Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive BC

Ignore all rules
Hi. Some Wikipedians have been talking over at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules, and some of us have agreed that the Ignore all rules policy is often misunderstood (I note that there's one disagreement about it on this page now, a few sections up), and that it might benefit from some kind of explanation as to its intent. Edits to the text of the policy tend to get reverted, quickly and decisively, by various Wikipedians, so we've been talking about what we might do. Someone made a list of a handful of essays that address the role that our "rules" play in this project, and what it means to ignore them, while generally following them. We've set up a talk page section collecting people's reactions to these essays, after which we'll decide whether to edit the policy, or what to do. It would be great to get more input from the community in deciding how to reduce confusion about this important and controversial policy. Please feel free to drop by and share your thoughts. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Making things easier
Hey there! We've been having some great discussion at Proposed adminship. We've been talking about a way to make the RfA process easy, simple, and free of process wonkery. This has been a long time coming, especially given the megabytes of argument and discussion over what to do about RfA over at WT:RFA. Basically, this is a way to truly make adminship no big deal. As per the norm, I'm wondering what you fine folk might have to add to the policy or if you have any comments, questions, or suggestions. Thanks for reading and I appreciate you all taking time out of your day to check this out!  gaillimh Conas tá tú? 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy creation guideline
A small number of editors want to tag Help:Creating policy as 'historical" or "rejected". IMO this page is a perfectly valid guideline, and very good advice on creating new policy and process pages in a civil and orderly way. I urge more people to discuss the matter at Help talk:Creating policy, so that a broader consensus on whether to improve, abandon, or endorse the current state of this page can develop DES (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an important topic to consider. While this guideline is not perfect, it certainly helps to provide continuity in the process of developing further guidelines.  Without some standards for defining consensus building we will have a proliferation of redundant and conflicting guidelines in no time at all.  So far this process has shown how much two dedicated editors can influence policy through patient and persistent reversion.  --Kevin Murray 18:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This guideline does not have consensus. Of 80 documented attempts to use it, only 8 are listed as successful. But wait, 6 of those cases had intervention by Jimbo Wales. That means we have maybe only 2 successful cases without intervention. Of those 2 remaining, I have doubts if the process used for at least one of those (proposed deletion) is accurately represented as having using this particular proposal process.

That's enough for me to start wondering about the last example as well.

We can surmise that this guideline has been overwhelmingly rejected in the one location where consensus really counts and works: in the field. We shouldn't be telling people to use it at all.

--Kim Bruning 18:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Most attemtps to change policy, by whatever method, fail. And I think there have been cases that use this method, or minor variations of it, that were not properly documented on the page. As for Prod, i was part of those discussion (largely in opposition, I might add) and they did indeed follow more or less the procedure described on thsi page. So did the July 2005 CSD expansion, to note another I was involved in. DES (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are the 2 out of 80. In fact, my experience is that most modifications to policy I've been involved in have worked out swimmingly, just not any that used this method (I steer well clear of "proposed policy" :-P ) . Perhaps we're using different methods? --Kim Bruning
 * Also, you say above "of the 80 documented attempts to use it" but the document says that ther were 80 failed attempts to change policy, it does not say how many of those used this method. So you are comparign a list stated to be incompelte with a list not stated to eb all the same thing, and using the resulting ratio as proof of soemthing. How many attempts to change policy can you sit ein the same period that were both significant and successful, that used other methods? how many unsuccessful attempts using such other methods were there? DES (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, using methods I was taught by my wiki-mentors, I generally get to near 100% success rate. (as in, getting guidelines sufficiently modified to get what needs doing, done). Also, (to my dismay) most of my current time is spent maintaining guidelines. :-/ --Kim Bruning 18:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of fair-use rationales
I have created a page in my userspace at User:ESkog/Rationales, which I plan to use in edit summaries, attempting to clarify the proper use of fair-use rationales, which seems to confuse many users. Please feel free to edit, and add to the "good examples" sections. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your page looks handy, did you know about Fair use rationale guideline?--Commander Keane 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That page encourages users to use Template:Non-free fair use rationale, which in my experience produces inferior fair use rationales compared to hand-written ones. --Iamunknown 03:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I did know that page was there, and was pointing users to that. They still seemed confused. I think that once my version improves, its most useful feature will be the model fair-use rationales which users can use to see if their own usage matches with policy. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for changes to Manual of Style
I have proposed changes to the varieties of English guideline that do not change their spirit but which I think would be improvements. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Joeldl 09:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(Mis)use of Wikipedia policies
WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are the most "used" policies in disputes, and deletion reasons. They both lead, in fact, to Verifiability. WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are nowadays used to ban opposite opinions, by simply chosing one of 'em, and stamping on that nasty opinion, so in fact, they're (these policies) turned inside out, no matter, that those opinions are (mainly) verifiable, or even in some times, the "truth", itself, aka. the academic viewpoint. And this is where WP:NPOV comes in: As far as I see, in minor or marginal/unpopular topics (for ex. Taner Akcam) the NPOV is what came first, not what is neutral or real. To be clear, Akcam was described as a terrorist in his Wikipedia bio, while in fact, he's not, even so, he's a scientist, who's acknowledgeing and researching the armenian holocaust, a thing, Turkey still not aknowledge, and Turkish nationalists would kill anybody, who acknowledges it. See for example Hrant Dink. More on this at Village pump (news), including The Independent's more detailed article about the case. How seriously and how well are these, (otherwise good) policies taken? --91.120.98.165 12:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Or simply remember/reread Siegenthaler controversy, the most famous of such. --91.120.98.165 12:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to figure out your point right now... What do you mean by "NPOV is what came first, not what is neutral or real." In response to your question, "How seriously and how well are these, (otherwise good) policies taken?", the answer is, "very". These are official policies of Wikipedia and every contribution should conform to their requirements. If Akcam has been described by reliable sources as a terrorist, then mention that in the bio. If Akcam has been described by reliable sources as a scientist researching the Armenian holocaust, then mention that in the bio. I don't really understand the issue... if I've missed your point, please elaborate. Sancho 15:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Very? No. By ""NPOV is what came first, not what is neutral or real" I mean that the first opinion, wich has been written here (on enwiki) is declared NPOV, no matter how huge POV it is. This is occuring in marginal/unpopular topics, like history or politics of small (aka relatively unknown) countries. --91.120.82.69 23:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Akcam is a scientist, who researches the armenian holocaust. Turkish nationalists deny the existence of the armenian holocaust. Anybody, who does not deny it, is a target to those Turkish nationalists, like Akcam is/was now, or Hrant Dink was. -> Akcam was attacked on Wikipedia, by describing him as a terrorist and a threat to the (Western) world, wich are both false. Such things happen almost hour by hour on wikipedia, on other pages, about other issues, by other nationalists. (for example: Slovaks and Serbs against Hungarians, Russians against Poles, etc.)--91.120.82.69 23:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Quotes and counter-quotes
I have a question about the article Prem Rawat. The problem is that certain statements are so sensitive and controversial that there have been near-endless disputes about mis paraphrasing selective or out-of-context summarizing of scholarly sources. A solution was finally found in adding verbatim short quotes from the scholarly sources. However this has led to counter-quotes. It has been argued that war of opposing scholarly quotes has led to a bad article. But I do not see an alternative. see User_talk:Rumiton The number of words per scholar have been counted to assess allegations of undue weight which I think shows how far the dispute has come. Talk:Prem_Rawat Any comments? Andries 18:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The actual problem is that Andries' is behaving at the Prem Rawat article in the same way that got him banned from editing Sai Baba. To support his POV Andries translates obscure Dutch scholars, picks out the wierdest quote he can find, modifies it to suit his purposes and then stuffs it in. Editors have tried to ensure accuracy by asking that the whole quote be included as a reference. Weeks later, or in this case, months later editors discover that critical sections of the quote have been deleted to change the meaning or individual words mistranslated. Andries then apologises and promises not to do it again. Until the next time. And the next time. Here's an example from today in which I belatedly discover that Andries had deleted "apparently by his mother" from the quote "he tried to remain loyal to the role in which he was forced, apparently by his mother". This is crucial information because no other scholars support this theory and it throws doubt on van der Lans credibility. In the process of discussing this, Andries then writes that his translation of "forced" is probably not a good translation of the Dutch original and he will check it. And so it goes.Momento 20:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I provided full originals and full translations on request, but that takes time. Jan van der Lans is not obscure. Momento dismisses reputable sources if they state things that he does not agree with, including the Washington Post if they happen to make critical comments about Prem Rawat. Andries 20:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot predict what other contributors consider crucial information, so that is why I provide extensive citations on request. This enables other editors to see whether I have selectively quoted sources. I certainly did not expect Momento to consider the omission crucial and even now I think that I have not omitted crucial information. Andries 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And what do you expect me to do? Quote everything what scholars have written to ensure that I do not quote selectively? Then the article will be extremely lenghty. I have to make a selection without misrepresentation which is what I tried. Andries 20:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Title of article versus content of article
The word "Gun fu" is a neologism or protologism (search google to check this, a few slang mentions of it but nothing "formal" or "widespread"). But the article called Gun fu is not about the word as such, its about a certain style of gunplay seen in films. So the article subject is notable, but its title is a neologism.

The article throughout uses the term gun fu just as a quick shorthand to refer to this style, which would otherwise have to be referred to with a long unwieldy name, such as "John Woo-inspired close-quarters gunplay in film" or somesuch.

What should be done in a case like this? Should the word gun fu be enclosed in quote marks throughout the article? Should the article be renamed? Should the words "gun fu" be replaced with something else throughout the article?

Thoughts here please Talk:Gun fu. 86.27.73.208 17:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Including wikipedian categories in real categories
Is it really acceptable to include categories for wikipedians in general category? E.g. Category:Global warming skeptics. Isn't this kind of against our no self references policy? Nil Einne 08:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it's not and I've removed it. --Cherry blossom tree 09:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes "consensus" on the Manual of Style?
Way back in July 2005, a guideline was inserted into Manual of Style (dates and numbers) on a 20-6-2 vote (the latter 2 arguing "No more stupid votes"). This was apparently done without consulting the editors of articles which would be affected by this change. As a result, discussions have flared up several times since then, with Manual of Style regulars generally favoring the status quo, and editors of the articles in question generally opposing the guideline. Recent discussion clearly shows that the guideline has no consensus at this point in time. I have stated on the talk page that I will remove it on the grounds of lack of consensus, and have been told in return that I can't do that, that a lack of consensus always defaults to the status quo. This seems wrong to me. A tiny handful of editors can make "consensus" on one corner of Wikipedia, and then enforce it everywhere and demand that others form a consensus against them before it stops? I do not believe the Manual of Style was ever intended for such purposes. Which interpretation of consensus policy is correct? Do MoS guidelines need consensus to remove, or is the lack of any consensus for keeping them enough to deprecate them? *** Crotalus *** 21:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardles of anything else, the MoS is not supposed to be enforcable against consensus on a particular article as I understand it. It says "The guidelines here are just that: guidelines are not inflexible rules; one way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read, write and edit.". In general I do feel that a guideline version having obtained consensus (as this one apparently did back in 2005) a change should normally require consensus, but in an extreme case where there clearly is no consensus one way or another, a change to remove the guideline altogether might be warented, but i would hope for a broad-based discussion, not limited to MOS regulars, to establsih exactly what, if any, consensus now exists on this issue.DES (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that the only reason this issue ever made it into the MOS in the first place (I was one of the persons who helped put it there) is precisely because leaving it to individual articles to decide wasn't working at all. The exact same debate with the same arguments would pop up quite often, each time requiring a lengthy fight to re-establish the same principles.  In this case, the MOS guideline exists largely to centralize discussion on this matter.  It's also a matter of consistency within Wikipedia.  Is it a good thing for one article to use notation like "64K" to mean 210 bytes and another to use "64 KB", another to use "64 kB", and yet another to use "64 KiB" to refer to the same quantity, all because of the collective preference of the authors of those respective pages?  I don't think so, but you may disagree.  Regardless, perhaps you can see why we wanted to centralize this to a place like the MOS.


 * I will also note that this sort of thing happens frequently as regards the MOS... Just look at the WP:MOSTM talk page to see how controversial enforcement of the "MOS consensus" on odd name capitalization/punctuation has been.  That situation is a good analog to the binary prefixes issue; an editor will find an article like "the pillows" (capitalization intentional), fix it to use "The Pillows" per consensus on the MOSTM page (and correct English grammar), and a minor debate will arise on the MOSTM talk page.  Since the regulars to that page endorse the current guideline, the article sticks to the letter of the guideline.  The only real difference between the MOSTM issue and the binary prefixes MOSNUM issue is that the latter has finally gained critical mass due to a couple of editors who are willing to go through the weeks of debate required to give a change momentum. (upon further reflection, it's interesting that some of the arguments against using the binary prefixes could equally well be applied to the MOSTM capitalization/punctuation guidelines). -- mattb 21:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an extreme case. The style states that if one contributor wants to use the optional style all of the other contributors must comply. There is one enthusiastic user that is making this optional style change in hundreds of articles. When the regular article editors complain they are directed to the WP:MOSNUM talk page. There they are told this style has the "consensus" and must be followed. The complainants out-number the "consensus" folks by a factor of 4 or more. -- SWTPC6800 01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is people agreeing to do stuff. If there are people in the field doing one thing, and there are some letters elsewhere saying another thing, then the consensus is with the people and the doing, not so much with the letters and the saying. :-) --Kim Bruning 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that people aren't agreeing to do stuff. What has resulted is edit warring. One particular user claims justification under the Manual of Style to go around reverting changes, regardless of what the experienced editors on a particular article think. That guideline clearly lacks consensus. *** Crotalus *** 03:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I said that. They can just revert the dude back, and if he's really fanatic, he'll just fall afoul of the edit-warring guidelines, (despite the Manual Of Style guideline suggesting elsewise ;) )
 * Either that, or just alter the text of the guideline. Go on, this is a wiki! be BOLD! :-) --Kim Bruning 03:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, if only such a rosy vision worked. This isn't an issue of article editors clashing with politicians who do no actual editing, but of editors clashing with other editors.  As I stated above, this guideline came to be because the issue kept coming up in the course of editing several articles on different topics, not because a couple of us sat down one day and decided to try and make up a rule just for kicks and giggles.


 * I think the phrase "experienced editors on a particular article" is a rather loaded one. Nobody owns an article, and said "experienced editors" should be willing to talk through this conflict of opinion rather than getting miffed that some new person has changed "their" article to something they disagree with and insisting that consensus must be formed to follow the guidelines on the MOS.  If the MOS has no teeth whatsoever, why the heck should we even bother with it?  What if someone just doesn't like adding a space between a numerical quantity and a unit ("10m" as opposed to "10 m").  If we can just dispose of the MOS whenever we feel our way is better, what's to prevent me from finding some little nondescript articles that nobody takes an interest in and tailor them to exactly my preferred style of formatting?  Sure the MOS should be applied flexibly, but I don't think that it's okay to just ignore it whenever an editor simply disagrees with it.  We have fairly strict rules for the formatting of FAs, so at least some folks think that consistency is important.  That's not to say the MOS can't and shouldn't change (and this guideline is in the long and arduous process of change), but the issue at hand is whether the current MOS text should be viewed as a consensus.  I strongly believe it should. -- mattb 04:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "This isn't an issue of article editors clashing with politicians who do no actual editing, but of editors clashing with other editors." I disagree. As far as I can tell, Sarenne has done no editing to computing articles (at least computing articles of the 8-bit era) except for changing styles. *** Crotalus *** 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I also disagree with your claim that "current MOS text should be viewed as a consensus". The alleged consensus was formed in 2005 on a 20-6 vote. That's 77%, which is consensus, but just barely. Since then, well over 14 people have complained that the guideline is stupid, makes no sense, violates WP:RS and WP:NEO, and so forth. Why do the opinions of those 20 people count more than the opinions of the numerous others who have commented afterwards, just because those people formalized it in a poll (which we're not supposed to do, anyway)? *** Crotalus *** 06:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Without naming names, Sarenne isn't the only user involved in this with very few edits outside this prefix war. If you want to get all editcounty on this issue, the coin has two sides, but let's not go down that road.  This is bigger than Sarenne since there are several editors who support the principle behind what he is doing.


