Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 12

Brian Peppers
Please forgive my ignorance, but can anyone with more background on this explain why Brian Peppers is protected against re-creation? Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a consensus not to have the article because of notability policies and biographies of living persons policies.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. I suppose there is no way for the page to inform people of that? The thing is, normally when you try to create an article, it gives you the deletion summary for why it was deleted; but if it's protected against re-creation, apparently you don't see that. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That shouldn't be the case. You should see  the logs.  For a better sense of the the article as Wikipedia Drama of the Week (for several weeks), see Wikipedia Signpost/2007-02-26/Peppers pickle. - BanyanTree 09:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Signature Books
Are signature books allowed? Do people like them? Are they useless? Do people get annoyed by them?  Sw ir lB o y 39  22:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please also respond on my talk page.  Sw ir lB o y 39  22:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books for some opinions on the matter. To the extent that they encourage users to add markup to their signatures so they take up several lines in the edit window, forcing other users to strain to find actual content when scanning the window, I think they are a detriment to communication. - BanyanTree 09:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Googles summary for Wikipedia
The little blurb below the Google result for the entire of wikipedia reads: The biggest multilingual free-content encyclopedia on the Internet. Over 7 million articles in over 200 languages, and still growing. How can this be updated to be correct (wikipedia now has over 10 million articles)? I know it can be done. -Icewedge (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/apply.cgi?where=Computers%2FSoftware%2FGroupware%2FWiki%2FTopics apparently.--Father Goose (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Groupware/Wiki/Topics/ is the page with the actual listing. I've clicked the "update listing" link on that page, and submitted a correction. -- John Broughton  (♫♫)

Possible GFDL violation
Hi everybody ! I was searching on the web information about "Print Servers" and I found these two pages : Both texts are identical (except the second one has less formating). I didn't find any license information on networkdictionary.
 * Print Server, here
 * Print Sever, on networkdictionary.com

I'm not sure who copied who, can anybody have a look ? Thanks. --Escherichia coli (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC) (if I am not on the correct page for that, let me know)


 * You might want to take a look at Spotting possible copyright violations; it has advice at the bottom about where to report problems. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The content on Wikipedia was inserted March 24 2006 in a series of edits by User:Abune. The content on networkdictionary is dated 8 september 2006 and lacks formatting (indicating likely copy/paste). --Random832 (contribs) 21:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Request from a new Wikipedian
Hello Wikipedians! Please consider taking a few moments to respond to my research study on the past/present/future of Wikipedia. My thesis is based on Jimmy Wales' assertion that Wikipedia is a work in progress which continues to improve. I am comparing this statement to the theory that Wikipedia is a utopian idea that is bound to fail in the long run. I would be very grateful if you would visit my User page for more details. And please, spread the word. Many thanks. -AMQ815(talk) AMQ815 22:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aren't you missing a few possibilities? Perhaps Wikipedia is a work in progress which continues to deteriorate; or perhaps it is a utopian idea which is bound to succeed in the long run. It might even have already reached its final imperfect form and will seesaw into the indefinite future. It would be a shame if you were comparing two theories neither of which was correct. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Documentary on Wikipedia and Web 2.0
Hi, I just wanted to share this with you: There was a very good documentary on dutch television recently called "Wiki's Truth" (orig. Wiki's Waarheid) in which the pros and cons of Wikipedia as well as other Web 2.0 websites are discussed by Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, Andrew Keen (writer), Charles Leadbeater (writer) and Robert McHenry (former editor-in-chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica). It's a dutch documentary, but in fact only the voice-over is in dutch, so all of the very interesting interviews, etc. are in English. If you want to watch it press this link (this will start the video right away). F r e e style  11:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a version on youtube with an English voice-over here. 212.123.186.64 (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The proliferation of tags is cluttering Wikipedia - can we do anything about it? Can't fix them all!
It's starting to be my experience that I can barely go to an article without there being some tag on it, like neutrality, references, etc., and often there are many tags on one article. This clutter bothers me as a user since it reminds me of that often seen parody of news channels like MSNBC, CNN, etc., where you can barely see the newsreaders because of all the banner graphics. Part of it could be due to the dual nature of Wikipedia; the tags are not so bad when read as an editor, but annoying when read as a user, although the argument can be made that they alert the user to any possible deficiencies in the article. But the user is likely to come away skeptical that anything in Wikipedia is up to standards. Any ideas? I should say that while I enjoy the collaborative aspects of these tags, since engaging in discussion before making changes is good, I am often left with a bad taste thinking, whether rightly or wrongly, that the tag applying editors are just lazy and critical. I picture them zipping though Wikipedia applying their critiques, instead of just fixing the problem. Just my impression. Spalding (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, the tags are generally a substitute for editing, rather than a spur to it. Lazy, careless and pointless. My evidence for this claim: I kill most of the ones I see - at least 100 now; just delete the damn thing and move on - and almost never does anybody complain or replace them. Obviously nobody cares, they're visual blight. (Check the dates on them, it's not uncommon to have a tag be 6-9-12 or more months old.)
 * So kill them, kill them, kill them. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Or, here's a thought, maybe actually edit the article to correct the problem the tag is addressing?  Corvus cornix  talk  21:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm visualizing two editors, one going through Wikipedia, adding tags, thinking that's the best way to contribute to the project, and a second, going through Wikipedia, deleting tags, thinking that's a good way to improve Wikipedia. With neither, or course, actually adding to or improving the text that makes up the article.


