Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 19

Pronunciation
Am I out of touch whenever I see a pronunciation guidance in IPA and find it to be of little help? The reason for bringing it up here is to find out if there is a policy against editing an article to add a "sounds like" pronunciation aid. I've seen articles with both IPA and "sounds like" and want to know if there is a policy about adding either or both. hydnjo talk 03:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Which regional accent are you going to use for your "sounds like"? --Carnildo (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whichever regional accent we're using for the IPA pronunciation guides. —Random832 15:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Words that sound similar when one person says them may not sound similar when someone else says them.  Examples include "moon sounds like June" (some people say joon, some say jyune) or "room sounds like broom" (some say rhum, some say rooom).  It might be nice to link to audio clips of people saying the words.  I've seen this for Dutch names which I would never guess from their spelling.  Dan Beale-Cocks  12:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that there is a project to add audio clips to pages for just this purpose - but can't for the life of me remember where ti link to! DuncanHill (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have is that when I look up something like Asperger syndrome I'd like to leave with some knowledge as to how to pronounce Asperger. Does the ending sound like "hamburger" or does it sound like "passenger"? I don't think that regional accents matter much when providing this kind of basic information. We're not going to get everyone who sees the IPA to go and learn IPA! hydnjo talk 19:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is more of a wikitionary task. BTW, do the two words ending in -rger rhyme? -- Kendrick7talk 20:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Surprisingly they do not rhyme according to our wiktionary. hydnjo talk 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Along these lines, is there software we could use that can "speak" IPA? It should be easier than, say, english.--agr (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So, going back to the original question -  to find out if there is a policy against editing an article to add a "sounds like" pronunciation aid - has not been answered. Finding no policy or guideline addressing this I thought of bringing it up here to be sure. hydnjo talk 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

news: primaries
I think it's great that the News section is not centered on the US but there should be some mention of the primaries there. This is a point where few people are involved and decisions are being made about our future. It would be good to direct people to current updates and also non partisan sources. The NYTs had a grid comparing all the candidates on important topics recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.45.76 (talk)
 * You can make suggestions at In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. The first primary has already been in the news. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is a newspaper. This is an encyclopaedia.  The newspaper is over there. Uncle G (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving?
The page is currently at 300,000 bytes. Maybe the time has come for archiving? John Carter (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The village pump threads are set to be archived by a bot 7 days after the last post is made to them. Since so many sections have been commented on recently, it takes a while before they get archived. One option would be to shorten the time between the last comment and when the thread is archived, but that would increase the risk of an active, ongoing discussion being archived. Tra (Talk) 23:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I didn't check to see that the page is automatically archived. My apologies for my oversight. John Carter (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I used to hand archive these. 300,000 bytes is actually rather small. I think seven days is about enough. Hiding T 01:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Image Renaming Policy?
Is there a policy on image renaming? For example, when is it considered acceptable/proper to move an image? I know there is no easy way to move an image, so moving images with some licenses would require the history to be copied, etc. What I am curious about at the moment is probably slightly simpler, a non-free, fair use image (say, a corporate logo).

Would it be acceptable to rename something because the capitalization is incorrect (e.g. Image:Fe-TV logo.PNG)? Or what if the name could be more specific (e.g. Image:Cbslogo.jpg)? Or if the name just is not as obvious as it could be (e.g. Image:Fsn wi.png)?

I am curious if there is any policy on when to rename an image. Short of that, is there any consensus on image renaming etiquette? Thanks. - AWeenieMan (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems like a totally moot point. The image name does not appear as text anywhere obvious for the reader of an article, and as long as each image has a unique name, I see no issue.  The image description page should have an explanation of the who, what, where, when, why, and how of the image, and the text there should comply with the MOS, but the name of the file itself is largely irrelevent.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The image name appears as both the default "title" parameter for the hyperlink that wraps the image (viewable by hovering over the image) and is also the default alt text. Neither perhaps as important as text in the article, both both of some importance.


 * Also, I cannot help but think that finding images is eased by having accurate/well formed image names. I would imagine the search feature is benefited from names that resemble search terms. And the category system is entirely dependent upon image names.


 * I am not arguing that image renaming is of the utmost importance, but does that mean it should just not be done? - AWeenieMan (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no good way to do it, and the image name isn't going to confuse anyone, so no, it is not worth doing. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since renaming images is such a pain, I'd say that it shouldn't be done unless the image name is completely non-descriptive (Image:IMG_1804.JPG) or inappropriate (Image:Wikipedia is Communism.jpg). For anything else, I'd wait until the developers finish modifying the software to allow images to be moved. --Carnildo (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information?
I am under the impression that the "general consensus" on Wikipedia is to frown on the unnecessary removal of sourced information, am I correct? Of course this all depends on the quality of the information itself and why it was removed, I am speaking of an actress's product endorsement (for a brand of vodka). Is it frowned upon to remove this content if the information is sourced reliably? As far as I am aware, removal is only justified if the information is libellous and defamatory to the subject of the article (and unreferenced of course) or if a case can be made for the non-notability of the information. Can someone please clarify? Thanks, Ekantik talk