 * Once more, if you're interested in numbers, you ought to note that most of the people involved in the current binary prefix debate were not involved in that vote you refer to. I'm not marginalizing any of the new contributors' opinions, but merely asking to continue centralized discussions rather than asking that the decision be farmed out to each article.  -- mattb 06:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Sarenne is just doing bot like edits on of hundreds of articles at a rate of 15 to 20 per hour. He has not demonstrated any expertise on these articles. The changes are just KB to KiB and such. You wonder why the "experienced editors on a particular article" get upset. This is not a conflict between editors, it is between editors and a gadfly doing WP:Point -- SWTPC6800 05:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's that ownership rearing its head again. Who says that he has to "demonstrate expertise" on an article to edit it?  Who says that your expertise is greater than his?  Who cares?  There are tons of editors who make stylistic changes over a multitude of articles to conform with the MOS, you just disagree with this particular guideline and Sarenne is feeling the heat because he's applying it aggressively.  It is unfortunate that this action has moved the cheese of several editors.  However, Sarenne's actions have all been in good faith and are not in clear violation of any guideline, so I think it's rather unfair for you to accuse him of making a disruptive point.  There are plenty of editors who agree with the principle behind the changes he's made (myself included), so let's not scapegoat the guy.  -- mattb 05:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming ownership of any articles. But article editing should work on a consensus-based process. If someone is making controversial edits and they keep getting reverted (especially if they are not a regular contributor to the article in question), they should discuss them on the article Talk page, rather than arguing that a policy has already been decided and they don't need to discuss the issue. *** Crotalus *** 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's almost nothing you can do on Wikipedia that you "don't need to discuss".  Civility requires that if somebody asks you to stop and discuss, you indulge them respectfully, and take their opinion into account when deciding what "consensus" is.  (Unless you're removing copyvios or reverting blatant vandalism or harassment, but that's clearly not going on here.)  What's written in a guideline is just... something someone wrote down, and often fails to reflect consensus.  There's no substitute for mindfulness. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So it is productive to re-hash the exact same arguments over and over? There's no merit in centralizing debate?  -- mattb 06:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, no. That's not at all what I meant.  Perhaps I was unclear.  It's profitable (I'd say necessary) to keep one's eyes and ears open, and to be alert to people's reactions.  If you find that you're "enforcing" a consensus against frequent opposition, then it's probably time to revisit that consensus.  That means precisely what you say: centralizing discussion, and helping to bring those who object to the guideline together with those who support it, at the guideline talk page, to figure out whether consensus has changed. It seems like more work perhaps, but it's actually less work than dealing with the static generated by being stubborn. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and for this reason I can't condone all of Sarenne's methods. All I am arguing for is centralized debate and respect of prior consensus until it is changed, that is all.  What I see essentially being proposed is license to ignore the result of a lengthy prior discussion simply because a user doesn't think it represents consensus.  Is it for one person to decide that a consensus never existed on a matter?  The implications of that disturb me. -- mattb 06:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree about the centralized discussion. While there's a discussion that needs to be had, it's a bad idea to be making edits in either direction until that discussion happens.  I'm not so much concerned with "respect for prior consensus" as with refraining from making controversial edits without discussing.  That's disruptive, no matter who does it.  I suggest a freeze on changing these prefixes until there's some agreement; no agreement means everyone should leave them alone, as we do with BC/BCE and "color"/"colour". As for it being "for one person to decide that a consensus never existed", I don't get the impression we're dealing with just one person - am I wrong?  If someone is disagreeing with the guideline, then whoever is "enforcing" the guideline should at least stop for long enough to point them to the appropriate talk page, and they'll either see that there really is broad agreement, or we'll all see that there isn't.  I don't see what the hurry is to get the guideline enforced without pausing to talk about it.  Communication is work, and it's worth it. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are multiple users on both sides of the discussion (see WT:MOSNUM). As for the actual revert warring, the only person who has really been aggressive at forcing the disputed prefixes into articles is Sarenne, although this position does have a few other backers on the MOS talk page. These insertions have been variously removed by myself, Fnagaton, SWTPC6800, and Mahjongg. <font color="#AAF"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 08:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to add that the whole issue of how enforcable the MOS should be is a very important one, but unfortunately it's one of those very difficult questions for Wikipedia that can lead to a perpetual debate and no clear answer (sadly). Oh well, there's the pitfall of direct democracy for you. (please resist the temptation to inform me of the NOT page... I've been around here way too long to subscribe to that rosy idyllic vision of what Wikipedia is and is not) -- mattb 05:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that "agressively" is a good way to avoid applying style guidelines. It often generates more heat and disruption than it's worth.  A better way to apply a guideline would be mindfully and with an openness to dialogue with other editors about why a particular style has consensus anyway.  One always has to "apply" consensus keeping in mind that it might change out from under you; you have to keep tabs on how people react to a "consensus" that may be illusory, out-of-date, or who knows what. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's my opinion that this particular alleged consensus is way out of date. The advocates of the status quo point to a poll taken way back in June 2005 that supported the guideline by a 20-6 vote. As soon as it actually began to be applied, complaints started pouring in. Whether or not there ever was a genuine consensus for this guideline across Wikipedia (I think there was not; most editors never read MoS pages), there clearly isn't now. <font color="#AAF"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 06:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (Before edit conflict): This is of course, totally true, and is why I don't personally go around changing a multitude of articles to conform with the MOS, only the ones I regularly work on. Still, I strongly feel that the MOS should be respected as consensus, otherwise there's very little point in keeping the useless mass of rhetoric around.  Honestly, who cares what style we gently and cautiously suggest might possibly be a potentially good idea to use?  In my own opinion, a style guide shouldn't be optional for something that we so boldly call an encyclopedia.  Certainly the style guide should reflect the best practices, and therefore should always be subject to change, but accepting that we can just ignore it whenever we please renders it worthless.  The question of whether the style guide needs ammending should be centralized, not a decision made on a per-page basis.  These are merely my thoughts, take them for what they're worth or call me crazy for deeply believing in internal consistency.


 * (After edit conflict): The issues haven't changed since 2005, just the people exposed to them. This could very well mean that a new consensus needs to be formed, and that's totally fine.  What I don't believe is fine is asking for license to ignore that consensus because we haven't yet clarified what the current one is.  In any case, I fear that this huge binary prefixes debate is going to just bleed over into this page if we keep this up.  When it comes right down to it, this is an issue of some editors asking to ignore a guideline because they don't think it represents consensus, and other editors asking for it to be respected because they do think it represents consensus.  In between we get a ton of rhetoric and a lot of subtle and not-so-subtle finger waving and claims that the other party is "clearly wrong".  Myself, I'm feeling rather ill at having written dozens of pages of text over a few little 'i's and would love to see this bloody thing converge to a conclusion, but I think people are happier debating than compromising.  At this point I'm thinking that a binding decision is more useful than continuing to chase this elusive, mystical, and perhaps illusionary dream called "compromise".  Too much time has been wasted on such minutia. -- mattb 06:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so some editors want to ignore a guideline, and others want to enforce it. Until these people discuss and arrive at a conclusion they should all stop making these edits until the conversation happens.  It's not about making a decision between "respecting previous consensus" versus ignoring it.  It's about everybody stop editing until the conversation happens.  Leave the articles as they are, whether that's right or wrong, and talk about it at MoS.  It's that simple. Don't edit war, no matter how right you are. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The style he is changing is optional. His disruptive behavior depends on support of a handful of Manual of Style editors who claim the changes are mandatory. This is the only style guideline were a single user can force an optional style on all other editors. -- SWTPC6800 06:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You know a style that is not "optional" ? As the MoS is currently written, all styles are optional.
 * "These are not rigid laws: they are principles that many editors have found to work well in most circumstances, but which should be applied with flexibility. In this vein, editors should strive to have their articles follow these guidelines. While quality of writing may be more important than presentation and formatting, these elements also have their place in clear and unbiased delivery of information. One of the joys of wiki editing is that Wikipedia does not demand perfection. Wikipedia does not require writers to follow all or any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they are guided by them."


 * The way I see the MoS is that they are recommandations. Writers are not required to follow these rules but if a single contributor change an article to fit the MoS, this change should (must) be accepted (except if there's a real strong reason not to do so). That's the only way Wikipedia will be consistent which is, I think, an important thing for an encyclopedia. Sarenne 10:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are the only person who feels strongly enough about this issue to go through articles changing it against the consensus on those articles. Stop it now. Your edits will continue to be reverted and all you will do is waste everyone else's time. <font color="#AAF"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt>  11:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There no "consensus" on all of those articles. You reverting all my edits is not a "consensus". Sarenne 11:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not the only user who has reverted your edits. When you're in an edit war with four other people, time to step back and reflect whether you are out of touch with current consensus. <font color="#AAF"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 11:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't "step back" only because 4, 5 or 10 contributors don't want to wait for a new consensus and are trying to revert all my edits to make a point, against the current guideline. If you think that there's a new consensus about a new guideline then talk about it there : WT:MOSNUM. Sarenne 11:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We have been discussing it, and keep repeatedly running into brick walls of bureaucracy. What you don't understand is that the MoS guideline only has any force if it represents consensus. As of this time, it doesn't. What you are doing is simply disruptive edit warring. <font color="#AAF"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 11:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarenne, hi. I agree that you shouldn't "step back" because 5 contributors don't want to wait for a new consensus.  I'd step back because it's the right thing to do.  Once a dispute arises, the only correct action is to stop editing and talk to the people.  If the consensus really is as you say, then it won't take long to convince people of that, and if not, then we should find that out quickly.  Reverting without discussion is never right; because it's never civil.  Think about that. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have to think about that, I know that. You (and apparently all of you) think it is the right thing to do, I think the right thing to do is to prevent users from reverting again and again edits that follows a guideline until the guideline is changed. I tried the discussion, again and again (and again (and again))... If you stop editing when there is a dispute about "binary prefixes" then you'll never edit and the guideline is useless. That's why the "encyclopedia" is inconsistent : guidelines are worthless, they have no teeth. Sarenne 17:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Being consistent about binary prefixes is not more important than refraining from edit warring. If you want to "prevent users from reverting again and again", then you need to stop reverting; otherwise you're edit warring to stop an edit war, which is always wrong.  It's like bombing for peace, or screwing for virginity. The guideline you're trying to "enforce" must not have a very strong consensus behind it, or you wouldn't be running into so much opposition.  Your job, and the job of those opposing you, is to stop editing, talk on the guideline talk page, and determine what the consensus is now.  It doesn't matter what it was two years ago; it matters what it is now.  Since it's now in dispute, your editing to "enforce" it is inappropriate. It's this simple: Once you know there's a conflict, stop and talk.  We're not in a hurry, but we are under an obligation to be excellent to each other always.  That means listening, and trying to respond to current consensus as you detect it.  Consensus is not detected by reading a guideline, but by listening to editors.  If there's no consensus, then editing binary prefixes in either direction is inappropriate, just like we don't edit "BC" vs "BCE" or "color" vs "colour". -GTBacchus(talk) 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I totaly disagree with all that you've just said ;). Being consistent about binary prefixes (or an other style) is more important than refraining from edit warring. If you stop whenever there's a conflict about a guideline, you make Wikipedia inconsistent (and sometimes unstable), that's exactly what happened with "BC" vs "BCE" or "color" vs "colour", except that with the current "guideline" about binary prefixes we'll have both ambiguity and inconsistency (and maybe instability). It's weak rules that cause edit wars. What you've said may be the right thing to do for a content dispute (about the meaning) but not for the style, which should be centralized and always binding. For the style, we need strong rules, not "guidelines" that you can suspend whenever there's a dispute, which makes them totally worthless. You are too afraid of binding rules. Of course, these rules can change but until they are changed (with a consensus), a user who follows the guideline should never be blocked, even if he's edit warring. I'm done listening and discussing about this guideline. Four month are enough. All have been said. I know that no one will agree with me but that's what I think :) Sarenne 21:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (de-indenting) Better than simply disagreeing with you, I can explain to you why you're wrong. :) The "BC" vs "BCE" issue is one with which I'm pretty familiar, having worked on it in the past. Wikipedia is currently (to a first approximation, but a good one) consistent within each article, inconsistent across articles, and stable that way.  Thus, Wikipedia reflects a real-world lack of consistency, and remains faithful to WP:NPOV by refraining from taking a side on the issue.  We just leave the date formats alone once they're consistent within an article, unless there's a compelling reason to use one or another in that particular article.  It's stable because people know not to mess with it, and that works. As for consistency being more important than not edit warring, that makes no sense - allow me to explain why.  We work towards consensus because this is a wiki.  It's inherent in the software that we can't just go around enforcing our ideas against significant disagreement.  Anyone can edit, and if you go against a lot of people, they'll edit it back anyway.  Since you can't control them, you have to discuss.  It's not a rule so much as a law of nature: if you don't swim, you're gonna sink.  The name of the game here is consensus, and we have no choice about that. It's not about "fear" of binding rules, it's about how we work together as human beings and get something done.  If you think Wikipedia needs more binding rules, then I think you can find other online encyclopedias that work that way.  They're not nearly as successful as Wikipedia, which is why I think the "No binding rules" philosophy is actually pretty effective.  Edit wars are caused by edit warriors, and they're always wrong. Edit warring is bad because it makes article histories and "recent changes" less useful, it distracts editors from getting productive work done, and it encourages others to edit war, over style, content, and everything else, leading to a Wikipedia that's bogged down in back-and-forth, "is not!"/"is too!" arguments.  The only civilized solution, the only solution that works on a wiki, is for everyone to work for consensus.  Yes, that means stopping and talking.  Yes, that makes things take longer.  No, we're not in a hurry.  No, it doens't make guidelines "worthless"; it makes them more responsive to the community and better indicators of consensus.  Yes, we all learn more and respect each other more in the process. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're IMO describing an utopia. We have binding rules and we don't suspend them if in a talk page it seems there's a lack of consensus about it. After an edit we don't "stop and talk" every time we disagree (maybe you think we should). Policies and guidelines should reflect the consensus, then we should always assume than they reflect consensus until they are actually changed. We should "stop and talk" only if it doesn't concern a guideline or a policy. We don't "stop and talk" when dealing with vandalism. We shouldn't "stop and talk" when dealing with style, we should talk... and stop only if there's a new strong consensus or if there's no guideline. IMHO that's a pragmatic application of the "consensus spirit". Sarenne 10:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. You'd be surprised how often things work just the way I've described.  You'd be surprised just how non-binding our guidelines are.  Stick around, and keep your eyes and ears open, and you'll find out a lot.  Policies and guidelines should reflect the consensus, true, but when there's some indication that consensus may be changing (as there is in this case), how are you going to know the consensus has changed until that conversation happens?  You'd be surprised how much time it doesn't waste.
 * Your opinion about pragmatic application of the consensus spirit is not borne out by experience, in my view. Of course we don't stop and talk when dealing with vandalism; that's entirely different.  However, when good-faith contributors disagree, that's what talk pages are for.  We are not in a hurry.  It is certainly less than respectful to continue in an action that you know a group of people disagree with, without engaging them in some kind of discourse.
 * The truth of the matter is that taking the time to be certain of continuing consensus makes one's edits much more sticky, obviates the perceived "need" for edit warring, contributes to a more civil and collegial environment, and most to the point, works. If you don't believe me, try it.  I've "won" plenty of disputes, always by refusing to edit war, and pursuing other strategies instead.  They're very effective, those other strategies. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * An afterthought... the edit-warring, enforcement strategy that you want to pursue... it leads here, to long conversations at the Village pump. Not very pragmatic after all, is it? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been bold and changed WP:MOSNUM to reflect what I believe is the current (lack of) consensus. Basically, I copied some of the wording from the "National varieties of English" section of WP:MOS, and suggested that articles should stay with established usage (similar to "Stay with established spelling") and follow whatever prefixes were used by the first contributor (similar to "Follow the dialect of the first contributor"). There is clearly no consensus to mandate binary prefixes, regardless of the outcome of a 2005 vote. Likewise, I doubt there is consensus to get rid of the neologisms entirely. Therefore, all that can be done is to make a guideline that attempts to stem further edit wars of the sort that have been fought over the past several days. <font color="#AAF"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 11:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I see that Sarenne already reverted it. Very well, I won't edit war on the MOS page; but I maintain that there is no consensus whatsoever for the current alleged guideline, and that Sarenne's repeated edit wars in the face of opposition from numerous other editors is highly disruptive to the encyclopedia. <font color="#AAF"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 11:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't change guidelines just because someone is using them as justification for an edit war. That's what WP:3RR is for.  Take it up with the person being disruptive. — Omegatron 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of a Manual of Style is to suggest a uniform style for the entire project. It doesn't "enforce" anything.

