices are practically erased, as stepping through the history takes too much time and is not done without a good reason. Cacycle 14:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate but definitely not against policy or forbidden. If someone does this, you can discourage them but if they disagree, you just have to let it be. Nil Einne 16:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It does seem entirely inappropriate, especially the suggestion that admin's cannot post there. This is clearly wrong, however, it does not mean such warnings have to stay there, the edit log shows evidence of the warning being noted. There are mechanisms such as the notification banner that make it useful.

We can, regardless of his warnings, clearly post there because of WP:IAR which would be particularly appropriate in this case. :)

Another related issue is that some users seem content to splatter warnings about civility all over Wikipedia, but seem to believe that user pages are a place where abuse is quite acceptable. Spenny 16:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

How to proceed

It seems to me most are in agreement that the restrictions that this disclaimer attempt to apply are inappropriate. Regardless of whether or not somebody declares that they are going to act this way (or if they act this way without prior notice, as in wbfergus's example), the behaviour described in this disclaimer (although not all of it) is not appropriate for several reasons.

Do we just proceed as in WP:IAR, hoping that the rest of the community also does, and ignore the portions of the disclaimer that restrict appropriate communication or do we require that this disclaimer be removed/amended? Does something need to be added to policy, or is this rare and common sense enough to deal with case-by-case? Sancho 16:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs further guidance, it breaks so many anyway, it has to be case by case. However, I do think there is a tendency for people, even those who should know better, to treat posts to user pages as a de facto demonstration of stalking, or trolling or whatever, without recognising that in most cases they are an attempt at communication and problem resolution. So, treat it case by case, but nip it in the bud before the example spreads. Spenny 18:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't do anything. This user has chosen a bizarre and counterintuitive strategy, but whatever. Just use the talk page like you'd use any other user's and assume the user has read any comment left there, regardless of what he does with them. Atropos 00:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this an issue? If, beyond this disclaimer, the user in question is not behaving in disruptive or inappropriate ways (such as edit warring, vandalizing, POV pushing, etc.) then the disclaimer, while rude and counterproductive, is not really a problem. If, beyond the disclaimer, the user acts in an appropriate manner, then this is a non-issue. If they act like a WP:DICK, then treat the likewise, but this stupid and rude disclaimer should have no bearing on that. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 17:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I still disagree that anything needs to be done unless the user in question becomes disruptive, WP:NOT#USER states specifically that your userpage does not belong to you, and that it exists solely for the purpose of collaboration. The disclaimer MAY violate the spirit of that; however to take action against this user SOLELY for this disclaimer violates WP:AGF, which IMHO is a more important principle... -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I love Wikipedia, its one of my top 5 sites, but don't you hate how there are so many rules that you have to file through when you post, there is more than a 50% chance it will be deleted? e.g. "What Wikipedia is not", etc, there are an infinite number of pages telling you the various Wikipedia guidelines. this includes the wikipedia cronies who wander around telling you what you wrote is not in the "spirit" of wikipedia, them delete, renovate, or move what you wrote. Come on! I think of Wikipedia as a simple, user-generated encyclopedia that I can always go to. But the more I explore, the more specifications and rules I find, and this can be quite discouraging, how goddamn strict it is. I do understand that consistency in articles is good and many of the changes the so-called experts make are for the good of the articles. But I feel that Wikipedia has gone over-the-top, and I say this: Wikipedia, I love you, but please stick to simplicity. Lose all the guidelines.

Does anyone follow me? Agree? Disagree? Know where else I can post this? Thanks. And please don't respond in Wikipedian language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerbreadmann ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You are free to ignore all rules if you feel it improves the encyclopedia as a whole. Users are not required to now every single guideline, policy, and related item in order to edit. That said, policies and guidelines are followed more often than not simply because it maintains a sense of continuity throughout Wikipedia, and prevents Wikipedia from dealing with many of the issues that would be present if they were not there. For instance, without Wikipedia:Notability, we could have an article on every "John Doe" in existence, which would neither constructive or useful to a reader. The aforementioned "ignore all rules" policy is highly contested as a result, and often only applied in the most stringent of situations.