 * One relevant policy is WP:NPOV, which deals with undue weight. Another is WP:NOT - Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. So the answer (sorry) is basically "it depends". If the "endorsement" (is this the same as being paid to appear in ads?) has been the subject of a story in a newspaper, it's almost certainly notable (presumably there was some controversy, or the story is important for some other reason). On the other hand, if the reliable source is, say, a press release by the company (and I personally would agree that is a reliable source), then the "endorsement" is probably no more important than (say) that the actress owns a particular breed of dog, or the name of her favorite restaurant. We don't (as far as I know, without looking) use Wikipedia articles to keep track of all the products that every celebrity has shilled for; the matter of reliability of sources isn't relevant. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 22:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To give this a bit of context, I was thinking in terms of Britney Spears, Beyonce, Jessica Simpson, and the like all over Wikipedia. Also, please visit this old discussion. Thanks, Ekantik talk 22:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I read the specific discussion in question, and the issue seems to be NOT that the fact that said actress was a paid spokesperson for the vodka in question, but the weight given to the idea in the article. As the person at the link you provided has said, a single sentance mention "Jane Doe appeared in advertisements for RotGut brand Vodka[1]" with a reference is appropriate.  To make it a large or significant portion of the article is trivial and undue weight.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the edit in question, it is hardly large or a significant portion of the article. Just a short para about her commitment to a vodka company within a section dedicated to her "other" (apart from acting) commitments as a whole. Hardly a big deal, methinks? Ekantik talk 22:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks OK to me, but please don't go saying "Jayron said I could do it!". Solve this issue on the article talk page, and achieve a compromise there.  Alternately, seek formal outside comment at WP:RFC.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  19:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd support, at most, a single sentence (the first one in the cited edit), and only then if it could be put into the article in an existing section (I looked, couldn't find one). The source is a press conference; the second sentence is pure PR-blather. Worst of all, the edit in question adds a section heading that has the sponsor's name in it, thus adding what is essentially a commercial advertisement into the table of contents. Again, if there were some controversy here, and a newspaper article about it, then it would be appropriate to give this more weight. And no, I've not looked at the other articles - if the rules are being bent or broken there, those articles should be fixed.


 * And I agree that this discussion belongs in the talk page of the article in question; if consensus is reached there about what to do with this content, fine. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT: what is a guidebook?
What is a guidebook? Sure, I can understand than an article about, say a tourist attraction, needs to include a lot of history about how that attraction came to be, but it also need to talk about what is there. It just shouldn't include admission information, and directions how to get there, and that sort of thing. To me, this policy means no advertising. But a big subject recently has been list for TV and movie series. Like List of characters/villains/aliens/monsters/episodes/ships/whatever. Most of such articles that I've seen consist of lots of in-world description. People keep saying "Wikipedia is not a guidebook," but I'm having trouble understanding why such a list is a "guidebook" and not encyclopedic. Can it be said that such lists are merely identification guides? If so, does that violate the spirit of WP:NOT? I notice that "identification guide" is not on the list of proscribed forms. Should it be? Or does it merely share the "guide" name? -Freekee (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A guidebook is something that offers practical advice for someone - how to sell a home, the best attractions at Disneyland, etc. It's purpose is not to explain things (the goal isn't understanding, per se) but rather to help people make good decisions. It's tone tends to be "If you prefer X, then you should do Y".


 * Lists are actually a different matter, I think - still covered by WP:NOT, but (a) not a directory, and (b) not an indiscriminate collection of information. One type of information that clearly falls into these categories is information that needs to be constantly updated - names of employees of an organization, television station program listings, etc. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing in a deleted category
Is there any rule against a user categorizing his/her own userpage in a deleted category? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do believe that you'll re-create the category simply by adding the category to the page. Since the category was already deleted, and category deletion is a more difficult process than page deletion, doing this would be a Bad Thing.  But wait.  You're an admin, aren't you?  Shouldn't you already know this? I must be missing something here. superlusertc 2008 January 06, 09:10 (UTC)
 * There are 3 users doing this, and I want to know if I can take steps to prevent them from doing so (after warning them, obviously). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not believe you can do anything about that. And @Superluser, you can't really delete a category, you can only delete the category description page. You must remove every page in the category (empty it) as well. But what's the problem with users adding themselves to a psuedo-cat if they want to? Prodego  talk  19:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well technically a red category link is wrong. If it does not exist. an editor should either create the category or removed the category entry from the article.  If the category was previously deleted, then adding this to articles might be considered as vandalism under WP:POINT since the category will not be created without a really good reason to overturn a previous delete decisions.  Don't know that anything specific exists, so this is just my opinion.  Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply adding a category to an article or user page does not create the category. Even if the category was salted, and cannot be recreated, there is nothing stopping someone from adding it to their user page (outside of protecting it).  And I don't see this as vandalism.  Would it be vandalism if someone typed "I am a queer wikipedian" on their user page?  No, of course not.  Stop them from recreating the deleted category, by all means, but this?  Does it really matter?  --Kbdank71 00:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a clarification: A category has two parts: The category page and the category listing.