 * Tags at the top that indicate an article has no sources are important - they alert readers that the article needs to be read with an even larger grain of salt. NPOV tags alert readers to the fact that an article may be a PR piece, an attack piece, or disputed territory. If the tags are valid, it seems somewhat clear (to me, at least) that they ought to stay in place.  (It's also been my experience that NPOV tags without any related comment on the talk/discussion page should be removed; I then note in the edit summary about the lack of information, and sometimes a gratuitous "we're not mind-readers here").


 * Finally, I have no problem making an exception for "expand" tags - to me they are virtually useless (d'oh - a short article or section should be expanded!?!). And I'm no fan of tags on sections that indicate a lack of sources - a reader can see the lack of footnotes or embedded links.  (By contrast, a tag at the top serves as a high-level, one-time warning of the problem). -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 22:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * NPOV tags make sense because they are warnings to the reader - having them prominent is reasonable. All the rest (including the staggeringly obvious "this article doesn't have citations") are comments to editors, which means that they belong on the Talk page where they don't interfere with the use of wikipedia (remember, being used by readers is the point of wikipedia). So they're never valid.
 * And again, I point to the fact that the person who placed the tags almost never notices when they are removed - which shows that they don't work anyway. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a very similar problem: The articles I am thinking of were not created by myself, and I (because of my academic background that emphasizes appropriate citations and referencing) and others know that they are in great need of being improved. However, in one case I have tried to edit in the past: Smallthorne, every sentence in some sections have just been tagged with the "citation needed" tag, and in another article I have edited: Great Sankey, the same editor yesterday added a swathe of citation needed and "original research" tags whilst I was editing at one point (I had forgot to add the "inuse" template) to material I hadn't edited. Finally, the editor changed the name of one section and asked for it to be expanded to fit the greater scope it then had after the name change. Now, I have absolutely no quibble with the fact that the article was poorly referenced and needs improving, but the speed and extent to which the tags are added is disheartening to editors who currently are trying to improve them, and I think an alternative means of notifying deficiencies (say by a message on the talk page) would suffice (and, indeed, on Great Sankey there is such a message.) This particular editor is unlikely, given the actions on Great Sankey, to ignore just a simple removal of the tags. It is easy to add these tags, but it is time-consuming to fulfil the requests they place on interested editors, and I suggest that the people who excessively tag articles that have not been formally put forward for assessment for Grade B, Grade A GA or FA status might be better served by being less enthusiastic in tagging and more enthusiastic in finding the appropriate references themselves! DDStretch   (talk)  10:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Moratorium on some tags for articles
In another forum I have seen that 15,000 WP:Notability tags have been added in just the past 10 months. With tags having dates it is inevitable that sooner or later the backlog will cause articles to die without ever having been reviewed. In short, the flood of tags has altered the practical definition of waiting a reasonable amount of time. To that end I think it is time that we closed the floodgates to new tags until the backlog is cleaned up. This will not of course in any way prevent AfD related activities, with the proviso that age of existing tags needs to be a non-valid reason for deletion. See also a related discussion on this matter at the Village Pump. Low Sea 16:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I put notability tags on articles because they fail to prove that the subject is notable. What a concept.  I could just tag them for speedy deletion or AfD, but it's my HOPE when I put the tag on that somebody who knows something about the subject will go in and provide notability.  If you don't like the tag, I'll just AfD everything I've been tagging instead.  Corvus cornix  talk  17:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Or you could actually improve some articles instead of just tagging them. But then, that's a lot of work and doesn't boost the total of edits. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care about my edit count. I have no idea what my edit count is, and I don't keep track of it.  When I use a notable tag, in my case, at least, I'm basically saying, "This should probably be deleted for lack of notability, but I'm going to try to give somebody a chance to improve it."  Fine, I'll just stop using the notable tag and start nominating all of these iffy articles for deletion.  No problem.   Corvus cornix  talk  20:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not try improving an article or two, instead of just tagging them? That's how wikipedia grows and gets better. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not every article can be improved. Some are perilously close to speedy deletion fodder, there's no point in trying to improve trash.   Corvus cornix  talk  01:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Reductions and Additions Balance

 * If you have read everything I just said above I now think I have a much better idea so forget I said "moratorium" and read on...