Consensus can always change, and "consensus to change a guideline" or "consensus to demote a guideline" is a bogus idea. Policies and guidelines don't become "stuck" after a small number of people have agreed on them. As soon as editors stop agreeing on something, it is no longer binding. — Omegatron 14:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Being written down in a guideline doesn't make something set in stone.  The guideline reflects what we're thinking, and often lags behind.  It certainly holds no authority unless it's supported by continuing consensus. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. This "sticky consensus" concept is absurd, and getting out of hand.  When there's no longer agreement for something, there's no longer agreement for something.  Simple as that. — Omegatron 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not absurd at all. It's always easier to remove something with an apparent consensus than to build something with a consensus. For example, the readers or editors who don't "like" binary prefixes will naturally go to WT:MOSNUM to discuss the guideline whereas the readers who "like" them have no reason to go there. That's why we should always have a consensus to suspend/remove/change a guideline but not to keep it. Sarenne 22:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Message to GTBacchus, there are alot more then just five of us as a matter of fact we (user who think MB is more exceptable then MiB) greatly outnumber the ones like Sarenne.--  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  17:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You have no idea how many people are one side or another (or another or another). You only know about the few vocal ones on the MOSNUM talk page.  How many of the people who participated in the original 2005 discussion are contributing to the current discussion?  Why do you think that is?
 * Even if you did know exact numbers, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and a +1 majority doesn't completely invalidate the minority's opinion. Everyone's positions must be taken in to account. — Omegatron 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to claim that there are only five or only fifty of you. My only point was, even if it's only five people opposing, you stop and talk to them, because Wikipedia fails when we start deciding that discussion is somehow unnecessary. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

SI prefixes
Isn't there some page in the WP:MOS somewhere that indicates we shouldn't have separate pages on e.g. centigram, microgram, nanogram etc? <font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i a n t &lt;  12:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read WP:MOSNUM and they say "Stick with conventional usages", which means use the prefixes that are most commonly used for the unit. Although I feel milligram and microgram are commonly used, I think those articles can fit in the article about magnitude prefixes, since all those prefixes apply to many SI units.--Kylohk 15:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to make people download a font to see an "unfree" unicode codepoint?
This is related to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.

If you've been living under a rock, the dispute is about the International Symbol of Access. It's copyrighted and only allowed to be used under unfree terms (basically don't use it if the thing isn't accessible), so it has been replaced by a free alternative:.

There is an alternative: one of the recent updates to the unicode standard added it as a codepoint: ♿ To me, that shows up as a question mark, since I don't have a font that includes it. To those that do have such a font, it's the ISA.

I'm no lawyer, but I would assume that describing the ISA in two vector graphics formats - SVG and whatever the font uses - are equivalent. Thus distributing a font with the ISA in it is identical to distributing an SVG of the ISA. (If I'm wrong, I could legally distribute a font in which every character is a frame from a movie.)

Thus using the unicode codepoint is requiring the end user to download something unfree. (This seems similar to our use of OGG rather than MP3; MP3 players are de facto free as in beer, but not free as in freedom.) A distribution of Wikipedia on a DVD or other fixed media would have to include that unfree font to ensure that end users don't see question marks.

What do others think about this? --NE2 06:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Right off the bat I have to say this, even if we don't use the unicode character, we still don't get to make an exception to use the ISA image. The point is that we do not, and will not, host the font. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Any redistributors on DVD will have to host the font. --NE2 07:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No it wouldn't. That's like saying we would be required to include Japanese character fonts so people can properly see anime articles that use Japanese characters. We don't have to include an OS, computer, keyboard, and power supply with the DVD either. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ideally, they should, but they can skimp on that because all modern operating systems have support for those. I don't think this is the crux of the issue though; we shouldn't be forcing someone to download something unfree - or ideally download anything other than the web browser they already have - to see our free encyclopedia properly. --NE2 07:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is free for the user, but not for us simply because of our unique policies. -- Ned Scott 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't represent Japanese characters as images because it would be extremely inconvenient for those writing the articles. And the latest operating systems all come with Japanese character support anyway, so it won't be an issue at all in a few years. With the ISA, font support is very limited and it would be much more convenient to represent it as an image. The ISA's copyright terms are the same either way, so it makes no difference to our end goal of free content. We are not above using the ISA; we should not be above hosting it. The Wikimedia servers aren't going to explode if we use them to host the ISA instead of directing users to another web site to download a font. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, if the font includes the Unicode point, then it is not our problem. The copyright owner of the International Symbol of Access (can such an uncreative creation actually be copyrighted?) may feel free to sue for copyright infringement from the copyright owner of the Deja Vu font package, but we do not need to concern ourselves with that.  --Iamunknown 01:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't it a leap of faith to assume that the font isn't using a free symbol? I see it having no relevance, and any comparison to using OGGs over MP3 is fairly moot because you're talking patent rather than copyright law. -Halo 02:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Tangent, what is the specific font that goes with this symbol? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * DejaVu fonts; and not "with this symbol", it's just one of the few, if not the first to have implemented this unicode character (recently assigned). I'm personally not 100% against, if there is some evidence that implementation of this symbol will be in wider use in the future. (I have no idea how often these unicode additions take place, and how well the fontbuilders actually are at making these changes). I do find the DejaVu implementation butt-ugly btw. I would have expected better quality of DejaVu. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * From watching other additions to Unicode, it's probably going to be at least five years before we can count on the average computer having a font with this code point -- and that's assuming that Windows Vista ships with a font containing it. --Carnildo 03:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Windows Vista does not currently come with any fonts that include support for the ISA. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, the wheelchair symbol was added to Unicode starting with version 4.1, dated March 2005. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

One wonders if the makers or users of those fonts will get themselves sued at some point. ^^;; --Kim Bruning 08:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's very, very doubtful. -- Cyde Weys  16:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Putting the free/non-free debate aside for a moment, the idea of having to download a font just to display a particular symbol is really unexpected for users to do and not a good reason to utilize the font, in my opinion. Now that Template:Access icon has been changed to require the font (although some pages I see that transclude that template still display Image:Wheelchair.svg) and Help:Displaying the international wheelchair symbol has appeared, I had to say something. Unlike the need to download a font for language character support, or a plug-in for popular rich media applications (Flash, Java, QuickTime, etc.), this kind of download should not be required by users in order to experience Wikipedia. If Wikipedia (Wiki software) installs this functionality, then this may be a different story.

I could download a font and install it, but what about users in a public library, educational institution or workplace who have to ask the administrator to install the font and possibly go through bureaucracy to do so? I will not, and do not intend to download a font just to be able to display one symbol within the font. And ironically, although I know very little about Web accessibility, this action has got to make it harder for Wikipedia to be accessible to all users. Tinlinkin 05:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

While it is shooting ourselves in the foot, it's less so than the other alternatives that the more zealous policy editors were willing to consider. --tjstrf talk 05:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

the idea of having to download a font just to display a particular symbol is really unexpected for users to do and not a good reason to utilize the font, in my opinion.


 * "Unexpected"? I think you mean "absurd". — Omegatron 00:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to give a diplomatic statement because I wasn't so vehement that I would not download the font ever–unless it gains wide acceptance (which I don't think will happen here). But especially after reading Miss Mondegreen's response below, the additional font requirement may as well be absurd. Tinlinkin 04:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This entire discussion, that's been going on for months and I've followed it at every single page is absurd. There are times when the inanity here disgusts me.  We won't let people use the image where we have permission to, just because what?  We have permission to use the image, and it's not permission limited to Wikipedia, it's only permission limited to using the image properly.  Why are we asking for them to release it under GFDL or public domain when we have all of the permission that we need?  They have a copyright keeping the image about ACCESS, to keep people from using it for unrelated things--i.e. they can protect the image as a symbol, and we have permission to use it:
 * "'The Symbol shall be displayed only to identify, mark or show the way to buildings and facilities that are accessible to and useable by all persons whose mobility is restricted, including wheelchair users.'"
 * That lets us use the image to identify wheelchair accessible places, and that even lets us use it in appropriate userboxes (this user is disabled/in a wheelchair). As long as it's not used a userbox that says "this user hates being forced to eat their spinach", then we aren't in any trouble.  So heaven forbid we actually have to be encyclopedic and not use the image where it's inappropriate to. It's completely unencylopedic to use a font that no one can see as a way to express something, or to use an image that isn't internationally recognized just because we're on a free as apple pie kick.  Also, for users who are disabled but not in a wheelchair, an alternate image doesn't work--it's an image of a wheelchair, whereas this image in particular means disabled in general.


 * On another note:
 * It is completely inappropriate to demand that companies release copyright on images when they have given the public wide leeway in the usage of these images. The idea that GFDL is the way of the future and that we are going to force that on people is not only absurd, but an irresponsible position for Wikipedia as a company to take.  For starters, GFDL doesn't apply to images (though not something I want to get into here), but what really gets my gullet, what I really don't understand, is how we have the gall to tell everyone else that what they are doing and have been doing for a very long time, just isn't good enough.  Why on earth are we writing to international organizations asking for permission they've already granted, or for them to license something a particular way so that we can use it--when they've already given us permission to use it?  The world doesn't revolve around Wikipedia--in fact, precisely the opposite, we are supposed to revolve around the world, record the world, and yet because we run around in burocratic circles, we attempt to get other people to change for us.


 * All we're just supposed to record what is and do it accurately, and in this instance, we've only ever been hindered by ourselves. We've had permission all along, and haven't utilized it, making excuse after excuse after excuse, coming up with other ways to record things, but we're not supposed to be creating our own images of access and using fonts no one can see is pointless.  There's an international symbol for a reason and we are actively avoiding using it--how encyclopedic is that?  All of the articles that we're talking about having this images are ones that utilize it themselves, and yet, because we don't want to use the image we're changing the record.  First we used that drawing to demonstrate access--which isn't OR--it's just wrong.  And now we're using a font that can't be seen.  And using text is shaky--different places have different levels of accessibilty, and laws about what needs to be done in order to be considered accesible.  Text carries a level of specificity, and we have to find that information and verify it.  If we can't find text information about the extent of access, then there's no text that can be provided that's verifiable.  All that's verifiable is the usage of the symbol at a place, and not what they are using it to mean.
 * In the interest of full discretion, you can let loose the dogs of war on my userpage. Miss Mondegreen  talk  09:35, May 21 2007


 * that even lets us use it in appropriate userboxes (this user is disabled/in a wheelchair). - I don't get that from the section you've quoted. A userbox does not identify, mark or show the way to any buildings or facilities.  Also, for users who are disabled but not in a wheelchair, an alternate image doesn't work--it's an image of a wheelchair, whereas this image in particular means disabled in general It most certainly does not mean 'disabled in general'.  It specifically limits itself to restricted mobility.   Dan Beale  11:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can have restricted mobility without being in a wheelchair. This is the image used for diabled parking placards, and being a wheelchair is one of many reasons for a parking placard.  And, this is the last thing I'll say about myself personally, but the placard I scanned is my own and I'm not in wheelchair.  Other then the obvious, it is possible to get a placard for various mental disorders--if they affect mobility.
 * "'and useable by all persons whose mobility is restricted, including wheelchair users'"
 * How would that not let someone who was mobility disabled use the image in a userbox?
 * What I meant by disabled in general, is that this icon has a specific but wide ranging meaning, whereas a stick drawing of a wheelchair is, just that, a stick drawing of a wheelchair. It's impossible to come up with images to adequately represent various other types of mobility related disablities, and because of the iconic nature of this image, this image of a wheelchair means something different than other images.  That's one of the reasons for creating an international symbol, and an international symbol can't be substituted by something that looks similar, as something that looks similar carries none of the weight and meaning of the symbol, but of whatever it is an image of.  Such is the case here with the ISA and our stick wheelchair drawing.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  12:33, May 21 2007


 * Maybe we're talking at cross purposes. The symbol only denotes access for people with limited mobility.  You said the image means "disabled in general".  So, I was just providing a minor clarification.  Also, the text you quoted says "'The Symbol shall be displayed only to identify, mark or show the way to buildings and facilities that are accessible to and useable by all persons whose mobility is restricted, including wheelchair users.'" - this, I think, clearly rules out user boxes which are not identifying, marking or showing the way to buildings or facilities that are accessible and usable by people whose mobility is restricted.  Dan Beale  18:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The world doesn't revolve around Wikipedia--in fact, precisely the opposite, we are supposed to revolve around the world, record the world, and yet because we run around in burocratic circles, we attempt to get other people to change for us. - I don't get this, are you suggesting that we should not contact copyright holders in an attempt to get them to freely license their content? Their image is not free as in freedom, simple as that.  Why not contact them?  --Iamunknown 04:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting that, when they have already given permission that is more than adequate, contacting them asking them to freely license their content is hubris itself. I'm suggesting that what we are doing by saying "conform to us or..." is arrogant and stupid, and the effect it has on this encylopedia is to make it a bad encyclopedia.  We, along with anyone else have permission to use the symbol to "indentify, mark or show the way to buildings or facilities that are accessable to and usable by..."  Well--that's what we want to do, is it not?  Identify places that are accessable to the mobility restricted?  And there are other things about the image itself--using it facing to the right and keeping it on the blue background unless a change is necessitated for some reason, but we aren't looking to change the image.  We're looking to represent information that's already respresented elsewhere.  And this doesn't restrict our doing that in any way.  This even lets our users use the image for userboxes in order to inform people that their mobility is restricted, ("...and useable by all persons whose mobility is restricted, including wheelchair users.").
 * And yet, this isn't good enough for us. Why?  We don't need to or want to use the image in any other way.  And the ISA changing the licensing of the image does have consequences--it keeps them from persuing people who use the image for something completely unrelated to mobility restriction.
 * The only real reason that we would require an image to be FREE, would be so that we could abuse it. We either believe in the wiki system and that we can keep images from being used improperly, or we don't.  And if we don't believe in the wiki system, and are specifically creating rules because the wiki system can't work, then whats the point?  Miss Mondegreen  talk  06:33, May 22 2007 (UTC)


 * Well--that's what we want to do, is it not? Identify places that are accessable to the mobility restricted? - Is it? Why?  Isn't that something for some other wiki to do?  I'm not sure why public places conforming to various accessibility laws is notable or encyclopeadic.  Perhaps if they were _breaking_ the law it'd be notable.   Dan Beale  18:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I am of the opinion that we should not only produce and distribute free content but also promote it.  I don't see it as "arrogance" as you do, but as simply what we do.  I guess that our opinions differ.  --Iamunknown 18:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing the subject slightly, I think it's better to represent the ISA as a Unicode character rather than using the replacement image. Here is a side-by-side comparison:



<span style="background-color:blue; color:white; display:table-cell; font-family:DejaVu Sans, sans; font-size:20px; font-weight:normal; text-align:center; vertical-align:center; width:20px; height:20px" title="Click here if this character displays as a question mark or empty rectangle">&#x267F;

I know that most users won't already have a compatible font installed. Hopefully this will change in the future. At least with the font option, we are trying to change the world by encouraging font downloads rather than trying to change the world by using a nonstandard symbol instead of a standard one.