 * If a CfD/UCfD result is to "delete", then the category listing is depopulated, and then the category page is deleted.


 * If you have a case of a single user adding themself to a redlinked category, then I wouldn't worry about it, that's usually ignored under the "wide leeway" guideline for userspace, though if it becomes problematic, it should probably be curtailed. If more than one user is listed in a redlinked category, then I would suggest taking appropriate action.


 * If there is a userbox which is inappropriately populating a category (redlinked or otherwise), simply edit the userbox to remove the category.


 * I hope this helps : ) - jc37 00:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * /Scan through Special:Wantedcategories and there are quite a few redlinked "Wikipedians" categories. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 00:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In the case of Category:Queer Wikipedians, which I G4-deleted (db-repost), I also depopulated the category manually by removing the 3 user pages in question from it. When I created this section, all three were categorized in it again. The 3 pages are User:Allstarecho, User:Hyacinth and User:Kolindigo. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is any harm done to the Wikipedia by the presence of these 3 editors in a red category? DuncanHill (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since this was deleted as a social network,no. If it had been deleted as inflamatory or divisive then yes.Taemyr (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It can be seen to be harmful: It's unfair to those who are no longer in the category. It undermines community consensus reached at UCFD. It makes a divisive point. If this is accepted practice, it renders the previous discussions on that category completely pointless. To add themselves back, the users should go through the appropriate venue of DRV. –Pomte 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I just noticed something. Has anyone spoken to these three people about the issue?  I've checked the talk pages, and the answer seems to be no.  It seems like their perspective might be useful, so I'm mentioning it on their talk pages. superlusertc 2008 January 08, 06:59 (UTC)


 * This wasn't just a one-time thing. There had been long arguements over LGBT user-categories, with them getting constantly renominated every few months until supporters were so damn tired of argueing, the people who didn't want them around finally won. The nomination before they were deleted even had someone invoke snowball, for heaven's sake. And since the deletion debate occured during national coming out week here in the US, adding insult to injury and rubbing a hell lot of salt in it, I completely refuse to manually remove myself from these categories. I almost left Wikipedia after the categories got deleted. You're gonna have to pry those redlinks out of my cold dead fingers, or just ban me. It's not social networking, for the love of god. Saying, as many did, that those who identify as anything unheterosexual should just join WP:LGBT misses the point of that project: that you don't need to identify as LGBTQA to join the project. As for the current heading of this discussion, categorizing in a deleted category: what's wrong with it? It's not like I recreated deleted content. Consider it a silent protest, if you will. Kolindigo (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But you did add the tag back in after the category was depopulated. And I can see the point that some people were making--do we need a heterosexual wikipedians category?  If not, then why do we need this one?  And do we need separate categories for hetero, straight, and straight but not narrow?  Whatever.  I'm not here to argue if the category should be recreated (my vote: abstain).  If you want to discuss that, we can take it up at DRV.


 * I am a bit concerned that you were considering quitting Wikipedia over this, because the point of Wikipedia isn't your user page. It's the articles that we all edit, and the quality that we seek to improve over time.  It cuts both ways--if we are driving away competent editors, perhaps we should be a little freer in what we can do to our user pages, since they are the only places for individual expression on Wikipedia. superlusertc 2008 January 08, 07:40 (UTC)

To further discuss the issue User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007 suggests the category talk page, which would require me to recreate the talk page, at least. This appears to be the forum created for discussing the validity of the category. The category was deleted "based on strength of arguments" (User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007). The primary argument appears to be that the category is unnecessary to collaboration. However, the category was not considered in view of existing "collaborative" user categories such as Category:Wikipedians in Montana, Category:Wikipedia administrators, Category:Wikipedian cellists-2, and Category:Wikipedian composers. The claim that this "category" of potential collaborators is actually more important or relevant to collaboration was cited as a reason to automatically delete. I have never collaborated with Montanans, cellists, or even administrators on Wikipedia through user categories while I have collaborated through Category:LGBT Wikipedians or similar categories. I recreated Category:Queer Wikipedians stating that "This user category is for the purpose of fostering a collaborative environment between queer editors and editors of articles covering queer topics" and placing it under Category:Wikipedians by interest. The "Queer Wikipedians" category is not substantially different from the other subcategories of "Wikipedians by interest" and substantial reasons have not been given for its deletion. Hyacinth (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To discuss the issue, you can always go to WP:DRV.
 * That is the appropriate place to review deletions, and it sounds like you may have some genuine issues to discuss. superlusertc 2008 January 08, 07:44 (UTC)