After reflection it seems to me the core problem is that it is easier to take away from than to add to WP. Far too many editors are "improving" WP by taking away and not adding back. To that end perhaps an automated counter could be implemented that tracks activities that remove content and activities that add content and would block editors from being excessive on the former. Adding tags that could trigger deletion (needs cite, unsourced, AfD, etc) would be considered reductions, and adding article text, citations, etc would be considered additions. I think perhaps an 80/20 rule would be good (for every 8 reductions you must provide 2 additions). Again, this idea needs work but what do you think in general? Low Sea 16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One addition to this idea is that if a reduction action results in an addition you would get your counter adjusted. Examples:
 * 1) User puts citation needed and citation becomes added by another .. user gets reductions counter adjusted by -1.
 * 2) User puts AfD and consensus is to delete. This added value so user gets reductions -1.


 * Low Sea 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No way.  Corvus cornix  talk  17:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * From a purely technical standpoint, that sounds like a very difficult and complicated proposal to implement. From a philosophical standpoint, the notion that adding length is always an improvement is a rather persistent and unfortunate perspective.  Allow me to borrow from a comment I made a few months ago on a related issue:


 * Sinze whne was editting not a a valuble nd usefull contrbushun? A good editor ads valu by improoving teh clearity ad acesibility of our content.  By the same measure, Michelangelo was a terrible contributor; he took tons of perfectly good marble and threw most of it away.  Tsk.  How wasteful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On many – not all, but many – articles, we have no shortage of individuals willing to contribute raw material. These articles are full of redundancy and duplication. They usually have bullet-point lists of trivia that dwarf the remainder of the text.  References are missing or broken.  Grammar is poor; organization is nonexistent.  All too many editors seem unfamiliar with the use of basic structural elements like paragraph breaks.
 * Elegant, well-crafted, concise, thoroughly-referenced text is our ultimate goal. Some of our articles resemble deep rainforest&mdash;rich with content, but virtually impenetrable to anyone not willing to expend a great deal of time and effort.  We strive instead to produce a botanical garden, wherein every element has its place.  A vast but neat collection: organized, labelled, navigable&mdash;but with no less depth and breadth than the jungle.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, new users need to create better articles, but my problem is it seems too many so called "editors" are little more than agressive "taggers" (interesting how that is a synonym for graffiti vandal). Real and helpful editors need to try and fix the problems rather than just point fingers at those who are still learning. WP will be greatly improved if editors find a reason to become mentors and help others to do it right instead of skipping thru fields of text dropping cow patties as saying "This will help WP to grow." :) Low Sea 18:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Criticizing editors for adding maintenance tags seems a bit like killing the messenger. Hiding the problem doesn't solve it. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this complicated scheme would work, but it probably couldn't be implemented anyway. As for criticizing the messengers, I agree that one shouldn't really do this, but if messengers arrived at your home with a message, and shouted down a conversation one was having with others, insisting on yelling in your ear at full volume, I think some criticism of their actions might result. This is the correct analogy in the cases I was involved in: no one denies that unverified material should, ideally, not be added at all, but if it is there, it should be rectified in some way. However, it is the manner by which they are flagged up which is the issue I have: tagging every single sentence in two sections of an article (which I had not edited, by the way) was not a particularly advisable way of helping ensure that people would be more likely to try to find appropriate sources, in my opinion. Section tagging and/or messages left on talk pages (which editors rather than casual readers would tend to see) might have been a better way. The production of edit conflicts when trying to address the concerns brought about by taggers immediately adding new tags to articles being actively edited in response to previous tagging was a related problem (sometimes in the section being edited, sometimes in different places.)  DDStretch    (talk)  19:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: BREAK 1 - Reductions and Additions Balance
I am open to any crazy ideas on how we "motivate" editors to be more than taggers? Right now that is the easiest (Dare I say "laziest"? No, I won't say that.) way to contribute but in and of itself is not actually constructive, only critical. I'll start with one below but please let's brainstorm this. Low Sea 19:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * CRAZY IDEA #1: How about a "monthly budget" say 30 cite tags per month per user? After you run out of tags then you can go around using your time cleaning up articles by actually adding sources and such ... aka editing. Low Sea 19:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Disagree that "all others" are pointless for readers. A reader may well wish to be aware of matters that may affect how to interpret an article. Part of the cost of communal editorship is more disclosure of issues may be needed. Many tags come down to similar things though - sourcing scope/quality, neutrality and balance, writing quality, etc. Don't forget that our #1 source of editors and improvements is members of the public who read an article and realize they can edit it to improve it. We aren't putting up a static site; these tags warn readers and they also are the #1 way readers from the general public get to be aware of a given kind of fix, that there are improvements possible, and that it would be intriguing and helpful. FT2 (Talk 09:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * RIDICULOUSLY FOOLISH IDEA: Make a tag hide the rest of the article and ask the editor to please go and fix the problem instead. [/ridiculousness] ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Page size – affects dial-up users and overall quality of Wikipedia
Large articles are an inconvenience to dial-up users.