Obviously, neither solution is ideal. Either way we're effectively telling the ICTA that their copyright terms aren't good enough (though the nonstandard icon rubs that in their face). The ideal solution would be to just send the ISA as an image. However, I've taken another look at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and it seems to me that we're simply not allowed to send the ISA as an image outside of the article about the ISA. The Foundation's policy should be changed, but I doubt they will do so.

So, what do you all think? Which is better, the nonstandard symbol or the standard symbol that requires a font download? —Remember the dot (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm curious about your interpretation -- are you saying that the editors and admins of en.wikipedia.org can not modify the project's EDP to include this standardized international symbol? I ask because I have seen this interpretation pretty vigorously put forth by other editors... and also, because I would guess the whole point of having a policy dealing with exemptions is to, you know, deal with exemptions to the policy.  Which would seem to indicate one could, in fact, make certain standardized, international symbols exempt from the usual restrictions of WP:NFCC.   Jenolen    speak it!  17:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, I thought that too until I read "regardless of their licensing status". I interpret that to mean that we have to treat all unfree images the as if they were All Rights Reserved images. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok then, so what about euro images? They've created a special tag for them, dealing with the fact that we have permission except..., and those files are linked to in multiple places.  Why the double standard?  We either need to change the tagging on those images, like the euro to fall into what we say we do, i.e. put them up under fair use and take them away from everything except the necessary main article, or we rewrite the main page to adjust to what we really do, and create an appropriate tag for these such images, so that each image doesn't need to create it's own tag the way euro has done, and then that's that really.  But this halfway-we'll do it in someplaces but not others and refuse to awknowledge that we're doing it mumbo jumbo is ridiculous.
 * Unless someone else better equipped to do so is willing to handle this mess, I'll write the necessary section about international symbols, and I'll put it in and leave a not on the talk page explaining that I'm only adjusting the page to our current practices. If people have a problem with that and consensus overrules me, then I'll go and change the tags on the euro files and the other international image files and I'll let them know that consensus told them to take a hike.  But I'm no longer go to sit around and watch people be hypocrites.  This isn't an issue about the ISA--it's an issue about international symbols where we have clear cut permission and we're saying one thing, and sometimes we follow that and sometimes we don't and everyone knows that.  I'm going to leave a message for Jimbo now in case he wants to comment, but if he doesn't we still have the problem of saying one thing and doing something else half of the time. Miss Mondegreen  talk  18:48, May 22 2007 (UTC)


 * Which tag and which images would you be referring to? --Iamunknown 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be referring to Category: Euro images, which contains over 200 images of euros all using the euro copyright tag (it's clever, there's a euro where there should be a copyright symbol). Miss Mondegreen  talk  19:36, May 22 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, a simple answer: those images are non-free and should be treated as non-free like every other non-free image on Wikipedia. I'm already working on them.  --Iamunknown 19:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The nonstandard symbol is far better than displaying a question mark for the majority of readers. --NE2 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. Or perhaps companies and people will adjust.  The non-standard image is very problematic--it says "wheelchair".  The international symbol says restricted mobility--not because the picture is different, but because it's a symbol created to mean that and has been around a long time and therefore means that.  our picture of a wheelchair is just a picture of a wheelchair--it's not a smybol by any means. Miss Mondegreen  talk  19:36, May 22 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I am just slow, but if you choose to use this why not use the image you using on this page. If a user has to go down load a font to use it how are you going to tell them to download it and how accessible is the process and how is a screen reader like JAWS going to know what the weird font is.  Rename the image  [[Image:Wheelchair.svg]] from "wheelchair" to "accessibility wheelchair icon" Jeepday (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The  attribute, which screen readers should pick up, now reads "Disability accessible. Click here if you are seeing a question mark or empty rectangle." The reason we don't want to use [[Image:Wheelchair.svg|20px]] is because it is just a drawing of a wheelchair and not a widely recognized symbol. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Asking people to download a font to display this symbol is ridiculous and serves no practical purpose. The distinction between hosting the symbol ourselves and displaying a symbol stored on the user's computer is utterly meaningless because there is no legal issue that prevents us from doing the former. We're merely skirting our own policy (via a silly technicality, no less). From a philosophical perspective, it makes no difference how the symbol reaches the user; either way, we're displaying non-free content. The idea that it isn't okay for us to supply it directly, but it is okay to do so by having people download it from someone else is mind-bogglingly absurd.

Given the fact that absolutely no legal issues are in play, all that matters is whether it's philosophically appropriate for us to use this symbol for its intended purpose. A strict interpretation of the Foundation principles indicates that it technically isn't, but there appears to be wide agreement that such a prohibition is not the intent of said policy (given the fact that the image's restrictions exist solely to prevent abuse and in no way limit its use by us or anyone else for its internationally recognized purpose). That's why a formal exception should be established at the Foundation level.

The apparent belief of some that we must follow policy to the letter but are welcome to ignore the spirit (by displaying non-free content in a manner that technically complies with the letter) is quite disheartening. —David Levy 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like NE2 just reverted the access icon template back to his original Image:Wheelchair.svg. I thought this issue was pretty much resolved, but I guess not. I honestly don't see the difference between using a unicode character on the site vs. uploading a 20px version of the image. Either way, you're still hosting the copyrighted logo. –Dream out loud 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, with the font solution it's the people distributing the font that are hosting the non-free content, not us. I would like to use the regular image, but that doesn't seem to be allowed. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I would think we are just as liable as the font distributors regarding the non-free content. We are consciously promoting the content via the font, but the font is not in our hands–it's in theirs. Isn't this like a Napster situation? Tinlinkin 20:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, because there are no legal issues with using the ISA, whether as an image or as a Unicode character. It is dumb to have a policy that we have to work around like this, but it's something the Foundation made and so we can't just change it directly. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with NE2. While a nonstandard symbol is far from ideal, it's preferable to code that's broken for most users.  —David Levy 19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Template talk:Access icon. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dog breed articles and image policy
Recently, myself and few other editors have instigated a cleanup of images and galleries in the Wikiproject Dog articles after reaching consensus that they needed monitoring. We agreed that per WP:NOT, galleries were causing more harm than aid as many articles constantly need policing against anons and users treating them as places to upload images of their pets willy-nilly. So far the cleanup has been successful, but it is still an uphill battle. I would like to propose adding a small sentence to WP:NOT specifically addressing this application of image policy to make dealing with this easier in the future. Maybe an addition toe images or personal web page section of of NOT such as, "Wikipedia is not a gallery for personal images of you, your family, friends, pets or possessions . All images contributed to articles must have clear encyclopedic merit." VanTucky 20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is very sensible and only partly covered by the WP:NOT section. I think that you should copy your proposal to that policy's talk page (if you have not already done so) and then amend the last part of that section if consensus is positive. Which it should be, IMO. <font color="#4B0082">Adrian <font color="#4B0082">M. H.  21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks for the input. VanTucky 22:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Upload file
In the toolbox on the left, Upload file has been changed to Upload file (no wizard). What exactly was this for? I think an admin should change the name back (at least in the toolbox), as is doesn't look as good. Thanks! <font style="background:#7FFF00">Reywas92 <font style="background:#00ff7f">Talk 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The wizard is located at Upload, which is similar to Commons's. Though it is very misleading and confusing for both of them to be in separate boxes and so far from each other.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Non evident risk in articles lacking critical references
Related: Risk disclaimer Manual of Style Biographies of living persons

Terms: Non Evident Risk – a risk that that has an established reality, but which within a given context is not apparent.

Current Position: Wikipedia has well established practice in how it approaches ‘risk’ and this is addressed through the use of the Disclaimer statements.

Need for Change: The matter of risk applies predominantly to articles dealing with some form of human activity and in most of those articles the risk that attaches to the activity discussed is entirely self evident, for example Rock Climbing will be understood by an reasonable person as an inherently risky activity. However there are some articles where the tone of the article and/or the absence of critical references, coupled with a received wisdom regarding the activity which endorses it as risk free, effectively disguising the risk even where medical, scientific or reasoned observational evidence suggests that risk exists.

Scope for Change: Any change would necessarily be limited to matters of established physical and psychological risk, as would be understood by as such by any reasonable person.

It seems unlikely that there would be any appetite amongst editors to change the way that Disclaimers are currently used, although it would not be overly problematic to introduce a more prominent display of the Risk Disclaimer for articles where critical references are lacking.

The obvious response is to say that relevant articles be improved by the inclusion of critical references, however without policy change this may not always be achievable as editors may be reluctant to include references which do not precisely link to the subject of the article. (see example)

A further and unequivocally desirable improvement also depends upon an improvement in reference discipline – that is to ensure references and links to organisations which are active in risk reduction in an appropriate field. Here we can return to the example of Rock Climbing where numerous sport bodies actively promote and discuss the reduction of risk in an inherently risky pursuit.

Example of a number of associated problem articles: [] []

The core article is a Biography of a Living Person and although a number of critical references are included, none address an activity which is presented in positive terms within the core article and six associated articles – that is the practice of meditation, an activity which the subject of the Biography has a long history of promoting. Neither the core article, nor the associated articles use a wikilink to the Wikipedia article [|Meditation], which itself does include an Adverse Effects section which clearly demonstrates potential risks in meditational practice. Clearly there are editors who have decided that there is some constraint upon linking to the Meditation article, demonstrating either that there is a need to challenge the thinking behind that execise of constraint, or otherwise if wikipedia rules require such constraint, then to re-examine the how the Risk Disclaimer is displayed within certain articles.

Nik Wright2 14:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia will inevitably discuss all sorts of human activities -- safe and risky, legal and illegal, moral and immoral. Is it really necessary that we start acting like the most obnoxious of corporate lawyers and clutter up every single article with huge amounts of disclaimers and warnings like are found on the labels attached to consumer products such as ladders these days? *Dan T.* 16:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a simple warning on the main page should cover it? Wikipedia The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit (Warning: May contain nuts) ;~) LessHeard vanU 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dan T. completely. I believe that our current disclaimers are enough.  <font style="background:#7FFF00">Reywas92 <font style="background:#00ff7f">Talk 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think certain users should have certain disclaimers. Such as "Warning:  I refuse to abide by any of Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies.  Therefore carrying on a polite conversation with me could be a waste of time and might cause you to scream in frustration.  For an example of a problem user talk page see: User Talk:Nik Wright2. TheRingess (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT a shopping guide
Please see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not for a discussion on this topic, including discussion about Category:Software comparisons. Carcharoth 12:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The original comment: In a recent AFD discussion, a user declared that the Wikipedia "is not a shopping guide." I can see arguments for and against that statement, and was wondering what you think.  Is the Wikipedia a shopping guide ?  If not, there's a lot more to be done than just delete Comparison of time tracking software - What's the next step if the bulk of this category of articles linked to here should be removed?  Big if, but I'm curious - Not at all sure where I stand. <font color="Blue">MrZaius <font color="Blue">talk  11:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a copy of my statement at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, that I thought I'd go ahead and post here: For me, the issue with comparison charts is one of verifiability and sourcing.  The inclusion of entries with no wikipedia articles of their own, or any independent sources, is a general verifiability issue I felt applied to that afd debate.  On the issue of what is a shopping guide as opposed to a mere comparison chart, the inclusion of unsourced statements such as "easy to use," "user friendly," etc.   Without sourcing, these are, in my opinion, POV or spam statements in light of being so blatantly subjective, and call in to question the purpose for the article to exist.  I have no issue with comparing the basic features of various programs in a wikipedia article, but when this involves subjective comparison of the quality of said programs, for me, it has become a shopping guide.  You could though, simply bundle my objections into existing policies:  WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SPAM, WP:POV.  Someguy1221 19:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had a few edits on such lists, and in general try to remove any redlinked sofware; if something is notable enough to be compared to other notable software, it should also be notable enough to already have it's own article!
 * Although I'm not sure that this is the best (if any) policy to use, it seems the easiest to apply onto existing articles and lists in order to avoid an excessive number of external links. Also, any comparison of various products in Category:Something should be as neutral and 'clean' as possible, and should in my opinion only compare any aspects where it is possible to provide simple yes/no or other neutral answers (such as licensing, publisher, pricing etc.). A comparison article should not contain comparisons regarding ease-of-use or any similar aspect, as this is by default subjective and depending on whoever is doing the comparison. Bjelleklang  -  talk <font style="font-size:8px; color:red; font-face:arial">Bug Me 21:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Items on a list or comparison chart do not have to be notable in themselves. The topic of the list or chart has to be notable. See WP:NOT. The topic of the list or chart has to be specific. See again WP:NOT. Where people get confused is when the list drifts over into subjective analysis and reviews. Then the list or comparison chart becomes advertising or negative advertising. Then it needs to be cleaned up to remove the advertising language, reviews, and hype. This chart, Comparison of wiki farms, went through 3 deletion attempts until all these issues were discussed and addressed. I urge people to read the last deletion discussion where it was finally decided to keep the chart. Jimbo Wales created Wikia.com, a wiki farm. I found it somewhat amusing that I had to explain to wikipedians that the topics of wiki software and wiki farms are notable. Not every wiki farm on the list is as notable as wikia.com, but lists and charts do not have to have all notable items on them. Otherwise, wikipedia lists and charts would become supporters of only the largest companies with the best advertising budgets. Freeware and open source software would be at a great disadvantage. See again WP:NOT. That guideline says "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." Many people probably have not heard of many of the people on Nixon's Enemies List. It is the list topic that is notable, not necessarily all those people listed. Concerning software lists and charts: They are not shopping charts or advertising, because the charts do not discuss the relative merits of one feature versus another, nor do they discuss how well any particular program implements any particular feature. It would be impossible for wikipedia to fairly do such subjective analysis anyway. The feature columns in many charts show the state of the art, and are thus encyclopedic in nature. A link back to the home page of an item on the list or chart is allowed just as any citation/reference link is allowed - to verify and update the info, features, etc.. Wikipedia has the necessary large numbers of WP:NPOV editors necessary to keep such charts and lists up to date, and free from advertising hype. For many of these lists and charts there is nowhere else on the web that one can find such an NPOV list or chart. Few companies would want to maintain lists on their websites where they favorably discuss their competition. Few magazines have enough time or editors for maintaining such lists or charts. --Timeshifter 00:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see my response here, as I'm going to avoid a triple redundant posting. Someguy1221 01:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Image size (copied from Project Infoboxes)
It is not currently apparent that there is a consistent policy regarding the use of images within infoboxes. Albums states 200px, Discography none, Taxoboxes 240px / 250px - even the template talk page can't make its mind up. This is inconsistent with policy guidelines, as covered in WP:IUP and WP:MOS. Insamuch as it might be inferred that these policies and guidelines apply to the main article space, the reasoning behind them applies just as much to the infobox space.