See Deletion review/Log/2008 January 8. Hyacinth (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate the notice by Superluser that this discussion was taking place. As a quite active member of WP:LGBT, I found it unacceptable that the category Queer Wikipedians, LGBT Wikipedians and Gay Wikipedians were all put up for deletion during national coming out week, as Kolindigo stated above. Queer Wikipedians was renamed per CfD on August 25, 2005 and was present with no problems for approximately 2 years and 2 months until User:jc37 CfD'ed Queer Wikipedians, Gay Wikipedians, Asexual Wikipedians, Pansexual Wikipedians, Polyamorous Wikipedians, Bisexual Wikipedians, Homoflexible Wikipedians, Heteroflexible Wikipedians, Femme Wikipedians, Lipstick lesbian Wikipedians, Bear cub Wikipedians, Lesbian Wikipedians, Genderqueer Wikipedians and Transsexual Wikipedians all on October 4, 2007 (deleted on October 9) and LGBT Wikipedians on October 10, 2007 (deleted on October 15). Further as an active member of WP:LGBT, I see and take on a lot of homophobia on Wikipedia.. from attacks on my talk page and article talk pages to censorship in articles. The deletion of this cat along with all of the others wreaked of POV by the nominating user. I placed the related 3 cats back on my userpage when it was removed by a bot at the deletion of the cats. Just because the cats doesn't exist certainly doesn't mean I can't have it on my own user space. Od Mishehu came by on January 3 and removed cat Queer Wikipedians, disregarding the bold notice at the top of my page that says This page is always under construction - by its User, not you! Thanks!. I reverted Od Mishehu's removal of the cat a little over 2 hours later when I noticed he/she had removed it. All of these "gay cats" went up for CfD slaughter at the same time, save for LGBT Wikipedians which got slaughtered a few days after the rest. It's hard to assume good faith and not sense dubious reasons when you see all of these related cats deleted, at the time they were. -- ALLSTAR  echo 08:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your failure to AGF (no one there seems to have known about National Coming Out Day, which is irrelevant to the discussion; duration of existence is also irrelevant) does not justify re-adding the categories deleted from consensus, which serves no purpose (it's a category) other than to display a personal gripe. It's the same principle as keeping deleted mainspace content on your userpage. –Pomte 12:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant to you maybe. Apparently several users found it quite relevant. -- ALLSTAR  echo 22:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The debate regarding the category and this debate, regarding whether deleted user categories may be placed on user pages, have been separated. To debate the existence of the category please see Deletion review/Log/2008 January 8. Concerning the use of deleted user categories: Please cite and quote a policy which prohibits the use of deleted categories on user pages. Hyacinth (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that the claim in the DRV nomination is that this "recreation" is intended as a "collaborative" cat, but that's not the claim here... That aside, there was already a DRV for the discussion, which was closed as endorse deletion. So far, no one here has shown that consensus has changed, but only that the few of you still wish to have a category for self-identification purposes, which we have over 2 years of prior discussions condemning. If you truly want a collaborative cat, create something like: Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues. (You would find that it wouldn't be deleted, unless all the "by interest" cats were.) But then that would actually be about collaborating, which doesn't seem to be the actual want, based on my read of the comments above. - jc37 01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, why didn't you just propose a rename of the 15 gay categories you AfD'ed instead of proposing them for deletion? That seems to have been the more appropriate thing to do. Your statement here just further makes me wonder the POV intentions when you put them all up for slaughter in the first place. -- ALLSTAR  echo 01:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it was rather clear that some members of the cat had no intention of using the cat for colaboration. And renaming/merging to some other name would then miscategorise Wikipedians. Something which should obviously be avoided. (Also known as the "zodiac" situation, which has been mentioned previously.) So the typical course in that case is to delete the category, with no prejudice for the creation of a "by interest" cat which follows the naming convention of that parent category. (Alternatively, WikiProject membership of whatever the topic is is also often an option as well.) Which is essentially what happened. - jc37 02:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss the topic at hand. That topic is the use of deleted user categories on user pages. Hyacinth (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC) I'd say when you got admins putting deleted cats back on their user page, on the day after it was deleted, then there's no policy anywhere including the unwritten one that it's not allowed. -- ALLSTAR  echo 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been known to do it in the past with Category:English administrators, I only got "caught" when someone else recreated the category through a template. I don't really see anything wrong with it provided it's not something objectionable, but as ever I bow to consensus whenever it is reached. Hiding T 01:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hyacinth: I believe there is no policy on this matter, as no users have been disruptive enough to call for wide discussion. The arguments I provided are based on common sense, and the purpose of user categories. –Pomte 02:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What is needed then is a proposal of a written policy. Would we need create a new policy specifically regarding deleted categories? Is there an existing policy which may be expanded to cover this situation? What would the text added to that policy be? Hyacinth (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's ever an official policy on this, it will probably be that users are never allowed to add themselves to deleted categories unless they first undelete the category. There's too much potential for abuse to make official policy anything else.  An unstated or implied policy to the contrary would be the best I would expect to hope for. superlusertc 2008 January 09, 20:02 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a circle here? You can't have categories with no contents and you can't add contents to categories which are current, but you have to have one first. Hyacinth (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Might want to check your facts. I added that redlink prior to the category being created.  I just re-added it after it was deleted.  --Kbdank71 21:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know you originally added it to your user page on August 4, 2005. That wasn't my point nor was it anything personal. Just saying, it's since been deleted and you, as an admin, added it back to your userpage, which I don't think there's anything wrong with at all.. but to say we shouldn't have re-added Queer Wikipedians back to our userpage because it was deleted is simply a moot point. Thanks. -- ALLSTAR  echo  22:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. I see what you mean, now.  Sorry about that.  --Kbdank71 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a fairly common form of protest when a category is deleted in my experience. I don't particularly like it, but I also don't think it would be worth all the drama that would ensue if we made it policy to remove all the redlinks from userpages. If users want to keep redlinks of (non-disruptive) categories on their page, I don't see the harm in letting them. VegaDark (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposal: I propose that the guideline at Categorization read that users may add themselves to deleted categories given the lack of harm caused and userpage privileges. Hyacinth (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad idea. Categories are designed and intended to be for navigation purposes only. They shouldn't be used for "bottom-of-the-page" notices. (Redlinked or otherwise.) This is true in for categries in any space, including namespace and userspace. If one wishes to place a notice on their talk page, they should edit the page and place the notice. Don't use a category for it. We tend to give a fair amount of latitude in userspace, and this includes someone occasionally creating a single-member red-links category. But for the most part even this is frowned on. - jc37 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Directory" Claims in re: Radio Station Articles - Can we investigate policy change?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WBZW&action=history