But this may be a "miner's canary" effect.

I complained on the talk page for the Earth article about the size of that page. In creating the table at the end of that discussion, it became apparent that the problem is much more widespread.

Articles that try to be all things to all people probably duplicate the efforts in other pages which are more focused in scope. This means that the effort of knowledgeable editors may be wasted by diffusion (editing multiple pages) or obscurity (some other Wikipedia article ranks higher in a search engine).

Articles that try to touch on every conceivable aspect of a topic create a haystack of information. Visitors are being inconvenienced by being forced to sift through a haystack to find a needle. The visitor sought a needle via a search engine. Wikipedia might give them a haystack: a page containing more than they ever wanted to know about the subject.

Visitors who want to print out an article may generate several pages of waste paper around the topic that was of interest to them. This is bad for the environment.

I will hesitate to put an article on my watch list if it tries to cover too many aspects of a topic. Only the last change appears in a watch list. If fifty-eleven topics are being addressed by the article, it is most likely that any alert on my watch list is going to be about something other than my narrow interest the topic. So why watch it?

Just because we can, doesn't mean that we must. Bits are cheap. We can put lots of them in one page.

Improvements in hardware have led to all manner of sloppiness in procedures and software. Things have "progressed" to the point where it now takes a ridiculously powerful machine to write a memo using a popular word processor. Ideally, machines are left to sort out the sloppiness in a way that is transparent to the user.


 * You could always cite the guideline Article size. The problem is that while people may not strongly disagree with you, that doesn't mean anyone is going to actually do the work to cleanup up and/or spinoff parts of the article.


 * You might try asking the folks at the relevant WikiProject (see the top of the talk/discussion page) to help out; there may be a group of editors there who are willing, as a group, to take on such a challenge. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it is all too easy to reach the 32K limit, and this cap can easily conflict with the FA requirement for comprehensiveness. Also I'm not at all sure that certain articles would benefit from being chopped up, especially when they are summary-style articles on a big topic. So it's important to reach a consensus before proceeding.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have an axe to grind concerning the Earth article in particular. It's just the one that I encountered while I was in a don't-overwhelm-me mood.  I gather that reaching "featured article" status is an accomplishment.  For someone to start throwing rocks at it has to be unwelcome.  My apologies, but my observations give me pause in thinking about whether my contributions in a well-focused article might be overshadowed in a search engine by some mega-article.  If my edits are so subject to obscurity by that means, my enthusiasm to help could be diminished.


 * Other articles might be a better focus for this discussion. But the Earth article is a reasonable focus for this discussion because it was one of the most popular 150 articles in February (out of 2,314,249 articles in English). The examples for good (as a featured article) and otherwise (as a diffusion of effort) influence many vistiors and editors.


 * From what I see in the "summary style" example, the long sections on each topic in the Earth article seem to be beyond the scope of a "summary style" article. The discussion about summary style also says:
 * "To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the main article, and if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary article." The sizes of the sections in the Earth article may not encourage giving such priority to the main articles.
 * "There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main 'Summary style' article, unless they are required to support a specific point." That there are 126 footnotes in the Earth article seems at odds with this recommendation.
 * Again, I have no specific beef with the Earth article. Rather, I am put off by my perception that Wikipedia has become infected with the "modern" mindset where it is usual to "need" a multi-megabyte program file to accomplish the simplest of tasks, which could have been done in a few kilobytes under DOS.  As a reader of Wikipedia, I am opposed to having my wet-ware (and my dial-up connection) burdened by haystacks of data that is totally unrelated to my search. -Ac44ck (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But the human mechanism for sifting data has not kept pace with advances in computer hardware. Huge pages are nice repositories of information (which is a function of books), but they are less effective as accessible tools (which is a function of an encyclopedia article). -Ac44ck (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note also that the 32k suggested limit used to apply to prose, and is from a time when referencing was much less extensive than today. Much of the data that affects dial-up is in the references and the images. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because of inline references, it's often nearly impossible to measure the data in readable prose only. I think that the 10 printed pages of readable prose rule of thumb on WP:Article size is considerably more useful and ought to be emphasized a bit more. It's certainly not exact (different font sizes change things drastically, for example), but it's only a rule of thumb anyway. ASHill (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

schulz@michelangelo 1:37am [~] links -dump http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth | head -1097|wc 1097   7956   58021
 * About 55 KB, but needs some manual work... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SIZE is quite well-enforced. What few pages we have that are more than 100KB in size are almost all lists, and the rest are aggressively de-bloated on a regular basis. I don't think it's reasonable to insist that we should only have, say, a 4-page article on a subject as broad and important as Earth. There's a balance between having a comprehensive-but-not-excessively-detailed article on such broad subjects, versus turning overview articles into little more than indexes for other pages. If I read an article on Earth, I expect to learn a little bit about everything. Four paragraphs on each of the most important subtopics is hardly excessive.