I propose that these guidelines are adopted as policy for infoboxes, and any image in an infobox must be thumbnailed. If the policy is already applicable, this must be applied to the infoboxes, and made explicit in their adoption and application.

Thumnailing images allows users to set their own preferences, and reduces (actual and potential) distracting clutter, not to mention issues concerning rendering in different browsers. Instances where the use of thumbnails causes unwanted whitespace requires address at the template design level. - Tiswas (t) 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of templates
Something like 10% of articles currently contain prominant templates questioning neutrality, style etc or requesting general clean-up. Most of these templates automatically point to the article talk page for further discussion. However, in my experience very frequently the template has been placed without the editor concerned making any comment on the talk page, at least not at more-or-less at the same time as placing the template. This strikes me as generally unhelpful since it is not obvious what the specific problem was; consequently the template is likely to remain after the original problem was fixed. Frequently, these templates without talk-page justification have been placed by experienced editors, so I imagine that the following proposal will be disputed, but it would be good to see some defence of the current practice.

Proposed Policy: Templates on article pages which refer to the talk page must be accompanied by a justification on the talk page by the editor who placed the template. If no such justification is given, the template should be deleted without discussion.

PaddyLeahy 10:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Some people would say that most templates are self explanatory. I guess that it's only sensible to make a comment on the talk page when adding templates, if only as a way to start the conversation.  But a policy to enforce such?  That's policy creep, and is not useful.  What happens when people ignore the policy?  Templates can be removed if they're not useful.  Someone reverting to put the template on without engaging in discussion will risk 3RR.  This proposed policy adds nothing.  Dan Beale  12:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (i) Self-explanatory templates should not refer to the talk page (many don't). However, a template complaining of POV, factual inaccuracy, contradiction etc etc at the top of an article with substantial content is obviously not self-explanatory, moreover blanket "clean-up" templates can be pretty daunting for newbies. (ii) Any newly proposed policy is "policy creep" I suppose... (iii) The main point of the policy is the last sentence, which supports editors who remove unjustified templates. I am proposing a real change of policy, since at present, most editors would consider it bad manners to remove such a template without changing the article. Just removing the template as you suggest would likely lead to a revert war and we know that 3RR is a blunt instrument in such cases. The proposed rule aims to put the onus of justification on the editor applying the template, rather than the one removing it. PaddyLeahy 14:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies and guidelines are should be descriptive not prescriptive?
A whole lot of policy discussion is predicated on the following phrase - "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are descriptive not prescriptive!". This sound good, egalitarian and wiki-like.

It is however false, and easily demonstrated to be false.

Take edit wars. Edit wars are a common occurrence on Wikipedia, so if our guidelines were descriptive not prescriptive, we'd allow for them right? But oddly we don't. We have strong recommendations against it, and we even have a very prescriptive policy called 3RR. This flies in the face of the "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are descriptive not prescriptive!" soundbite.

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are consensus driven, and sometimes this means they are descriptive rather than prescriptive. But Not Always! Sometimes the consensus is that the status quo is wrong, and that we shouldn't be doing things they way they have been done. Or that the consensus identifies a common practice that has been self defeating, or a common practice that wasted effort, or a common practice that was just downright silly. And in those cases we come up with consensus driven proscriptive policy and guidelines.

So here's a new soundbite. "Consensus drives Wikipedia policy, not tradition." --Barberio 12:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(Please discuss this at Help_talk:Modifying_and_Creating_policy)
 * It seems that as we evolve into a larger project, we need to establish some ground rules. Evolution is valuable, but not always efficient and productive.  We must be practical, even if that means being prescriptive.  --Kevin Murray 12:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Both policies and guidelines need to be clear, establishing what cannot be done and what should not be done in a way that editors will grasp easily, with a practical minimum of room for misinterpretation. <font color="#4B0082">Adrian <font color="#4B0082">M. H.  13:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * *breaths*, *juggles*, *writes a KLOC, *fixes a yummy sandwich*. *checks hands, feet, face, etc... seems to be working aok*. Evolution seems to have worked just fine for me! :-) --Kim Bruning 14:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Watch out for letting natural selection near your prescriptive thoughts, it's vicious!


 * By all means propose ground rules. I have no objection whatsoever to discussing ground rules. I do, however, object to people assuming the existence of ground rules that have not in fact been defined anywhere, especially if those people expect others to also follow their made-up ground rules. There is no book until you write it.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we can't write a book without being at least moderately presciptive. --Kevin Murray 13:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to make a proposal that is prescriptive in nature. It will probably fail, but that shouldn't stop you from trying. Unless it passes, your prescription is invalid.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * At the risk of being compared to a weasel, I would suggest that "descriptive" in the wiki sense can have two meanings: description of practice, and description of experience.  Policies and guidelines which discourage edit wars are reflective of the consensus interpretation of our experience, viz. that edit wars do more harm than good.  So even to the extent that they are arguably "prescriptive" such policy/guidelines are still a posteriori and built from the bottom up.  -- Visviva 06:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Our guidelines do allow for edit wars, in fact they make special and particular allowance for them. And in description of our actual practice, they indicate that edit warriors will generally be brought to an end either by protecting the page or blocking problematic users. You are confusing the fact that we have a policy of proscribing edit wars with the idea that the policy itself is proscriptive; in fact the policies simply describe our perspective on edit warring and our standard responses. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the sound bite may have been twisted a little in the telephone (game). Wikipedia policies and guidelines should be descriptive rather than prescriptive, especially since we have WP:IAR. If we had a policy or guideline that said it that way, it would violate itself! This is why we prefer to use 'should' rather than 'shall' and 'must' as you would use in a specification (standards). So pre- or pro-scriptive policies are few, mostly relating to core principles, and it should be limited to policies, not guidelines.

Manual of Style (national varieties of English)
A user has placed a Template:Rejected tag on this guideline page because "consensus is not present". However, it warns readers that it is "under development", and there has not been serious opposition to it on its talk page, except from one user whose opinion on it now is unclear. The truth is it does not at any point seem to have been submitted to the community for broader approval, and has become only infrequently maintained.

Please express your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (national varieties of English) on whether Template:Rejected is appropriate. Joeldl 11:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The poll is there now, in case you've looked in the last half hour. Sorry. Joeldl 12:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons as Pop Culture References
Does every single damn article on Wikipedia really need a section discussing which episodes of "The Simpsons" feature the subject of that article? Does anyone really give a crap that Lisa Simpson doesn't know who Yahoo Serious is? I can understand some pop culture references - that Star Trek III mentions A Tale of Two Cities is marginally interesting since at least the book has parallels to the plot - but most Simpsons references are in passing and are trivial. Does WP:TRIVIA exclude these references in and of themselves? I'm not anti-Simpsons; love the show, but passing mention in a sitcom shouldn't be counted as a significant culture reference, should it?68.146.200.201 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion? absolutely not. But there are many editors - usually just occasional types, SPAs and anons - who see nothing wrong in referencing their favourite TV show or whatever at every opportunity. Such things often end up in edit wars. <font color="#4B0082">Adrian <font color="#4B0082">M. H.  22:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Most all of those references should be removed on sight. The problem is that Wikipedia is free and open to edit to everyone in the world, and a lot more people want to contribute than have anything worth contributing, so they put stupid trivia like that everywhere. Kill it. Delete. Remove it. If it comes back, tag it with Template:Fictionlist or Template:fictioncruft as appropriate. If it's in a trivia section tag the whole section with template:trivia. If there's too much of it and too many people putting it there, create a new article "[name of article] in popular culture" and cut out all the crap and paste it into the new page (and link to it on the main page) so at least it's quarantined. DreamGuy 09:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:AVTRIV.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't follow the last part of DreamGuy's advice. It is bad advice.  Copying and pasting bad content into a separate article all to itself is not the way to deal with bad content.  Uncle G 01:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't listen to Uncle G's advice, as it is bad advice. Copying and pasting bad content elsewhere is a great first step, especially when there are people fighting over its inclusion. Most of the "editors" who put such nonsense in aren't savvy enough users to even find articles that split off, and once it is contained the bad info can be deleted and good info remain. And, if there are a lot of bad editors, moving the bad stuff so at least it's not on the main page is a far better solution than just giving in and letting it take over the main page. Furthermore, some pop culture references are encyclopedic when discussed as part of the pop culture references but not as part of the main topic. Splitting them off is absolutely the best thing to do with any sections that can be argued to be encyclopedic from that perspective. That can work as a compromise. Some people don't really get that these things can be legitimately under dispute. DreamGuy 04:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, DreamGuy's advice is bad advice, as experience with what happens over the months and years shows. No, copying and pasting bad content elsewhere is not a "great first step".  It is simply attempting to sweep the problem under the rug.  "In popular culture" articles explains what the problems are, and the cycle of split-AFD-merge-split-AFD-merge that occurs.  These problems occur frequently. If "there are a lot of bad editors", the solution is to make them into good editors, not to attempt to corral them and their bad content into separate articles.  The way to deal with things is to address the bad content in the primary article.  DreamGuy's idea has been repeatedly tried over the years, and has repeatedly failed. Uncle G 08:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a current example, out of the many examples over the months and years of where this cycle has happened, and of how following DreamGuy's bad advice gets one nowhere: . Don't follow the advice of editors who say that sweeping bad content under the rug, so that it stays out of their good articles, is the way to proceed.  It isn't.  Uncle G 10:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Or how about Family Guy? I'd love to see all those "popular culture" references go away.  Anyway, yeah, echoing the sentiment that this sort of thing should be killed with a vengence. -- mattb 01:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We can just delete this stuff without further discussion, because almost all of this stuff is uncited and uncitable. Mangoe 14:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "In popular culture" sections are often trivia sections, which well, should either be removed or integrated in another part of the article. After all, those people are often quoted in the Simpsons or Family Guy because they are "famous". So, it's a cause and effect. If the person is notable but does not relate to the show in anyway, those references should not be there.--Kylohk 13:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Album images on discography and artist pages

 * Moved from WP:AN, as it really isn't an admin issue.

After the whole copyrighted screenshots from lists of... episodes, I wonder where we stand on the idea of galleries of fair use album covers on pages about the artist, or, even worse, on discography pages. Obviously, all but the most die-hard anti-fairuse protestors are going to support album covers on specific album pages, but the covers on these other pages serve no real purpose. I removed them all from Black Tape for a Blue Girl a short while ago, after seeking advice on the admins' IRC channel, but then I realised just how many of these there are. Flicking through our featured articles, I came across (despite the fact it isn't itself a featured article) AC/DC discography, which is just awful, but I noticed that none of the featured articles I checked contained these hideous galleries themselves. So, am I safe to assume that I can nuke such galleries on sight? What about discography articles, which will be SERIOUSLY cut back if the images are removed? Obviously, a few images inline when discussing that era of the band's history (such as they are used on our featured articles) looks great and works well- but these galleries are a violation of our policy, are they not? J Milburn 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression this was already the case. Album covers should only be on articles that talk about them (or I wouldn't have a problem with them if there is a detailed description of the album on the artist's article - for instance, if an artist has only had one major release, we could have info on that album on the artist's page itself and the image could be there).↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 19:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I nuked AC/DC discography of all its pics, apart from the potentially defensible picture left in the article (the only one not in a gallery). Ral315 » 22:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now also nuked Cradle of Filth discography, everyone is always arguing over everything to do with CoF, so I find myself over there a lot, I just rarely comment. I have also written an essay on subject, to point people to when they come moaning. Please feel free to edit as appropriate. J Milburn 23:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is very widespread; I just hit Queen discography. Check out Discographies if you're interested in the cleanup; in a random sampling of 11 articles, I found six to contain galleries.  Also, be prepared to find complex template setups on a few of them; I had to subst numerous templates to fix it completely...  Ral315 » 05:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am gonna crack on with removing as many as I can. J Milburn 15:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem is templates like Template:Infobox Discography used for many such lists (see whatlinkshere for it). It adds a "no cover" placeholder if no cover is specified, giving the impression than the the discography needs a cover. Meanwhile even the Wikiproject music's quality guidelines says to not use cover art in discography lists. --Sherool (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of source code and other examples in articles
I have opened a debate on the use of source code and other examples in Wikipedia articles. It seems that many pieces of example source code etc. currently in Wikipedia violate Wikipedia policy, so we need to either clarify or change the situation. Depending on the result of the discussion, this may result in a number of source code examples being summarily removed from computing articles!

Please reply there, not here, if you wish to contribute.—greenrd 10:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Responding to suicidal individuals
While a laudable goal, there is no evidence that the participants at this proposal have the expertise to determine how to deal with suicidal people. Well intentioned meddling could have devastating consequences. I suggest that this proposal be rejected and further amateur intervention discouraged. If WP wants to deal with suicide counseling the policy should be determined at the highest level with Board approval. --Kevin Murray 11:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Should anything be done for Category:Suicidal Wikipedians? 69.201.182.76 15:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am amazed by such a section. Wikipedia is not a social network, and it is definitely (chuckles) not a Good Samaritans hotline service!--Kylohk 17:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Best practice for ongoing user-talk discussions?
One issue I've wondered about, and have found no guidance for (though that's probably my failure to find it), is what is considered the best way to carry on an ongoing discussion via user talk pages. Should the entire discussion take place on the same page it started? Should it pingpong between pages, so that Alice comments on Bob's talk page, and Bob comments on Alice's? I've been a party to both types. adamrice 22:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you or any user prefers it to talk place on one page for continuity's sake, just leave a note on top of your talk page statting so like this user did otherwise it's left up to the individual users. Aaron Bowen 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have been party to both sides, you should need which one works better. To make it more obvious: try reading a ping-pong discussion after a few weeks, possibly with an archival of half the discussion, or a 3-way ping-pong... --Stephan Schulz 04:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets see if this helps: WP:MULTI "If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one of the locations, removing them from the other locations and adding a link.". It mostly applies to Article Talk Pages/Discussion Forums, but you could use it as a rule of thumb for User Talk if you wanted to. SanchiTachi 04:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That does help. Personally, I like to keep the entire discussion on the user's page where it started and add links right away. It makes things easier. It's a little odd that I can reply on my own page and also make a note on the other user page ("hey, I responded on my user talk page") but that's just how it goes. Timneu22 10:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussions should definitely all take place in one place, with pinging as necessary. I hate trying to decipher conversations where one person was talking on the other person's talk page and vice versa. It's a ridiculous way of trying to hold a conversation. -- Cyde Weys 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer to ping-pong the discussion - that way when they respond I get the new messages banner and vice-versa. I know it makes it hard for third parties to follow; but for the majority of user-talk discussions I could care less what nosey third-parties are inconvienenced.  When it is a situation where I think it important other people be able to follow the discussion I'll copy all posts to both users talk pages, or put a note to the effect that response is on such-and-such page. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 20:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I suggested, why not just "ping" them to say that they have a message, but keep the message in one place:
 * A user comments on your page
 * You reply on your page
 * You go to that user's page to say, Hey, I've replied.
 * With this, the other user knows there's a response, but it keeps the discussion all on one place. Timneu22 21:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh, ping pong is terrible. You have to do a forensic reconstruction of the conversation if you're a third party or if you're going back to read it weeks later.  Just reply wherever the first message was left and use pings as necessary.  -- Cyde Weys  21:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey look, Cyde agreed with me once! Timneu22 15:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk page table tennis works better if you're willing to copy the comment from your talk page along with your new comment; essentially it creates two copies of the whole discussion, one on each page. -- nae'blis 22:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ...which can then have the problem of the discussion forking, with a different set of ongoing replies showing up in each place, meaning that you then have to follow both pages if you want to be sure to catch all the discussion, and end up reading a lot of repetition along with some different content. Personally, I always continue discussions where they started, unless they're off-topic there and need to be moved somewhere else.  Since I put all pages I edit on my watchlist, I usually have no problem catching replies later. *Dan T.* 16:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * An idea will be to reply on the other member's page, and then on your own user page, add "reply" beneath the original message and use the word "Reply" as an internal link back to your answer on the other person's page.--Kylohk 17:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I used to do that until recently, but I have now moved in favour of centralised discussion; if my only comment needs to be something like "thanks for the message", I prefer to leave it below their comment anyway, and deeper discussion really does benefit from cohesiveness. <font color="#4B0082">Adrian <font color="#4B0082">M. H.  19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, if the discussion is that long (rarely happens for me), it may be an idea to add an user subpage and tell the other person to post there, and it will become an informal chatroom.--Kylohk 17:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of browser-based games from wikipedia
Please dont regard me as a meatsock, I am a regular viewer of wikipedia but since all my (admitedly small amount of) editing has been deleted it's difficult to keep contributing.