Can we look into a modification into Wiki policy in regard to radio stations? There appear to be many varying degrees of moderating when it comes to which on-air personalities can be listed and remain listed, despite not appearing to fall into the proper realm of notability, such as the case with the article that I have linked here.

I would suggest this: Weekday on-air personalities (Monday thru Friday) should be allowed to be listed, weekend-only personalities should not be, unless it is a nationally-syndicated show such as American Top 40, Hollywood Hamilton, MTV TRL Weekend Countdown, etc.

It would seem that allowing this would violate Wiki:NotDirectory, but for the sake of consistency with these radio station articles, I believe an exception should be made.


 * Why are people listing radio presenters? The presenters are -almost always- entirely non-notable, as are the radio stations.  The 'future people' might find it interesting or useful to know how many people ran the station, and the names of those people at some point in time might be handy, but to continually change the list to keep up to date with changing staffing seems a bit sub-optimal to me. To answer  your point; make one list, and date it -  "As of August 22nd 2007 the station had eight presenters; [LISTY THING GOES HERE]" - then leave it.  Dan Beale-Cocks  14:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The 1952 Hollywood Reporter Encyclopedia listed every TV station in the U.S., with owners, addresses, affiliations, and on-air staff; there's no reason Wikipedia shouldn't be able to do the same (for both TV and radio). I don't believe the radio stations themselves are "almost always" non-notable, as a good portion of them have been around for 50+ years and have long local histories. Notability should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Firsfron of Ronchester  14:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * However, the problem that I (I'm the original poster on this subject, posting from work vs. home) brought up is that there is a major inconsistency regarding the "case-by-case basis"; of this subject, in re: Notability. I like the suggestion of "Dan Beale," personally, particularly in regard to past personalities of a certain radio station.  Some stations have fans who have kept up with the station for years and could probably rattle off the names of everyone who has ever cracked the mic there.  While these facts may seem trivial to some folks, I think there are others who would enjoy the information being available, particularly in the case of a "Where are they now?" question about someone they might have listened to as a younger person on that particular station.  I'm all for a policy change on this subject.  Yes, you will have a massive flow of information being added to a lot of these articles...  but isn't that what Wikipedia is here for, the information?
 * By the way, I would expect that in 1952 there were rather fewer TV stations than there are now, and that they were much more the novelty and large enterprise (more akin to a movie studio) than the commodity they are today. I'm not sure the comparison holds.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There were fewer TV stations in 1952 than there are now, but Wikipedia isn't paper. Television stations weren't in any way similar to movie studios in 1952, and, just as today, there was a huge divide between the small screen and the big one. Local shows went over the air live without the benefit of film, and videotape wasn't developed until 1956. Some local shows were captured on poor-quality kinescopes, but these have rarely been preserved. Aside from the eighteen network owned-and-operated stations, local television stations were decidedly low-budget affairs. Had local TV stations been similar to movie studios, the New York-based DuMont Television Network would have been able to compete with ABC's Hollywood facilities. That didn't happen. Firsfron of Ronchester  17:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not paper. Therefore it can contain spam. All of the unnecessary directory entries should be removed. The rule of thumb: If Special:Random is not apparently random (as it once was before directory-creating spambots), than we need to get rid of some of this stuff. The biggest problem seems to be directory entries for local towns, villages, and hamlets and obscure albums by obscured unsigned musicians, using Wikipedia to promote their work. The radio station directories above just show how this problem has gone too far. Pretty soon, Wikipedia will probably contain phone numbers and addresses. The conservative skepticism surrounding the addition of new policies prevent this problem and others from being addressed. The obvious problems are covered under current policy, the subtle problems no one will admit. Zenwhat (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Movie Trailers
I can see some movie articles which have external links to sites which serve trailers for that movie. I don't think such links should be allowed in this encyclopedia. Do you know of any policy which talks on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshuk (talk • contribs)