Frankly, I think we get the balance just right, and your complaint surprises me.--Father Goose (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a thought: some articles, especially the very complex like geography, history, etc, can't be kept within the WP:SIZE limit. Splitting an article is not that helpful: a dial-up user would have to (fictional example) load a 32kb page, click on "History of Earth" link, load a 16kb page, click on "History of Life in Earth", then load a 20kb page, click on "History of life threatening dangers in Earth", etc, etc, etc. I think the English Wikipedia should focus on completeness. Maybe Simple English Wikipedia could be used to fulfill the requirement for dial-up users? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To play devil's advocate, having to load each of the chunks like "History of Earth" then "History of Life in Earth" separately could actually improve the experience for users that are looking for specific pieces of the content and reduce overall server load. While more clicks would required, the ratio of relevant data downloaded to irrelevant data downloaded is much higher...they aren't having to download the entire content just to get the specific portion they desire. -- Gwguffey (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's really 20kb of information on "History of Life in Earth" to be had, then an article on "Earth" that covered that topic and all other earth-related topics in similar detail would probably be hundreds or even thousands of kb in size. --Random832 (contribs) 14:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica spoiler
Who the FRAK posted the identity of the final cylon?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.157.45 (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed that too! --Pdgator29 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, WP:SPOILER... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Besides, if they said Starbuck, Roslin, either Adama or Baltar, they're wrong. RDM said so ;) Sceptre (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Adverse news stories affecting companies/schools
I'm adding this here because I can think of nowhere else to put it - it's more a philosophical question.

If something bad happens in a school/commercial institution/government body etc. and is reported in the news - should it be added to the page of the entity. I ask this as I am currently weighing up a revert I have done to a page which a user has re-reverted. I'm not sure I'm right (you can find this here, but I'd like some thoughts on the general issue).

The case in hand is a school where a teacher was arrested for "fondling" a student. If the matter is not of national/international fame is it to be considered trivia, and the velleity to add it suppressed because of it's harmful nature? BananaFiend (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See Talk:River Oaks Baptist School - And do keep in mind NPOV and Verifiability WhisperToMe (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * After reading the click2houston article, the school does not seem to be much of a part of the story, so far. A background check was done at the time of hire (not notable) which the teacher passed (not notable). Should verifiable info come to light later that indicates something exceptional took place relative to the school, then a case could be made for its inclusion at that time. I am of the opinion, currently, this falls under the category of NOT. -Gwguffey (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty much of the same opinion at this stage. I'll discuss on the page. BananaFiend (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If something appears in the news, it should be posted at Wikinews. Why we never instituted a 1 month blackout on wiki*pedia* I will never know. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Liberal bias?
Just wondering, what's all this talk about a liberal bias on Wikipedia? Where did it come from, and what articles were used in the argument?--Montaced (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See a PBS debate, which is decent, as well as Conservapedia's list. See also an opinion piece of Wikipedia's conservative bias.  Very few people are entirely satisfied with every article, which seems to be an OK outcome given the fact that what an "average" editor in Norway and the U.S. consider liberal and conservative may be very different, and a few people froth at the mouth when they can't make the encyclopedia reflect their worldview, which is fine as well.  - BanyanTree 02:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be that the same factor that makes the average university professor left-leaning also makes the average volunteer encyclopedia writer left-leaning. But we really do try to be NPOV.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As there is assertion from from both liberals and conservatives of wikipedia being biased, then it probably means we are achieving the goal of NPOV. -Gwguffey (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Who's definition of "liberal" and/or "conservative"? Something that would be considered moderately conservative in Finland could easily be thought of as extreme leftist in "Bible Belt" America. Thus the labels are meaningless without a specified context. Accusations from both ends of the spectrum are fairly convincing "evidence" of achieving the elusive NPOV. Roger (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Are newsletters getting out of hand?
Lately it feels like newsletters are getting really out of hand with Wikiprojects. Every Wikiproject appears to have one, and they're being released as frequently as three-four different days a week (that's not really the norm, but it is occurring with particular projects). There are a bunch of bot approval requests for newsletter delivery bots as well. But is this all necessary? Big Wikiprojects have a lot to report, so newsletter aren't that bad with those projects. The offending Wikiprojects appear to be with projects that don't do anything as a project and don't really need a newsletter.