In your case, it seems that the issue has been that many of your edits have been removed for being "trivia." While such information can be helpful, it is better that it is incorporated into the primary text of the article. Random tidbits about a person, company, or other thing are not necessarily constructive, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Looking back on this, I apologize for betraying the letter of your message by linking to policies and guidelines, but there's no way around it. However, don't be discouraged. You are as free to edit Wikipedia as every other person here. Sephiroth BCR ^{( Converse)} 02:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a random thought: I see the rules of Wikipedia (and elsewhere) just like the one saying you have to drive on the right hand on the street (or left in UK etc.). It is not that somebody limits your freedom of driving wherever you like, it's just a way to make traffic flow somehow easily. -- Goochelaar 08:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point, but I kind of see them as you have to drive on the right, wear a seat belt, not park on the street from April to November, stop for pedestrians, let the other guy go, stop at all stop signs and lights, no right on red, AND always fill up the parking meter, etc., or you will be arrested and be in jail for life. (Of course, I would never break those laws. See what I mean? It gets to be waaay too much to remember and follow at all times, or even learn in the first place. and you don't get a second chance; your work is just gone. I know the intentions are good trying to make it uniform or flow better, but it just gets to be far too strict, extensive, and over the top. Thanks for replying to me.-- Gingerbreadmann 18:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, are you jailed for life if you break any Wikipedia rule? :-) Actually, the penalty for breaking most of the road rules you give in your examples are, in real life, quite more severe than having an edit reverted, or even being blocked for a time from editing Wikipedia. The basic rules of WP are almost non-existing: go ahead and edit. Of course, if your edit is offensive, or not supported by sources etc. it might be modified or reverted (I am not saying yours are, of course). More complex actions (propose the deletion of an article, apply as an administrator etc.) follow more complex courses. We may and must criticise single rules, but as a whole I do not feel constrained by the rules. They somehow obtain the result of making tens of thousands of people work together with not too many problems. -- Goochelaar 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• There are many people in WP who oppose the proliferation of guidelines. It's not that we believe in lowering the standards, but rather we believe in clarifying and simplifying the standards. -- Kevin Murray 08:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

50%? Really? If that figure is in any way representative of your own experience, then you may need to evaluate your own contributions from a new perspective. I mean that as an honest and well intentioned piece of advice. Either that or you have been on the receiving end of some bad behaviour such as trolling or ownership, and we have rules to deal with things like that. Oh, but you don't like rules. Not even useful and important rules that prevent anarchy? Adrian M. H. 14:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You, my friend, are overreacting. I just made a simple comment reflecting my honest opinion. Yes, from my experience, more than 50% of my work has been altered in some way, and nowhere in my post did I promote trolling or anarchy. I'm not stupid! I understand that certain rules are necessary to prevent things like anarchy, and of course trolling should be deleted. As well-intentioned as your advice was, I do not need to evaluate my own work from another perspective. I try to follow as many of those guidelines as I can, it's just that there are so many that your work is deleted by someone who prides themselves in strictly adhering to the guidelines for some reason you've never even heard of and was probably just incorporated recently. It can get intimidating to post knowing that it will all end up deleted(of course, not always), so wy ever bother? I appreciate your response, but please don't take my post out of context. I was just speaking my mind.-- Gingerbreadmann 18:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

50% altered in some way? Wow... you are pretty good; since close to 100% of the articles I have worked on have been altered after I worked on them. Such is the nature of Wikipedia. See WP:OWN. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 17:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(Moved from WP:HELPDESK since is a policy issue and this is the page about policy. Od Mishehu 10:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

I'm probably asking this question in the wrong place, but I couldn't figure out where else to post to get a proper answer so, apologizes in advance. I recently uploaded some pictures for the Grace Kelly page. A few days ago, an admin tagged some of the images (and removed one) from the article. One tag mentioned something about finding a free image instead of the image I uploaded of a poster of the subject. I went ahead and tagged that for deletion myself along with another image of a screenshot that was also tagged. Admittedly, I probably did go a bit overboard so, instead of getting making an issue about it, I removed them.

However, one picture is tagged for deletion because the admin believes it "doesn't add significantly to readers' understanding of grace kelly" [8] I could be wrong (and it's fine if I am), but I feel the picture does in fact add to the article. It's placed in a section that illustrates the info (it's a picture of the Grimaldi family in the mid 60s).

My question is, how and where do I dispute this? There's a tag I can place on the picture, but I'm not sure how to argue this because it's basically my opinion versus the admin's (who is, according to her talk page, on sabbatical). If the picture is that disruptive, I'll gladly take it down because I don't want to clutter up a page or make it incomprehensible. I'm a bit confused by this because I've seen articles with semi random pictures of a subject posted in sections that don't really pertain to what is being discussed and don't necessarily add to a readers' understanding of the subject. Thanks! Pinkadelica 08:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are only two of you involved, request a 3O first of all. Adrian M. H. 10:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins, or anyone, should always be cautious about treating an editorial judgment as if it were a matter of policy enforcement. What informational role an image plays in an article is a matter to be discussed and determined through consensus, just as if the informational role of a sentence were at issue. Was this concern about lack of "significance" raised on the article's talk page first, as it should have been? Postdlf 01:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, this wasn't addressed in the talk page of the article. One picture was removed straight away by the admin as being "unnecessary" and the others were tagged. I logged on the other day to find messages on my talk page concerning the images and the explanation itself was given on the image tag. To my knowledge, no one else brought it up or found a huge problem with the pictures or their placement in the article. Is the 3O the best recourse for this situation? If so, do I need to leave my reason why I think it should be kept on the image in addition to asking for a third party to resolve this? Pinkadelica 02:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And it doesn't need to be addressed on the talk page before any editing is done; there's no reason to post a question about every change on a talk page before making the change. (Also see WP:BRD.) The right way to "dispute" the type of speedy deletion tag on Image:1966april.jpg is to discuss the matter with the person who placed the tag and then leave comments on the talk page of the image. I'll see to it that that speedy deletion template is edited with instructions about what to do if you disagree with it. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 02:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Pinkadelica 03:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that i did not know the details of your network connection. I reverted this edit: diff where you deleted most of the content of the page. I then left you a level 2 template on your talk page noting that you had deleted content.(Checking your history i note it was a level 2, for which i apologise, it should have been level 1 but i had been on RC patrol and just pasted the note in.) I checked your talk page history before i added the template for any previous comments or warnings. The addition of my comment was following the courtesy of letting an editor know when you have reverted them. It was not intended as an admonition, merely a friendly note that you had deleted content. FYI, i did check your edit history and noted that you have many valid contributions. That is why i did not give you a vandalism warning. Again, i apologise if it has riled you somewhat or if you were offended. Best, Woodym555 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