 * We certainly do. Wikipedia's policy on external links may cover it.  I do not say one way or the other about whether such links should or should not be allowed, without having to see any specific links.  However, please read that policy yourself, and if you see any eggregious violations, well, feel free to fix it.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  02:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply; Jayron. I did go through wp:el; but I am still not sure whether this should be allowed or not. I don't think such links are 'encyclopedic' enough. To give you an example there is a external link in the article Jodhaa Akbar (this is a bollywood movie) which points to a page serving a trailer of this movie. When I do a linksearch on this external site, I found out that there are around 20-30 more articles like this. How do we decide whether linking to a site which serves movie trailers is encyclopedic or not. Anshuk (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is acceptable, there is no problem with linking to movie trailers. Just make sure there is only one link per movie article page. Multiple will get annoying.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't speak Bollywood (those films confound my Western sensibility) but it looks like that specific link is OK. In general, I would think that an external link to an officially sanctioned trailer is OK, akin to linking to a corporations official website in an article about that corporation, which is exactly what external links is for.  However, take care that the external link is to an officially sanctioned copy of the trailer, not to some website which is itself a copyright violation.  In short, if the trailer is on the official website of the film, its probably Kosher.  If its on YouTube, its probably a copyvio, and should not be linked.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  06:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously a good wikipedian should also check to see the link is still valid whenever comming across one, as I would imagine trailer links would become invalid often soon after the film leaves the cinema, and much more so when an official link.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That was a sweet point Jayron. I found out that the articles already link to official sites which have all the trailers. These additional external sites are hence redundant. -- Anshuk (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, these days nearly every film that comes out has its own website, and on the website there are trailers. Thus, links to the official site's trailers (where they're not redundant to links to the site itself) make a lot of sense.  Where that's not possible, links to a widely accepted, stable source of official trailers (e.g. the apple trailers) might work but I'd hate to speculate about that in the abstract without seeing it in application.  Links to random film sites that host trailers or link to trailers are probably not the way to go.  Wikidemo (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy change discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
There is a policy change discussion currently taking place at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources with regard to how geographic features are cited and what consitututes a legitimate reference source for them. If you use geographic references of any kind in the articles you edit, this discussion might be worth following and chiming in on. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review proposed WP:FICT guideline
I would like to get more eyes to review the proposed version of Notability (fiction) beyond what those participating on the current talk page have provided. This is not to get consensus for it yet, but to make sure there are no major issues with it before going to that step. Please address any concerns on WT:FICT. Thank you. --M ASEM 19:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

About intelectual rights
Hello. I (think I) have discovered some things.Theory I tried to talk about those on pages like what is life or what is god but I later understood that Wikipedia don’t publish new research. So I gathered my story on my user page. Among some other claims, I have described a new theory about astrological signs.Astrological theory I will like to know what is the policy of Wikipedia on intellectual property regarding such articles that exist on Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia don’t publish original articles. But if such articles existed or still exist on pages like users pages, what is the official position of Wikipedia about those articles? I think that this is more a legal issue but I am curious if a Wikipedia official position exist. Thanks. Raffethefirst (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you ask about the license, by publishing even on a userpage you agree to GNU license. If your question is about being recognized as the author of an idea, all your contributions can be tracked and especially in your own user page it is quite likely that nobody will change the text too much. Pundit | utter  01:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * * Yes I was curious if I can be recognized as the author of this idea. And this is good news what you told me.
 * What else do I need in order to be allowed to put this theory on signs page?
 * The term notable is not applicable here since the signs domain is not a science. My discovery has the same source as the signs itself: pure observation of some real day to day facts. The signs were discovered long ago by some ancient people. So the signs theories that are on signs page are theories wrote by very not notable people. And this did not evolved into a strict science.
 * So is there something that I don't have comparing to the ancient people that discovered the signs that will make me less notable so therefore unable to put my theory on signs page?
 * Raffethefirst (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that this is not what userspaces is intended for, see WP:user space. Wikipedia is not a webhost.  Notability is always an issue since we are an encyclopedia of verifiable facts.  This means that anything on our pages needs proper sourcing. Taemyr (talk) 08:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

- I know that user space is not intended to keep original theory. But I am also 'organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia' like the Wikipedia:User page says. And since is not an rule to delete my user page, the theory will stay there and how said before it will prove that I am the owner of this theory About the notability of signs what is more to be said? There is NOBODY notable to talk about signs since nobody did a scientific research on them. There were some people that took the legend and wrote a book with no personal contribution - just put the legend on paper to make some money. So what exist in signs page are theories wrote by some ancient people that are not notable according to your standards. My contribution is the only theory in signs domain so far that can be cited as "written by". So my theory is more notable than all other signs theories that exist on signs page. Please tell me how this theory will be able to become notable. The only way is to be proved with scientific arguments. But I cant do that since no scientists want to touch such a thing (because of their ignorance). So to ask for my theory to be proven with science in order to be able to stay in you encyclopedia is like asking for all signs theories to be proved with science and since no one of them is, then all should be removed. Another thing is that you have a mission not only to Wikipedia but to the world to see an opportunity to improve the knowledge database even if there are no regulation about it. You are a pioneer - you create the knowledge of the world. Raffethefirst (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't exist for you to speculate on pseudoscience. If you're going to nothing here but work on/spam your theory on talk pages, you're better off using a forum. In other words, in the clearest possible form, please stop wasting others' time trying to make your original research somehow seem notable, because short of publishing it in a book that will never happen. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 10:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You did not answer to my question about how can such a theory became notable. Anyway I think this is my last comment here because I see you are not receptive to my idea and it will be a waist of time for all of us. Raffethefirst (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