I've left this vague rather than giving specific projects or users, but I can provide that if others would like to see examples. While I believe that this is mostly a decision that each Wikiproject needs to decide, should Wikipedia as a whole have any say on these. I have concerns that certain users are forgetting the points of Wikiprojects and newsletters and are spending their resources on the newsletters rather than actually working on the articles that the Wikproject is intended to improve. Metros (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as bots go, there are already plenty of them for delivering newspapers (see the "WikiProjects" topic in the editor's index); if you think that's it's wasting resources to create more, you should be posting at WP:BOTREQ.


 * If you're worried about user talk pages being spammed, well, it's up to individual editors to unlist themselves; they can certainly continue to participate even if not listed as a participant.


 * If you're proposing that Wikipedia needs (yet another) guideline, this time to tell WikiProject members whether and how often they can send out newsletters, I rather doubt that you'll get much support. It's really up to individual editors to decide what makes sense with regards to their time (it's not as if they're being paid). Besides, one can certainly argue that receipt of a newsletter encourages recipients to participate more - and Wikipedia has a huge problem with editors deciding to no longer edit Wikipedia. (And it would be worse if we started laying down rules for newsletter frequency.)  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 23:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The true writer of the song?
Misplaced question, moved to Reference desk. Gwinva (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for feedback
HI, I don't know where else to post this, so please move if necessary. I created an article and, after a little while, found Requests for feedback was the correct place to ask for ideas about improving it, so I did so. But, on looking, it becomes evident that hardly any editors (3 or 4?) have added any feedback to any of the numerous requests in the last month. It is a disappointingly low-traffic page. It seems to me that this page ought to have a higher profile, because the people who post there (me, for example) are positively trying to improve Wikipedia, and lack of response is disheartening. So, my question is, what is the best way to encourage more editors with experience to contribute to WP:RFF? Thanks for any help you can offer. BusinessAsUnusual (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Blog
Wikimedia Blog is live. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't It Be Cool?
All this week, I have been thinking of one thing: wouldn't it be cool to have one, large,hardcover, bound copy of the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, with every article on Wikipedia in it? Of course, Wikipedia is ever-changing. But, what if we create a WikiProject or Committee that goes through, and makes the articles at least good enough for a hard copy encyclopedia? It's a good idea, and I would LOVE feedback on it. I hope it's positive feedback, because it's best if you Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
 * See Version 1.0 Editorial Team and related projects. –Pomte 18:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Although remember that WP:1.0 is mostly looking at either Wikipedia on CD for places without internet or small, topic-specific groups of printed articles. To see how big a print version of all of the English Wikipedia would be, check out Size in volumes.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Academic paper on the use of wikis
While researching a biography article I came across this paper on the use of wikis by undergraduates. Not specifically about Wikipedia, but it may be of interest. Wasn't sure where to post the link, so I thought that here is as good as anywhere. The paper is at. DuncanHill (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Nonstop Flights From Airports?
Is it encyclopedic to have lists of nonstop flights for each airport? Do such lists exist, either in wikipedia or not? Morecromulent (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a look at WikiProject Aviation/Airline destination lists --Gwguffey (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Different sorting in categories
Checking Category:Mammals of North America, Category:Mammals of Canada and Category:Mammals of the United States, the sorting is inconsistent: Either by leading word or last word. Which way is the correct one? --KnightMove (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not worth re-sorting if each list is consistent within itself. Just my opinion. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No... they are not. --KnightMove (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess the sorting is done by a bot, and I know nothing of such advanced witchcraft. Hope somebody else can help out here. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a bot... It's a bird... It's... well, have a look at Eastern Red Bat. At the very end, it says
 * The part after the bar makes the difference. Alternatively, you can use, then it's consistent across categories. The documentation is here: Category. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The part after the bar makes the difference. Alternatively, you can use, then it's consistent across categories. The documentation is here: Category. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Japanese t-shirt
Today, I went into my office in Tokyo, feeling somewhat grumpy and crappy because I've been off sick for the last couple of days with the flu (or something flu-like). Being Casual Friday, one of my Canadian co-workers was wearing a typical decorative Japanese t-shirt, the type with the chunk of English text on it 'cause it looks cool. This t-shirt, however, unlike pretty much every other one I've seen before, had its English text not in "Engrish", but in perfectly coherent, understandable, and even informative English. Pretty unusual for a Japanese t-shirt maker to pay attention to such details, I thought -- and then I had a hunch.