A user (DarkSaber2k) has been consitently deleting browser-based game articles as per the wikipedia Notabiltiy guidline. Their deleting of topics has been pretty much consistent with the Guildines. But should the guildlines endorse this?

The question is this - should wikipedia list games that are represented by thousands of people, because they are so popular?

Many, Darksaber2k included believe that is not what should be done and use that as the argument NOT to have these articles. My belief is that so long as these articles ensure they are not making up information it is perfectly fine to have them. Take my own personal interest in the game www.inselkampf.co.uk, and the german, czech and american version of. A massive amount of people play these games (7,104 on the american world 1 version alone)prizes are awarded by various fan-sites, accounts sell for upwards of £300 on ebay. It is a major site. But there are no newspaper articles, or magazine or stock market or books about it. Does this mean its not noteworthy? According to wikipedia's guidlines yes.

Wikipedia is here for us all to use and add to. I think this issue on where it is going deserves a debate, obviously some people disagree with me and i'd like to know why because i can't think of enough reasons.

EdPethick 19:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that, if it isn't reported anywhere, then none of the information about the game is verifiable, which is just as important as notability. If I ran across an article about a browser-based game that had verifiable sources to confirm its notability, I'd definitely be opposed to the article's deletion. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If a subject really is sufficiently notable, it will have been the subject (in a non-trivial manner) of reliable and attributable published sources - a book, magazine article, newspaper, journal, editorial-oriented website. The Notability guideline (which should be policy, but that is another discussion) makes that clear. Anything that meets that criterion has ticked one of the major boxes that it needs for inclusion without risk of being questioned. Popularity has nothing to do with it, because Wikipedia is about presenting verifiable information that has been published in a reliable form elsewhere. <font color="#4B0082">Adrian <font color="#4B0082">M. H.  19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on Category:browser-based games, I'd say we're not in any danger of eliminating coverage of browser-based games on Wikipedia anytime soon. The difference is, we don't have an article on every browser-based game out there. If the ones you are writing about have reviews in neutral, third-party sources, then try rewriting them or collaborating with others to get them rewritten in such a way that they'll stand the test. So many games crop up on a daily basis that it's a little tough sometimes to sift the wheat from the chaff. -- nae'blis 19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web directory. Articles enjoyed by thousands of people are obviously being enjoyed without us linking to them, and as they can disappear at any time or be forgotten in months and especially years, only those items that meet standard notability requirements should be listed. See the website notability requirements if you are in doubt. Simple.

And based upon the section heading, if the browser-based game software is ON Wikipedia itself, obviously that should be deleted. DreamGuy 04:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * >So would it be considered verification if posted on a site like www.digg.com (which i have noticed being used a source before, just i can see it being classed as fan-based) Or would it need more formal endorsement like a review on www.gamespot.com? EdPethick 22:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. I can see a very few places for where digg.com might be a primary source, for something like 'this site was referenced X times on May 15th', but that's perilously close to original research or synthesis. What we'd really want are some reviews or news pieces about the game, that's a better start. Please look over our guideline on reliable sources and our guidelines for websites, which might help you. -- nae'blis 22:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think a posting by an identified person can be usable. The authority in this case is the individual, and you cite him. This only works on good places where people are known to do so responsibly. There are such web sites. Notable peop[le accepted as authorities do post of digg, sometimes. But obviously if you're going to do something as exceptional as that you need to be very sure it can stand up. DGG 05:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that there are websites that specialize in reviewing browser based games. If the game is notable, then it may have ended up in their hands, and you can use their review as a third party reference to the article.--Kylohk 17:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

When does verbatim copying from a US government website become plagiarism?
Is it okay under IAR to create a Wikipedia article which is a verbatim copy of an identical article appearing on a U.S. government website, i.e., a website in the public domain? A recently added (May 5, 2007) Wikipedia article is a Wikified, word for word copy &mdash; both text and photos &mdash; of a 14-page article which appears on the FBI’s website at http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/spyring/spyring.htm, titled Federal Bureau of Investigation, Famous Cases: 33 Members of the Duquesne Spy Ring. The recent Wikipedia article that was copied from that FBI website is Duquesne Spy Ring. The Wikipedia article originally carried the {USGovernment} template, but did not cite the current FBI article as the article’’s source. The word for word copying of the entire text and photos of a 14-page article in the public domain and inserting that copied article in Wikipedia seems to me (technically and ethically if not in fact) to be plagiarism, even though the work copied is in the public domain. If it is considered to be plagiarism, what can be done about effectively flagging readers that the copied article is a direct copy from another source? I think the text of the {USGovernment} template isn't adequate for this situation. K. Kellogg-Smith 02:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not plagarism, so long as it's indicated that the text came from somewhere, and was not just originally written. It's best not to do verbatim copies for NPOV reasons, but so long as the source is given, it's not terrible. -Amarkov moo! 02:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the standard text of the {USGovernment} template isn't adequate for this situation. Rather than say "This article incorporates text from ...", it would be much more accurate to state something along the lines of "The original version of this article was copied from ..." so that readers are clearly informed of the extent of the copying. To list the FBI website as a "source" clearly understates the copying. In the context of an article or paper, this would be akin to copying passages without showing them in quotes and merely listing the source in the bibliography. Almost everyone would consider that plagiarism. -- DS1953 <sup style="color:green;">talk 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This bothers me... even if it is not plagiarism (ie even if we give credit to the cite where it is copied from) wikipedia should not simply copy another site. We should write original articles based on the information obtained in reliable secondary sources.  I could understand basing the bulk of this article's information on the FBI site, but we should at least paraphrase it instead of copying it.  I would love to flag it for improvement in some way, but I am not sure if there are any tags that apply. Blueboar 15:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, the article always referenced the FBI as the source of substantial content and no claim to the contrary was ever made -- in the original document a URL was provided and the reference was: "Much of this article comes from FBI documents and photos released in 1985 under the freedom of information act and in the public domain." What does seem to be controversial is the quantity of public information re-used in this Wikipedia article. However, it is not illegal, unethical, and even uncommon for a private entity to re-issue and re-sell public information, sometimes adding value and sometimes not (e.g., National Weather Service reports and forecasts). Adding the FBIs Duquesne Spy Ring content to Wikipedia enhances the visability of an interesting topic (not controversial is that many people find this article interesting) and it is in keeping with the FBI's mission of disemminating non-classified information as a public good. Paraphrasing is the wrong approach for public content that already stands well on its own (e.g., even though a substantial portion of Wikipedia's U.S. Constitution relies on the original source, nobody would suggest that a substantially paraphrased version for Wikipedia would be more appropriate). In my view, it is better to apply an Open Source standard, like Open source governance, to all public content. Ctatkinson 10:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with transcluding public domain content into WP, as long as it is done intelligently. There have been problems with mindless transclusion of out of date sources like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. But as long as it is done with reasoable editorial judgement, there should not be a problem.


 * In this case, the FBI is an authoritative source for this type of information, and using the material in it's original form is appropriate. In fact, changing the content would need to be done very carefully, since the original form may have had substantial editorial review from experts in the subject area.


 * U.S. Government works are not copyrighted for good reason, and are intended to be re-used. Usually the agencies publishing material ask to be credited, and this is good editorial practice, but there is generally no legal requirement to do so. The USGovernment template gives sufficient credit--further explanation can be given on the talk page (it's probably also a good idea to note the transclusion in the edit summary as well).


 * I have been transcluding a lot of useful information from U.S. Government sources, including images and text. These are a valuable resource for WP, and should be used to the fullest extent. Sometimes I paraphrase where appropriate, and other times I take large blocks of text nearly verbatim. Usually the text does need some touch up to make it appropriate for an encyclopedia. For example: removing second person statements, and removing or recasting recommendations. You also need to watch for NPOV issues where government policy or interests may be reflected in the content. This is generally not a problem for technical subjects, but may be an issue in other areas.


 * Using this material is not plagiarism. The material was compiled at public expense, and is intended to benefit the public. The U.S. taxpayers generously share this information with the world. To refuse this gift would be foolish. Dhaluza 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In this specific case, I am perfectly happy with transcluding information from the FBI site. Editors considering transcluding other text and images from U.S. government sites need to bear in mind, however, that some material may be false or misleading. Sometimes politicians lie. --Eastmain 19:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a problem with verifiability: other users come in later and edit bits. So the notice at the bottom should more truthfully read, "Parts of this article text are taken from X, but we've no idea which parts". Whether X is the 1911 Britannica, a US government report, or anything else. Far better to either (a) quote part of X, and mark it as a quote, or (b) just include a link to X. IMHO, copying text from another site, even a public domain one, and not explicitly marking it as quoted, should be officially discouraged. Peter Ballard 03:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree with Ballard. It makes no difference whether the text was originally written in the public domain and transcuded to WP, or if it was originally written on WP. This is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" so the problem is the same either way. Your suggestion to quote the material, even if it's the whole article, does not work. Material from the 1911 Britannica needs lots of editing to make it useful, so quoting the original is pointless (and unnecessary since it is available online). This is actually the beauty of the wiki--we can improve the public domain record. Dhaluza 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with Dhaluza :) There IS a difference between a public domain source and an edit by you or me. The former carries some authority, so does not need its facts cited. The latter is unverifiable (and hence essentially worthless) without a citation. Take a look at one of the (many) uncited statements Duquesne Spy Ring. How do you know its source is the FBI, and not some teenaged Wikipedia editor? You don't. Similar for the many articles with text cut-and-pasted from 1911 Britannica. In other words, treating a public domain source as a Wikipedia editor is doing a great disservice to the public domain source - you're reducing it's authority to the level of an anonymous WP editor. Besides, the place for public domain sources is Wikisource, not Wikipedia. I stand by my suggestion that dropping public domain source into Wikipedia, without marking it as quotation, should be officially discouraged. Not for reasons of plagiarism, but for reasons of Verifiability and Citing sources. Peter Ballard 02:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With a long article like the one cited, attributing edits can get sticky. Generally any changes need to be footnoted to the additional sources. The wiki does provide an edit history, so if someone wanted to untie the Gordian knot, it is theoretically possible. I disagree that this makes the material unverifable--you just have to look up the source and compare. This is true for any WP article of substantial length, and is only made more difficult by a synthesis of multiple refrences. So I think your point completely misses the mark.


 * What I mean, of course, is it's impossible to work out from the article itself. Of course you can go through the history and work out which parts come from the public domain source (or find the source itself and compare) - I've done it myself and it's a right royal pain in the ****. Everything should be cited to begin with, then there is no problem. The technical articles you give are a little different because they are mainly explanations of concepts, rather than facts that need citations. Even then, they could be cited better, because the sources for some of the statements are not clear, and the problem will only get worse if/when it gets substantially edited by multiple editors. Also, I fail to see how verification is "made more difficult by a synthesis of multiple references." An article from multiple sources must have multiple references. It's the lack of multiple references which causes verifiability problems. Peter Ballard 12:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you may be assuming an article must only have extensive inline citations, but this is not required. Vetting an article with one public domain source is trivial compared to one synthesized from multiple sources listed together at the bottom (you could just open them both in a two-pane text editor and do a side-by-side comparison with the one public domain source). If you want to require inline citations, that is a separate issue from using public domain works, and I think it has been proposed often, without ever achieving consensus. Dhaluza 09:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I use a lot of public domain sources in articles. For articles of reasonable length of a few paragraphs, there really is no problem in practice as far as I can see (for example see: Machmeter). Often I do add additional sourcing to fill in the gaps or give context with inline citation footnotes (for example see: Radio acoustic sounding system). Dhaluza 10:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely support Peter. When I came to WP, this was the thing i found the strangest, and it should never have been accepted from the start. At present, sorting out the old EB text can be approximated from the style, and the old Catholic Encyclopedia very much so. (But some modern sources from the US Dept Agriculture much less so). Not that knowing its the old EB necessarily makes it better than a recent edit--it some cases it makes it very likely to need replacing or updating, and that's what one wants to identify. Unfortunately, going back and doing this now is an enormous job. But we can certainly ask that from here on in all quotations and text from any source must be indicated and exactly sourced--and there's an excellent precedent, because we do that with illustrations--you can always tell where they came from. In cooperative editing, the individual eds. take responsibility for what they do, and this applies to putting in a quotation as much as for original composition, and it is plain not honest to avoid specifying. It may be legal, but that's only the first step. DGG 05:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that blanket dumps of public domain material without using editorial judgment is problematic. But quoting and freezing large blocks of text is not the solution. The public domain text usually needs to be edited for inclusion (that is the essence of your complaint with the existin EB articles). For example the terminology many need to be changed to reflect a worldview, and some concepts previously explained outside the block may need to be explained inside the block. But beyond this type of normal editing, rewriting technical material by a non-expert can be problematic, and should be avoided. My understanding of the technical subject is probably less complete than the authors of the public domain work, so I defer to their preferred form of explanation. This is analogous to a non-native speaker not fully understanding the nuance of a language and making gaffs in usage. So don't let past problems create new problems going forward. Dhaluza 10:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If I may add my two cents here: public domain material is free, so we can legally do whatever we want with it. Whatever we include on Wikipedia should be up to Wikipedia standards, though, and that includes sourcing. So, for instance, I think we should either be using the public domain document as a starting point or as a reference, but not both. If what's being copied is a document that isn't thoroughly sourced, we can use it but should make an effort to source all the statements in it. But I do think it would be bad practice to merely source a copy of X by citing X as a source: if we're doing that, we should be quoting from X rather than duplicating it. Mango juice talk 13:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for baseball players
The members of the Baseball Players Task Force (a part of WikiProject Baseball) have been discussing a set of naming conventions for baseball player bios. I have posted the draft copy here. Please feel free to discuss/propose changes at the talk page for the draft copy. Thanks, Caknuck 04:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Discussion
There is a discussion about abandoning or improving the Spoiler warning guideline, with quite a few editors advocating abandoning it. In an effort to prevent the discussion from spreading to this or that separate island, I think it would be desirable to discuss in one place and reach resolution: that place is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. Demi T/C 22:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Straw polls are underway to check if a rough consensus exists over three uses of the spoiler warning tags on the RfC. The three issues are: Should spoiler warnings be placed on articles about historical and classical works of fiction? Should spoiler warnings be placed on articles about fairy tales? And should spoiler warnings be placed in sections titled "Plot", "Plot summery", "Synopses", or any variation thereof? --Farix (Talk) 23:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