answer

 * Regarding your theories, please see Cosmological argument, Abiogenesis, Punctuated equilibrium, Rapid modes of evolution and Transitional fossil.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I will answer you on my talk page so we don't change this subject here. I will also put some title to your answer so I can get a link to it. If you don't find this appropriate please put you question on my talk page.Raffethefirst (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your user page is not a place to write your own pet theories that are unrelated to the Wikipedia project. They can be deleted. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Calling my theory 'pet theory' is a big offense for me but I wont answer with one offense back. If it matters to you I have studied almost 10 years to came to those ideas.
 * No theory is 'pet theory'. You can prove that that theory is wrong. Even then you don't have the right to call it a 'pet theory'. All theories are made with some effort and all theories are good for science. Even bad theories are good because proving that they are wrong means you are closer to the true. I was hoping that on Wikipedia I wont find such attitude.
 * And my signs theory is very much related to signs page. This theory is going to improve that page and I will try to do what I have to do to see it there for improving the world knowledge.
 * Another thing is that I love the true more than my theory so if somebody will prove that is wrong I will happily bend to it. Happily because a step to truth have been made.
 * So if you just don't like my theory for some personal reasons please keep it for yourself. If you think is wrong because of scientific reasons, I will be happy to hear your opinion.
 * Raffethefirst (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a philosophy forum. If you want to discuss and debate theories and proofs about "the truth" find a web forum of people interested in that.  There may be people at Wikipedia who are interested, but Wikipedia is not the place to have the discussion.  Nor is it the place to publish it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I am not trying to use the Wikipedia as a forum. I want to improve a Wikipedia article - the signs article. I think the 'notability' don't apply exactly the same to signs subject. On my user page I am organizing the subject for some future moment when I will get acceptance to put that theory there. Raffethefirst (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Wikipedia policies apply to all articles. The articles are not the place for unpublished original research and user pages are not the place to publish theories. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The signs were invented long ago, the people who wrote books about them had no personal contribution to them just reproduced them. So I guess the sign page don't accomplishes you policy requirements because is nothing notable there. If this is allowed, is a different policy that should be also applying to me. Anyway I do understand that you wont allow me to put my theory in signs page so I will try to comply to your notability requirements. When my theory will become notable I will inform you all and ask for the right to put it there. I have to take this decision also because I got no favorable response. There was nobody to encourage me. So I cant fight so many determined people. Raffethefirst (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confused as to what Wikipedia means by notable. Nearly everyone else responding to you seems to be confused as to what you are confused about (those people should learn additional critical reading skills).

In Wikipedia, something is "Notable" not if it has been scientifically studied, as you seem to be contending, but if it has been written about by multiple third party sources, independant from the subject. So in other words, in order for your theory to be notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article about it you would have to 1. Get it published. 2. Wait for someone else to write about your theory. (Preferably 2 or 3 someone elses) Make sense now? 206.246.160.29 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