I'm sure you see where this is going: I went to the computer, looked up "Guitar" on Wikipedia, lo, right there in this section was essentially the text in question. Proof:

When I pointed this out to my co-worker, he lamented that Wikipedia may mean the death of "Engrish". Hey, Wikipedia IS doing some good. It made my day. --Calton | Talk 14:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hurrah for free text! Broken/context-insensitive sentences still creep in when they skimp on printing: "...together with Paul and independently by Leo" –Pomte 04:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They don't cite Wikipedia on it, though. I think that violates GFLD; time to sue! --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By strict interpretation of the GFDL, you'd have to print the entire text of the license on the T-shirt itself. I suspect that would make it difficult to produce any size smaller than 100XL. (A link to Wikipedia would be good, though.) Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 06:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology
A new essay. Durova Charge! 09:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been bolded and tried to expand it. Apologies in advance (add that to the essay!) if that wasn't what you wanted. Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed overhaul of Template:FreeContentMeta
I've proposed an overhaul of Template:FreeContentMeta, based on an idea proposed at Linking to other wikis by User:Ned Scott. This template has been through a few TfDs, so I am posting here to have a wider input on the proposed changes. Please leave comments at Template talk:FreeContentMeta. Thanks, --Phirazo 17:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(Copy/pasted from Template talk:FreeContentMeta) I am proposing to change this template to an inline style that better serves the purpose of promoting free content. I've never liked the current style of this template, which seems a little too much like a web ad. The style I am proposing looks like this:

As opposed to the current style, seen at the right:

I think that the style I am proposing much more clearly indicates the linked content is free, and thus better promotes free content, while not looking like a web ad. It also avoids issues with logo copyrights, since many fandom wikis simply use the title card of the TV show they cover, and other free content wikis have their logos trademarked and copyrighted. --Phirazo 18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm rather concerned that the copyleft icon is a bit esoteric for a general readership. I am sympathetic to the logo issues involved with the FCM box, but am inclined to think that this logo is simply unhelpful and unclear. Furthermore, I don't think the web ad issue is significant - we use similar boxes for sister projects, and have no other sort of advertising. Nobody is going to think it's a Google ad.


 * Perhaps if we split the difference - abandoned the logos (which I agree are problematic) in favor of a copyleft icon, but maintained the box style (which I think is a good standard format for links that are not "related links" but rather "other free content resources with different sorts of articles on this topic." (Which is essentially what Wictionary and WikiQuote links are, and why we elevate them to box status - because they're not "other interesting stuff from the web," but rather "other free reference works on this subject." Which is a distinction worth drawing). Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Transport Geography
Hi,

I want to first of all appreciate the efforts of the Volunteers who have kept Wikipedia Encyclopaedia running. The service is very useful and apt.

However, I have just observed in the content and discussion on Transport Geography, the omission of Pipeline as a mode/means of transportation. I do not intend to blame anyone for this omission because it is common in literature to overlook the critical role of Pipeline Transportation especially in the conveyance of oil and gas from oilfields to refineries and from refineries to final destination either for consumption or export purposes. Therefore, I do wish to advocate that pipeline should be added as a mode/means of transportation.

Overcoming spatial disparity in the location of oil and gas resources, all over the world, is usually done through pipelines. In the US for instance, there about 1.9 miles of pipeline right-of-way transporting gas and oil, from within and outside the country. Likewise in Nigeria, there is close to 8,000km length of pipeline (offshore and onshore) transporting oil and gas across board. I do hope my humble submission is considered and accepted.

Thanks for the anticipated understanding and cooperation.

Best wishes,

Babatunde Anifowose Doctoral Researcher Email: removed


 * You can always edit the article yourself. -- Kesh (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit count = worth?
I want to start a discussion on something I noticed recently on Wikipedia that often takes place during arguments, the comparison of edit counts or mainspace edits. I recently was reading through a long thread regarding an editor, and while not the only argument, an argument was made that one editor had been here longer and had more mainspace edits.

What surprised me was the argument was made in full view of numerous admins and no one discounted or countered the argument. My reason for posting is a clarification, and some questions regarding this practice.


 * 1) Is the number of mainspace edits particularly useful in comparing 1 or more editors?
 * 2) Should an editor like myself who writes articles in a single to five edits, instead space them out? Perhaps just posting instead of previewing.
 * 3) I know editors require high edit count to be given "the mop" as its called, Is Wikipedia becoming to dependant on edit counts and ignoring content?

If you have seen two editors compared solely on edit count, or seen an editor given a pass based on their edit count, how do you argue against it, or do you agree with it?