New proposed guideline
I have drafted a new, proposed guideline - Notability (residences). I have done this because, simply, we don't have an existing notability guideline regulating this, and this is an attempt to help make decisions at WP:AFD and CAT:PROD. <font color="#000FFF">Cool <font color="#000FFF"> Blue <font color="#800000">talk to me 21:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Requesting further input as to the addition of language prohibiting links to "attack sites" in NPA. A lengthy debate (punctuated by two periods of page-protection and several loci) centered around whether (or how) the NPA policy should explicitly discuss external links that are not themselves attacks but are made to sites characteristic of such attacks. Loci include: original discussion on WP:BADSITES (currently redirected to NPA), Requests for arbitration/MONGO, Serpent's Choice and Bishonen's proposed simplified rewrite of NPA, which has met with approval from several editors, however, not all "involved editors" have been active participants in the discussion in recent weeks, and the recent removal of a link to Kelly Martin's blog added another dimension to the debate.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Quotes and counter-quotes
I have a question about the article Prem Rawat. The problem is that certain statements are so sensitive and controversial that there have been near-endless disputes about mis paraphrasing selective or out-of-context summarizing of scholarly sources. A solution was finally found in adding verbatim short quotes from the scholarly sources. However this has led to counter-quotes. It has been argued that war of opposing scholarly quotes has led to a bad article. But I do not see an alternative. see User_talk:Rumiton The number of words per scholar have been counted to assess allegations of undue weight which I think shows how far the dispute has come. Talk:Prem_Rawat Any comments? Andries 18:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The actual problem is that Andries' is behaving at the Prem Rawat article in the same way that got him banned from editing Sai Baba. To support his POV Andries translates obscure Dutch scholars, picks out the wierdest quote he can find, modifies it to suit his purposes and then stuffs it in. Editors have tried to ensure accuracy by asking that the whole quote be included as a reference. Weeks later, or in this case, months later editors discover that critical sections of the quote have been deleted to change the meaning or individual words mistranslated. Andries then apologises and promises not to do it again. Until the next time. And the next time. Here's an example from today in which I belatedly discover that Andries had deleted "apparently by his mother" from the quote "he tried to remain loyal to the role in which he was forced, apparently by his mother". This is crucial information because no other scholars support this theory and it throws doubt on van der Lans credibility. In the process of discussing this, Andries then writes that his translation of "forced" is probably not a good translation of the Dutch original and he will check it. And so it goes.Momento 20:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I provided full originals and full translations on request, but that takes time. Jan van der Lans is not obscure. Momento dismisses reputable sources if they state things that he does not agree with, including the Washington Post if they happen to make critical comments about Prem Rawat. Andries 20:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot predict what other contributors consider crucial information, so that is why I provide extensive citations on request. This enables other editors to see whether I have selectively quoted sources. I certainly did not expect Momento to consider the omission crucial and even now I think that I have not omitted crucial information. Andries 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And what do you expect me to do? Quote everything what scholars have written to ensure that I do not quote selectively? Then the article will be extremely lenghty. I have to make a selection without misrepresentation which is what I tried. Andries 20:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP and in-text citations
One specific example: Ric_Byrne. Articles that provide references, but not in-text citations are hard to verify &mdash; especially when the references are not available online. How does one verify that these articles meet the requirements of WP:BLP? Sancho 14:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Difficult or even impossible, depending on what resources one has available. That is why footnotes and reliable sources are so important for demonstrating that the creating editor has actually done his research. Too many editors leave their work under-referenced, IMO. <font color="#4B0082">Adrian <font color="#4B0082">M. H.  16:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there actually a requirement for in-text citations (footnotes, for example)? This would be great. I didn't think that it was required though. I think it should be required for biographies of living persons. Sancho 16:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If only. WP:FN and/or WP:HARV ought to be universally used by all editors, which not only makes Wikipedia look more professional (for want of a better word) but makes it a lot easier for editors and casual readers to verify what they read and decide for themselves whether it is likely to be true and accurate. It's not as if footnotes are difficult, so it's really just laziness. <font color="#4B0082">Adrian <font color="#4B0082">M. H.  17:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:FN is only a "how-to guideline" and WP:HARV has no status at all. Maybe someone should draft a policy proposal.--Runcorn 21:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No need, if WP:REF was revised accordingly. I might look into it and raise the issue at WP:REF's talk page, but I don't hold out much hope of instigating any change. A lot of editors disregard it in its current form anyway, such as failing to combine inline URL links with a bulleted list of the sources. <font color="#4B0082">Adrian <font color="#4B0082">M. H.  22:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot Exclusion Proposal on User talk pages
After looking through some of my bot's edits and some of the edits of Staeckerbot and OrphanBot, I occasionally see a user frequently removing bot notifications for duplicate images, copyright issues on images, etc. For those that don't want notifications comming from a certain bot, or even all bots I think it would be nice if there was a standard exclusion code created to prevent unwanted notifications. For example to disallow bot FooBar from issuing notifications on their talk page they could post:
 * &lt;!--Disallow:Foobar--&gt;

at the top of their talk page. To disallow all bots they could post something like:
 * &lt;!--Diallow:ALL--&gt;

I'm not suggesting this be an absolute rule though. Vandal bots or bots warning someone to stop some form of abuse wouldn't have to abide by this. It would only serve as a strong indicator that this user doesn't want any non-critical information, such as image deletion notifications, image copyright issues, duplicate image notifications, etc.., posted on their talk page. How does this idea sound? --Android Mouse 23:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Just because they remove them doesn't mean they don't want the not in the first place. Once you've got the message, there's no reason for users to keep these notes around so they remove them immediately. I think it would be a bad idea to not leave these notes for users at all, though, because they notify people of important happenings relevant to them.
 * You'll have to discuss this with the people who operate bots. A bot could quite easily be programmed to heed such tags, and some bots already do (e.g. the archival bots must know which pages to archive).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wanted to hear if there was any interest from the community first, before taking any further action. --Android Mouse 14:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that some people don't want them at all because their edit summaries explicity say so, etc "Remove more unwanted bot messages AGAIN". For these people, this exclusion code would be useful. --Android Mouse 15:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OrphanBot at least, and probably others, already have an "opt out" mechanism upon request. If a standardized way for users to tell bots not to message them was agreed upon I'm sure most bot owners would be willing to implement it. Bot owners' noticeboard would probably be a better place to get relevant input though. --Sherool (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I created a new topic on the bot owners noticeboard. In order to avoid two discussions please place all new comments on that page. --Android Mouse 17:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyleft violation
I ran across an interesting situation. This image was nominated for deletion as a copyright violation because it appeared with a copyright notice at another web site. But it was uploaded to WP two weeks earlier, apparently by the same person, and licensed under GNU copyleft. The GNU license requires the content to remain free forever, so the copyright notice actually violates copyleft.

If I read the GNU license correctly, it would take precedence whether it was invoked before or after copyright. If before, it must remain free forever, if after, then the copyright is relinquished. I wonder if people patrolling for copyright violations are checking for this? Dhaluza 01:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The creator of a work can release it under a variety of licenses. They aren't bound by the GFDL or any other license.  Everyone who downloads it from wikipedia is.  jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk  02:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't "invoke" copyright. You have it, absolutely, from the moment the work is created, whether you choose to assert it or not. Licensing something under the GFDL is in and of itself an assertion of copyright - you state you own the copyright, but you are willing to let other people make copies if conditions X, Y and Z are fulfilled, and you promise not to revoke the agreement. At no point under the GFDL do you cease to hold the copyright to the image.
 * Licensing an image under the GFDL means that if anyone else redistributes the image, they have to do so under the GFDL. However, you can distribute it under any license you so choose (with the minor caveat that the license can't be exclusive, for obvious reasons) - under no license at all, under a restrictive license, under a license that allows it only to be copied by women called Henrietta, whatever. You just can't stop anyone saying "but, wait, this is licensed under the GFDL" and reusing it under those conditions.
 * The image you saw on airliners.net is in and of itself a licensed image - it is licensed to airliners.net for online display under specific conditions, and you agree to this when you upload it. This license means that they can display it online with a notice stating you own the copyright; it also means they don't need to know or care about any other licenses you might have released it under, which is the normal way licensing works.
 * It can't "violate copyleft" because the GFDL is irrelevant as far as airliners.net is concerned; they have a license they are happy with, and they are complying with it. Releasing something under the GFDL does not force reusers to comply with the GFDL if they can get a better deal from you directly; it just means that if they can't get a better deal from you, they can comply with the conditions of the GFDL and use the work that way.
 * Bottom line - a) the author always reserves the right to issue a license to use their image; b) this image appears to be legitimately released as GFDL, if we are indeed happy they're the same person (and I see no reason to doubt it); c) no-one is in breach of any copyright or any license. Shimgray | talk | 02:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I wonder how long it will be before someone sees the copyright-marked image at airliners.net and without checking further or noticing the GNU Free Documentation License, tags it for speedy deletion as a copy-vio ... and successfully gets it deleted? :( Askari Mark (Talk) 03:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Leave a note on the image page. Problem prevented. Shimgray | talk | 15:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be an idea to suggest to anyone uploading their own GDFL images to note then or later any further distribution of the image under any other license, to avoid just the above situation. Just a "please, if possible" request, nothing heavy. LessHeard vanU 12:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Making WP:NPOVT policy
NPOV tutorial is linked from the main neutral point-of-view policy and the page has existed for years now. I think it's about time we add a policy or guideline template or something similar. --  tariq abjotu  15:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A tutorial is a suppliment to policy to help you learn to use the policy effectively. It is not and should not be marked as a policy itself.  As for guideline - might be appropriate, but I don't see why it needs it.  It's a tutorial, and it says so right in the title of the page. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 21:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How about we add some HTML markup similar to a tag to it that renders "C'est nes pas un tag"? ;)  Seriously, I don't think it needs a template...or, if so, essay would probably be the best choice.  --Iamunknown 01:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How about placing essay on it, then? That seems appropriate. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 23:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose. --Iamunknown 05:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy on the use of "cleanup" and other templates in articles

 * This was originally posted on Village pump (proposals), which was apparently the wrong place, so I moved it here. See that page for the original edit history. --PeR 21:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Recently there's been a trend of tagging large numbers of articles for "cleanup" of various kind. This is done using templates, similar to this one:

This does not cite any references or sources. Please help [ improve this article] by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!) Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time. This article has been tagged for a very, very long time.

There problem with these templates is: These tags are, of course, valuable to editors who want to search for pages to work on, but this would be just as easy if the tags were placed on the talk pages instead.
 * They are aimed at the editors, yet they are prominently displayed to the readers.
 * They are ugly, and add no value to the article itself. (If the article is substandard, the reader will notice anyway.)

I'd like to propose the following policy:

Template messages may be placed in articles only if: Otherwise the message belongs on the talk page.
 * They are aimed at the readers (for example NPOV warnings)
 * They convey urgent information to editors (for example AfD or "under construction" messages)

An exception should probably be made for "stub" messages, especially categorized ones, as those do provide some useful links to the reader.

Once this policy has become official, I'd like to let a robot move many of the cleanup messages onto talk pages where they belong.