NOR: Is calling a character fictional original research?
Over at Talk:Hiram Abiff, there's an argument going on about whether policy is best served by calling Hiram Abiff an allegorical character, because of his use in Masonic ritual, or a real person whose story has been fictionalized, as there is a reference in the Bible to someone who is generally taken as the inspiration for the allegorical character. Can we get an opinion from an uninvolved party? Thanks.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 14:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know the details in this case, but just as an offhand point of reference, I'd say that the infamous "strictly coincidental" disclaimer on all fictional works published since the 1930s or so would constitute a valid primary source that a character's fictional, thus obviating OR concerns. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As you don't know the details you wouldn't know that that point won't help - Hiram Abiff is a character from ritual drama written in the 1700's.--Vidkun (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is also worth noting that at least one source has explicitly identified the character in the drama with the Biblical character. That being the case, what is somewhat being discussed is whether this potentially conglomerated character, who is specifically referred to in a letter from a king included in one of the later books of the Old Testament, generally regarding as being historical reliable, can be described as fictional based on his inclusion in a story whose origins haven't themelves yet been verifiably sourced by sources independent of Freemasonry itself. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that we are talking about two different things here. There is a biblical/historical Hiram, and there is a character in a Masonic play named Hiram.  According to the lead, the article in question is about the character in the play, not about the biblical/historical person.  That character may be based upon the biblical/historical person (very good evidence that it is).
 * The underlying issue is that we state in the lead that Hiram Abiff is a "fictional character". John has added a citation request for a statement, asking us to verify that the character is indeed fictional.  My contention is that this is a "Water is wet" type statement... Characters that apprear in works of fiction (even if they are based upon real people) are "fictitious characters" by definition.  I don't think it is a reasonable challenge, or a reasonable citation request.  If we were trying to say that the biblical/historical Hiram was fictitious, that would be a very different matter... but we are not... we are saying that a character in a play is fictitious.  Do we really need to verify this? Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that final contention is not explicitly made clear in the existing content. And I again question whether the inclusion of that term in the very beginning of the article might not, at least potentially, be seen as indicating that the characters referenced from the Bible are also fictional. Personally, I don't know one way or another whether they are or aren't, although the letter from the king might well be authentically repeated. Also, all of this is about the specific inclusion of that single word. The lead had earlier ended with an explicit statement that "The story is currently believed to be a total fabrication, created for the purpose of being used in the ritual". I cannot myself see why the word fictional is insisted upon over a statement at least similar to that one, perhaps saying "The story in the ritual..." for purposes of clarity. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How is Jesus Christ portrayed in Jesus Christ, Superstar? The Superstar play is clearly not trying to be historically accurate.  -- SEWilco (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * True. However, the exact relevance to this instance is somewhat open to question.
 * One, there hasn't yet, that I've seen, been produced any evidence which indicates that the current view of the character as fictional has always been held by Freemasonry. If it had earlier been at least entertained as being potentially true, it would be misleading to use the word "fictional".
 * Two, and this is I acknowledge a bit of a reach, Gershom Scholem said several years ago that there were literally thousands of Spanish-language Kabbalistic books which hadn't yet been reprinted or necessarily studied. He may have even said that they hadn't all been specifically noted, I can't remember at this point. Kabbalistic volumes often contained a number of what might be called "additions" to Biblical stories, sometimes apparently based on oral tradition. I'm not sure it would be particularly responsible to indicate that this story is a work of fiction, without knowing whether it may have been "borrowed" from documents not yet reviewed. Maybe that's a small point, but it might be a valid one.
 * Anyway, that's my primary reason for questioning the summary use of the word "fictional" over a clearer and more potentially exact statement, "The story is currently seen as being a total fabrication", or words to that effect. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would state that he's fictional in the lead, even if he's based on real persons. Look at Charles Foster Kane, for an example of an article on a fictional character heavily based on real people. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In this sort of case I would describe the subject as appearing in a Freemasonary "drama" or "narrative" or "account" based on a minor Biblical figure, use a relatively neutral term like "figure" rather than "character", and state what Freemasons believe if they have a belief about this and there is a WP:RS for this, and also describe the circumstances about when the drama was written. Otherwise, what's the need to make a claim one way or the other? It's quite possible that Freemasons don't regard these stories as being revelations or having claims to truth the way some other religions do. If Freemasons themselves don't regard the story as being historical Wikipedia can simply report that and end the matter. My guess would be that "mythical" or similar might still be a better description in such a case than "fictional". Sophocles' plays might be a useful analogy. Sophocles likely believed in the gods and other characters who appeared in his plays, yet likely regarded his work as dramatizations rather then literally-true, revelatory accounts. His characters are described as mythical characters, not fictional characters. Something similar may be the case here as well. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, no one ever objected to the use of the word "character", because the use of that word is probably directly relevant and indicates the liklihood of fictitiousness, which does seem indicated. It's whether the more blunt assessment "fictional" in addition to that word is necessarily required. But thank you both for your responses. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We had difficulties with this issue on Santa Claus since there are elements of his story that he originates with Saint Nicholas. The current lead on Santa is how we agreed--after a lot of wrangling and accusations of "killing children's dreams"--which was to include that he is a "legendary, historical and mythical character". I don't know if that was the best way, but this was quite a heated topic before the holidays, so I'm interested to see how this pans out. -- David  Shankbone  19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reason not to have two articles on this, one on the historical personage, and one on the character based on him. Santa Clause and Saint Nicholas is one example from above, also see Stephen Colbert and Stephen Colbert (character).  Two articles would help solve the problem.  Its not a POV fork, there is clearly a character evolved from the real person, and while the articles should tie together, the two could clearly be about seperate entities.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No disagreement to the last above. The only problems there, at least to me, would be that the one or two lines from the Bible on the three Biblical Hirams almost certainly don't merit one or more separate articles for them, barring the king of course. Most if not all of the further development of those characters seems to have taken place in the Masonic milieu, and I think attempting to differentiate between "legend", "Masonic legend", and "non-Masonic legend referenced in Masonic sources" might be difficult. But I do agree that if there is sufficient content to develop the three Hirams from the Bible as individual articles, that would make sense. It still wouldn't necessarily solve the quetsion about attribution of later legends, though. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When it doubt, ignore the fringe. Whichever side is pushing fringe theories about free-masonry, their edits should be reverted and they should be banned immediately. Zenwhat (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)