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this post. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is answered by Edit count. In short, only losers care about their edit counts. (or maybe scholars who are doing research on the editorial process in wikipedia.) -- Taku (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, 1) No, but mainspace edits as a percentage of total edits is often useful as a first step in determining if the user is here to build the encyclopedia, add to the red tape or talk with their friends. 2)  No, that's just annoying for other users when reviewing article histories.  3) This has been the case at least since the site grew to the extent that all the users weren't familiar with each other before they came to RFA, and maybe before.  That said, an oppose such as "The candidate claims 5000 edits, but a scan of the past 500 edit shows that they take 4-5 edits to make a change that should require one.  I believe that the edit count in this case is misleading and that the candidate lacks the expected level of experience" is perfectly acceptable. - BanyanTree 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Naw, your worth around here is a much more complex formula, including not only your edit count, mainspace edits, and length of time here, but also who your friends and enemies are, what cliques you're allied with or opposed to, what favors you owe or are due, whose shoes you've trampled on, whether your opinions on pressing issues are politically correct, how many points you've gained or lost by pleasing or pissing off the wrong people, and more. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been here for a short time and already had a bit of a bad experience, however I hope this is part sarcasm, or at least this pertains to only a time portion of the greater encyclopedia. I would hate to be judged at all by the company I keep, even though it is often the case in real life. Hopefully if the time ever comes that I pursue a different role here, perhaps as an admin, who i am friends with will not play a role, or if I have not stored enough favors from others. As for enemies, while I have been frustrated with one or two people here, I have managed to just disengage, I couldn't see anyone developing enemies on an online encyclopedia. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think *Dan T.* has decribed things fairly accurately. But the good thing is that it really doesn't matter what other editors think of you unless you want to (a) bend the rules and test the boundaries of acceptable behaviour or (b) ask for a funny hat and name badge. In either of those cases you have to be prepared to play the game, be seen in the right places and polish up your CV. But apart from those two cases, edit counts and whose bad books you are in really don't matter at all. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would generally agree with both Dan T and Gandalf61, but would expand the caveat to any elected position, not just adminship, such as Military history WikiProject coordinator or 'crat. If you want people to express their support for you, you either need to have made nice with a bunch of editors beforehand (and not made a fatal number of enemies) and/or have a CV that obviously fits with the position for which you are a candidate. - BanyanTree 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to disagree with BanyanTree's implication that low mainspace edits means a less useful editor. My mainspace editcount is fairly low compared to my talkspace, but that does not mean that I am here chatting with my friends. It mean that I have spent a lot of time tagging articles for wikiprojects and assessing them. This, I would argue, is very important for WP:1.0 and the long-term goals of the project. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I occasionally space out my edits so that my individual changes can be Reverted if another editor wants to, without spoiling everything. I never heard about keeping count of edits and really couldn't care less one way or another. Fifty or 50,000, who gives a fig? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gulp. I just read Edit count. Never knew such a thing existed. (Shaking of head.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the page I linked in the first place. So this discussion is, essentially, beating the dead horse, and this post is just repeating myself, but anyway. First of all, the answer to the title of the section is dead simple: "edit count" is not equal to "worth"; many good contributors know this. If you are lucky, you get judged by what you contribute to wikipedia, not what you have done in the past. Veteran contributors should and generally enjoy no special privilege. If their edits are bad, those edits get reverted. But no-so-intelligent contributors don't know this (yet?), and you may get judged something other than your contributions. That's reality. Again, Edit count is a good read. -- Taku (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I like to think that a "good" Wikipedian will tend to have a higher edit count but the reverse-implication is false in just about every circumstance. x42bn6 Talk Mess  11:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh noes!
OMG! I read that Jimbo Wales used his credit card to steal all of Wikipedia's money and then beat up his Canadian reporter girlfriend. If he goes to jail, what happens to Wikipedia!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.162.88 (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * People with a real sense of humor start posting? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He used his credit card to steal all Wikipedia's money and to beat up his girlfriend ? Wow, that's some credit card! -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's true! The news was all over the interweb.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.161.188 (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you use a credit card to take money? Sounds a lot like wes in ur forums, makin ur joeks. Ilikefood (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's fairly common you can get a cash advance with a credit card. However that would usually be up to the credit limit of the card only at most. Also, it may not be possible with corporate credit cards, not sure about that. On the other hand, using a credit card to beat up your credit card is a bit unusual, Derek Ross is right Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Classroom assignment
I think this might be an amusing classroom assignment that could illustrate the perils of using wikipedia as a primary source:
 * Find a scholarly error in an existing, non-stub article on Wikipedia. Demonstrate that the error exists by supplying authoritative references. The Wikipedia page must already use one or more references.

The student would need to save the history URL of the page at that point in time (to prove that the error existed), and the error must exist at the time the assignment was made. For relevance, the article types could be restricted to a particular subject. Bonus points for finding additional errors in the same article.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a great assignment, provided you add a final step "...and either correct the error or inform the article's authors of the error on its talk page". We always need more fact-checking. Dcoetzee 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)