-- Work permit 03:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Recently I accidentally edited an article by pasting a section update I had organised for that article inadvertently over the entire article, previewing and believing that the preview I was shown was for the section I meant to edit. After realising my mistake I quickly reverted the copy, but someone seemed to be reading the pages’ history soon afterwards.

Another conscious Wikipedia contributor contacted me via my talk page and warned me about vandalism, although it was accidental. I have contacted this person to clarify my meaning but still have a query.

After searching Wikipedia for a policy regarding accidental vandalism I found nothing hence had a suggestion for a new Wikipedia policy. Basically, “If vandalism edits seem accidental, they’re not vandalism.” This would entail users looking at the surroundings of the vandalism, for example, where real vandalism, like swearing, deleting large sections and replacing it with malicious text, has not been used, and an account or IP with a clean record, which frequently contributes to the encyclopedia is used.

I feel that this would be beneficial for Wikipedia as it would reduce the number of disputes between editors, but that editors should still be made aware of their mistake in a laid-back fashion on their talk page with some type of template:

“You have appeared to inadvertently edited the article [[name]] and removed fundamental content relating to the subjects discussed within. It is politely asked that in future you preview your edit and ensure that you are fully aware of the consequence your edit will have. Thank you.” Ecopetition 16:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There are several levels of "vandalism" warnings. The lowest level {{ Uw-test1}}, assumes that the "vandalism" was just a test, the highest level is a final warning before a block. I think most editors try to follow this four-level warning system. Sancho 16:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

assuming good faith applies in all directions. Assume that the user that warned you did so out of a desire to help the project as a whole, and themselves made a mistake. Forget it and get on with the rest of your life. If you are not a habitual vandal (and you aren't) then there is no issue here to worry about. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 17:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. There are many many such examples. But I would say that's it's not good form to delete your talk pages as you have the following entries:

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, Wikipedia is not censored, not even to remove profanity or pornography. Please do not remove or censor information that is relevant to the article, as you did to Nigger. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cynical 20:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Deal or No Deal (UK game show). Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you.

WP:FORUM notes that talk pages are not a forum for casually chatting between users, but it doesn't say what to do if a talk page has been cluttered by people chatting (such as on Talk:Meerkat Manor which is beset with kid editors who seem to use the talk page to chat and discuss the events of the show more than the actual article. Should the chatter be removed, notes posted about the "no forum" policy, or just ignored?

Semi-related (as it ties to the same article). Is a page like this User:Meerkat_Manor_Correctly which seems to be duplicating part of the main article with "correct" information against policy? The person whose page it is seems to have made it mostly because other editors won't let him get away with putting what he wants on the main article. Collectonian 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:TALK does; see the third point in the section about editing comments. Adrian M. H. 18:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! (Bookmarking) Collectonian 19:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You can just remove comments that are unrelated to the article. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 18:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool, now to try to dig my way through the myriad of unsigned and stickin comments in the middle of other comments stuff Collectonian 19:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On the "related note", no, it isn't appropriate to fork articles on user pages. I added it to an ongoing Mfd: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Meerkat_Manor_more_info. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 18:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, didn't know they had that many forked articles! I know he is only 12, but he seems to be totally unwilling to listen when others try to teach him or correct him. He just says okay and does what he wants anyway.  :( Collectonian 19:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be slightly guilty of the subject of this section, I feel the urge to point out that I think that that sort of response usually works in schools, at least in the UK. SamBC( talk) 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If he's unwilling/unable to work with others, he should go somewhere else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We have been trying to forward the above to a point of consensus. If you can spare a few moments, please take a look and submit thoughts on the talk page. Thank you. Privatemusings 06:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)