--PeR 06:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is one of the issues discussed in the essay Readability. Articleissues has been developed to condense the size created by these templates. –Pomte 07:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole point is they're ugly, hence why stuff sometimes gets done (it's sort of like a badge of shame). Matthew 07:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer Wikipedia not to be ugly. That's why I'm proposing this policy. In general, I believe that positive feedback has a better effect on people than negative feedback. I.e. you'd get more cleanup done by saying "good job" to somebody who does cleanup, than by slapping an ugly tag to an otherwise good (but incomplete) article that somebody spent a lot of work writing. --PeR 07:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But that (positive feedback instead of negative feedback) is not what your proposal advocates. You are just advocating moving the negative feedback around. By accepting its existence, you are implicitly accepting that some form of negative feedback is desirable. So I think that argument is not really to the point here. The second problem is that even without these tags on the main articles, many rough-and-ready articles would still be "ugly". In fact, some of them are designed to prompt people to remove ugliness. The third problem is that these tags perform a valuable service to readers, by pointing out problems that they might not otherwise be aware of (e.g. "this article has not been checked against sources and may not be reliable") - or by pointing out that an obviously badly-written and badly-formatted article is not acceptable to Wikipedians, thus illustrating that Wikipedia is not an anything-goes environment, and we do have standards.—greenrd 09:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If they had done a lot of work on the article, it probably wouldn't need a tag. If the tag was on the talk page, a lot of editors – me included – way well miss it as we whizz around checking recent changes and things. If you don't have a specific reason to view the talk page, you probably won't do so. Related to that; I often leave notes/advice regarding improvements on the talk pages of new articles, particularly if the creating editor is clearly a novice. Do they read them? I have yet to see any evidence of it. At least the tag is sure to get noticed if it is kept on the article. Some templates go into sections instead, don't forget. <font color="#4B0082">Adrian <font color="#4B0082">M. H.  17:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why I have previously argued for an indicator on the article page that an article has new talk since the user's last visit to that article, kind of like how we're notified that we have new user talk. Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 21:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with greenrd and Adrian M. H above. The best solution is to improve the article so the tag is not needed or appropriate. Many of these tags serve as useful warnings to readers not to take the article's contents uncritically, nor to assume that it is typical of Wikipedia. Even ones addressed to editors or potential editors are far more noticeable on the article itself, and please remember that every reader is a potential editor. A reader who sees a tag may choose to make the needed improvements, or some of them. I favor such tags being sued primarily on the articles themselves, when they are warranted. DES (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is one of the things that encouraged me to edit anonymously prior to creating an account: namely, seeing articles that were clearly described as having some issues that, to the average reader, may not be obvious. Readers do not necessarily have the eye to spot problems, which only really develops with active editing. Tagging for issues can encourage participation. <font color="#4B0082">Adrian <font color="#4B0082">M. H.  17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki, so Readers and Editors are the same people. If some people don't quite understand that they can edit yet, this should be explained, and they should be encouraged to edit. And guess what, these templates do just that! :-) --Kim Bruning 18:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Readers and editors are, technically, not always the same. The content of Wikipedia is freely distributable under the GFDL, and may be copied onto websites that don't allow editing, computers without internet connections, or even printed media. But that's beside the point. In practice, most people who read a given article on Wikipedia will not ever edit it. Even active wikipedians read many more articles than they edit. Making a good and beautiful encyclopedia for the readers should be our foremost priority. There are many ways of communication that don't involve cluttering the articles. --PeR 21:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the current system, perhaps a reader might even be induced to make his/her first edit to remove the tag. Aaron Bowen 22:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the above. The likelihood is that a reader only will already have some knowledge of the subject matter and may be able to contribute, and the same non editor reader will unlikely read the talkpage. Sometimes templates make good fishing nets. LessHeard vanU 12:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually made my first edits upon looking at an article, seeing it had a cleanup tag, and saying "Oh! I could do that." Any reader is potentially an editor. There's no divide between the two, all readers are allowed and encouraged to edit if they so desire. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The tag is important for mere readers, as it advises that the content may not be based in references or sources, wich means that there would be an important risk of it being inexact, mistaken, outdated, or even a big lie Perón 13:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say this tag is important in encouraging readers to become editors. There's quite a lot of users here that started by surfing onto an ugly page and thinking hey, I can fix that.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Perón. Often, when content is considered dubious, editors will, out of courtesy, phrase their criticism in terms of "cleanup" issues. In those cases at least, it is useful for readers to see the templates. Also, even when you're only talking about wikification, etc., it's useful the same way it is when software is called "beta" — the distributor is telling you "this isn't our best work; there may be some kinks." I think it makes sense not to deprive the reader of that information before he encounters the first "bugs". Joeldl 19:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I dislike these templates. They are big ugly in-your-face blots, and, since they appear on practically every other article you look at, they make the whole of Wikipedia look like it's broken and useless. Not a great impression to give to visitors. It would be a big help if they looked nicer and were more discreet. Matt 02:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the idea behind this proposal - it wants to make Wiki pretty, and user presentable. But on reflection, I think it misses and potentially detracts from two key issues within Wiki - an encyclopedia that anyone can edit; that the quality of Wiki is both dependent on that input and the self-managing body of editors. The tag may not be pretty, but its a quality tag that says - "this is not up to our standards we would expect of presenting you" and secondly "why not help us improve it?" On reflection, nice idea but misses the ethos of this place for me. Rgds, --Trident13 11:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think everyone can agree that templates that say something like "This article needs an infobox" definitely do not belong on the article page. Lack of an infobox is not an article killer but rather a lack of capsulized information.  That an article is simply incomplete doesn't need to be represented by any template on the article page unless the article is an outright stub.  "This article needs to be cleaned up" also falls into this, as it simply connotes "this article is not finished yet" -- but when is an article finished anyway?  I would only alert article readers to things like POV or lack of references, as that will help them decide how seriously to deal with what they're reading.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 21:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You would be wrong, as i do not agree with that proposition. In particular i do not agree that "This article needs to be cleaned up" means the same as "this article is not finished yet". To me a general cleanup tag normally means that there are multiple significant problems with an article, oftne including formatting, tone, sources, and/or NPOV. In fact I often translate it as "If this article isn't significantly improved soon, it may be deleted; in the mean time don't mistake it for a Wikipedia article of reasonable quality". I always put cleanup tags on the article itself, and i plan to continue. An "infobox needed" tag might be a different matter, but then i can't recall when i last used such a  tag. DES (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * DESiegel, nothing personal, but I'm elated that you fell into the trap I set. The truth of the matter is that the Cleanup tag is arbitrary and meaningless.  It needs to be broken down into specific tags, some of which belong on the article page and some which do not.  A tag that goes on the article page should clearly be about warning the reader that they have reason to question the material due to a specific reason, not the vague "this needs cleanup".  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 22:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. i find the general cleanup tag useful and i often use it on articles, and I plan to continue to do so. In many cases i also note on the talk page in more detail what I see as needed. I don't see any trap here, but if you intended to "set a trap" that is ahrdly polite discussion, IMO. I find the geenral tag useful particularly where there are multiple problems, as there often are. I really have no more to say about this. DES (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If I decided to start being impolite, you'd know it. To tell someone they fell into a trap is a debate technique and perfectly valid.  Anyway, the cleanup tag is obviously vague, and in the Wikipedia, we need to work on avoiding vague communications with readers and editors.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 05:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OTHER TEMPLATES: This discussion is also pertinent to the Template:infoboxrequested template. A couple months ago, it was decided that this template was a cleanup template that belonged on the article, not the talk page. Recently there has been some (heated) debate about this. I believe this discussion applies to the INFOBOXREQUESTED discussion as well. I think infoboxrequested is the same as the cleanup banner, and it should be treated the same... if it goes on the TALK page that's fine, but as long as we're consistent here... looking forward to this discussion! Timneu22 00:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, please don't mislead people into thinking we need consistency across cleanup templates. Some are obviously more important than others such as NPOV and "contradicts itself" style over say Template:Infoboxrequested. The infoboxrequested template deserves to stay on the talk page, its a minor issue regarding the arrangement of information, not a glaring error in the article. There was NO prior consensus as you claim, unless you mean the non-discussion at the Village Pump and the no-real-consensus at Template talk:Infoboxrequested. - hahnch e n 00:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a secondary discussion, hahnchen. The issue was discussed on WP:VP more than once. Timneu22 00:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any actual links to back up that assertion? All you've done is say "there was discussion" and then link to WP:VP (which is like saying "Ohh, there's a journal article about that" and then linking to Nature (journal).  I've tried looking for some evidence of this alleged discussion and I've only dredged up the one non-discussion that Hahnchen found above.  My guess is that you're just making this up.  There never was a real discussion about this; you're just saying "Oh, but we decided on the village pump ..." without it actually having occurred.  Prove me wrong.  -- Cyde Weys  01:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, your honor Cyde, the "non-discussion" had a user agree to put the template on the article; there were no "nay" votes. The second discussion was here and archived before I could get to it. I don't have the link. I'm sure you think this is too convenient. Secondly, there is proof that the infoboxrequested tag works far better on the article than on the talk page. Timneu22 10:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is very convenient for you. You do know that archived does not mean deleted, right?  So thus it's still around somewhere, most likely in the archive?  Until you provide a link to this supposed discussion, which I cannot seem to find, we'll have to assume that it doesn't exist.  Prove me wrong.  -- Cyde Weys  14:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, man, I'm tired of your attitude. I'm a MediaWiki administrator of two wikis, so I know the processes and I know when things are deleted and when they are not. I don't care one way or the other about the placement of some stupid tag; I just wish you would have respected the discussions that had occurred before you decide to revert, etc. Approved bots and policies? You don't seem to care. Frankly, I know that the tag belongs on the article because 1) it gets results and 2) it is a cleanup tag. This discussion is about cleanup tags and I will agree with the behavior that is discussed here. Timneu22 17:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "I just wish you would have respected the discussions that had occurred before" &mdash; pardon the vulgarity, but what fucking discussions?! I've looked up and down for them and asked you for a link to these discussions five times now.  You can't keep citing something over and over without any proof that it even exists.  Or, if that's allowed now, the Invisible Pink Unicorn says that you're wrong.  -- Cyde Weys  02:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm wrong based on what? Let's take that VP link that we have found. Two people say "Article." I don't see you weighing in. Where were you then? Later, a bot is approved to make changes in accordance with the policy. Where were you to block the bot approval? How can I be the only one who is wrong here? It seems like things got approved for one method. Sorry you don't like it. And YES, I cannot find the other link because I didn't comment on it. It's difficult to keep track of these pages that get archived so often. And again, I don't care where the tag goes, I'll follow the rules that are established. And hopefully this time you will too. Timneu22 10:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously blaming me not being around? Do you think I'm somehow responsible for keeping track of the over one million (yes, that's one million) discussion pages distributed throughout the various namespaces?!  It's a basic fact of life on Wikipedia that you'll never get all of the people who are interested in an issue starting from merely the first discussion.  That doesn't mean that you can just ignore everyone else's viewpoints because they differ from the first discussion.  There are no binding decisions on Wikipedia.  That original "discussion" you had had very limited input, and it produced an incorrect result.  Once more people got involved with it, the result changed.  Things change; deal with it.  You cannot keep referring back to this extremely limited first discussion like it is God's word because we've had a much more extensive discussion since and the consensus has changed.  -- Cyde Weys  14:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * >>That doesn't mean that you can just ignore everyone else's viewpoints because they differ from the first discussion.
 * That is exactly what happened though. Those who impulsivly reverted the bot's edits (without regard to losing edits prior to the bot's) and blocked it had no interest in discussion or trying to solicit the opinions of others. --Android Mouse 01:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the whole point I've been trying to make to Cyde but he doesn't get it. Timneu22 10:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought the article thing was a good idea. It made the pages get attention. Cyde, you should see the results it created. I don't know why you're so upset. I think the policy has been around for two months or so. ClintonKu 21:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of all the tags to put on an article I believe general ones like a cleanup tag should be removed. This doesn't really tell the readers what is sepcifically wrong, just that the article is subpar. If we are going to have these suggestion-type templates on the article then tags like infoboxrequested should be the first to be allowed, since they are very specific requests that can be handled relativly quickly compared to some of the others. --Android Mouse 00:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I also think that if infoboxrequested is ultimately on the talk page, then we need an automatic bot to search and destroy this tag when the article includes an infobox. The main problem is that the tag exists unneccessarily on most talk pages because no one looks at talk pages. I think Android Mouse's recent bot took care of this issue, however. Timneu22 00:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it did do that. If the consensus is reached to have the infoboxrequired tag stay on the talk page, I'll make a request for approval (and unbanning) for this purpose. --Android Mouse 04:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Letting people know an article is subpar is useful. The alternatives available to me are 1)putting a tag on an article, 2)cleaning up an article for a subject I know nothing about, and that I possibly think shouldn't be on WP 3)some form of deletion.  I'll usually tag an article and leave it for a couple of weeks to see if anyone can do anything about the article.  Maybe the addition of cites, or more information, can turn a subpar stump into something interesting to read.  Then, if no-one makes any contribs I tag for deletion.   Dan Beale  11:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I completly disagree with what you are saying, but if we kept to such a standard we wouldn't have a fourth of the articles we do now, which might be a good thing. --Android Mouse 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to make people download a font to see an "unfree" unicode codepoint?
This is related to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.

If you've been living under a rock, the dispute is about the International Symbol of Access. It's copyrighted and only allowed to be used under unfree terms (basically don't use it if the thing isn't accessible), so it has been replaced by a free alternative:.

There is an alternative: one of the recent updates to the unicode standard added it as a codepoint: ♿ To me, that shows up as a question mark, since I don't have a font that includes it. To those that do have such a font, it's the ISA.

I'm no lawyer, but I would assume that describing the ISA in two vector graphics formats - SVG and whatever the font uses - are equivalent. Thus distributing a font with the ISA in it is identical to distributing an SVG of the ISA. (If I'm wrong, I could legally distribute a font in which every character is a frame from a movie.)

Thus using the unicode codepoint is requiring the end user to download something unfree. (This seems similar to our use of OGG rather than MP3; MP3 players are de facto free as in beer, but not free as in freedom.) A distribution of Wikipedia on a DVD or other fixed media would have to include that unfree font to ensure that end users don't see question marks.

What do others think about this? --NE2 06:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Right off the bat I have to say this, even if we don't use the unicode character, we still don't get to make an exception to use the ISA image. The point is that we do not, and will not, host the font. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Any redistributors on DVD will have to host the font. --NE2 07:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No it wouldn't. That's like saying we would be required to include Japanese character fonts so people can properly see anime articles that use Japanese characters. We don't have to include an OS, computer, keyboard, and power supply with the DVD either. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ideally, they should, but they can skimp on that because all modern operating systems have support for those. I don't think this is the crux of the issue though; we shouldn't be forcing someone to download something unfree - or ideally download anything other than the web browser they already have - to see our free encyclopedia properly. --NE2 07:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is free for the user, but not for us simply because of our unique policies. -- Ned Scott 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't represent Japanese characters as images because it would be extremely inconvenient for those writing the articles. And the latest operating systems all come with Japanese character support anyway, so it won't be an issue at all in a few years. With the ISA, font support is very limited and it would be much more convenient to represent it as an image. The ISA's copyright terms are the same either way, so it makes no difference to our end goal of free content. We are not above using the ISA; we should not be above hosting it. The Wikimedia servers aren't going to explode if we use them to host the ISA instead of directing users to another web site to download a font. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, if the font includes the Unicode point, then it is not our problem. The copyright owner of the International Symbol of Access (can such an uncreative creation actually be copyrighted?) may feel free to sue for copyright infringement from the copyright owner of the Deja Vu font package, but we do not need to concern ourselves with that.  --Iamunknown 01:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't it a leap of faith to assume that the font isn't using a free symbol? I see it having no relevance, and any comparison to using OGGs over MP3 is fairly moot because you're talking patent rather than copyright law. -Halo 02:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Tangent, what is the specific font that goes with this symbol? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * DejaVu fonts; and not "with this symbol", it's just one of the few, if not the first to have implemented this unicode character (recently assigned). I'm personally not 100% against, if there is some evidence that implementation of this symbol will be in wider use in the future. (I have no idea how often these unicode additions take place, and how well the fontbuilders actually are at making these changes). I do find the DejaVu implementation butt-ugly btw. I would have expected better quality of DejaVu. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * From watching other additions to Unicode, it's probably going to be at least five years before we can count on the average computer having a font with this code point -- and that's assuming that Windows Vista ships with a font containing it. --Carnildo 03:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Windows Vista does not currently come with any fonts that include support for the ISA. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, the wheelchair symbol was added to Unicode starting with version 4.1, dated March 2005. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

One wonders if the makers or users of those fonts will get themselves sued at some point. ^^;; --Kim Bruning 08:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's very, very doubtful. -- Cyde Weys  16:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Putting the free/non-free debate aside for a moment, the idea of having to download a font just to display a particular symbol is really unexpected for users to do and not a good reason to utilize the font, in my opinion. Now that Template:Access icon has been changed to require the font (although some pages I see that transclude that template still display Image:Wheelchair.svg) and Help:Displaying the international wheelchair symbol has appeared, I had to say something. Unlike the need to download a font for language character support, or a plug-in for popular rich media applications (Flash, Java, QuickTime, etc.), this kind of download should not be required by users in order to experience Wikipedia. If Wikipedia (Wiki software) installs this functionality, then this may be a different story.

I could download a font and install it, but what about users in a public library, educational institution or workplace who have to ask the administrator to install the font and possibly go through bureaucracy to do so? I will not, and do not intend to download a font just to be able to display one symbol within the font. And ironically, although I know very little about Web accessibility, this action has got to make it harder for Wikipedia to be accessible to all users. Tinlinkin 05:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

While it is shooting ourselves in the foot, it's less so than the other alternatives that the more zealous policy editors were willing to consider. --tjstrf talk 05:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

the idea of having to download a font just to display a particular symbol is really unexpected for users to do and not a good reason to utilize the font, in my opinion.


 * "Unexpected"? I think you mean "absurd". — Omegatron 00:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to give a diplomatic statement because I wasn't so vehement that I would not download the font ever–unless it gains wide acceptance (which I don't think will happen here). But especially after reading Miss Mondegreen's response below, the additional font requirement may as well be absurd. Tinlinkin 04:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This entire discussion, that's been going on for months and I've followed it at every single page is absurd. There are times when the inanity here disgusts me.  We won't let people use the image where we have permission to, just because what?  We have permission to use the image, and it's not permission limited to Wikipedia, it's only permission limited to using the image properly.  Why are we asking for them to release it under GFDL or public domain when we have all of the permission that we need?  They have a copyright keeping the image about ACCESS, to keep people from using it for unrelated things--i.e. they can protect the image as a symbol, and we have permission to use it:
 * "'The Symbol shall be displayed only to identify, mark or show the way to buildings and facilities that are accessible to and useable by all persons whose mobility is restricted, including wheelchair users.'"
 * That lets us use the image to identify wheelchair accessible places, and that even lets us use it in appropriate userboxes (this user is disabled/in a wheelchair). As long as it's not used a userbox that says "this user hates being forced to eat their spinach", then we aren't in any trouble.  So heaven forbid we actually have to be encyclopedic and not use the image where it's inappropriate to. It's completely unencylopedic to use a font that no one can see as a way to express something, or to use an image that isn't internationally recognized just because we're on a free as apple pie kick.  Also, for users who are disabled but not in a wheelchair, an alternate image doesn't work--it's an image of a wheelchair, whereas this image in particular means disabled in general.


 * On another note:
 * It is completely inappropriate to demand that companies release copyright on images when they have given the public wide leeway in the usage of these images. The idea that GFDL is the way of the future and that we are going to force that on people is not only absurd, but an irresponsible position for Wikipedia as a company to take.  For starters, GFDL doesn't apply to images (though not something I want to get into here), but what really gets my gullet, what I really don't understand, is how we have the gall to tell everyone else that what they are doing and have been doing for a very long time, just isn't good enough.  Why on earth are we writing to international organizations asking for permission they've already granted, or for them to license something a particular way so that we can use it--when they've already given us permission to use it?  The world doesn't revolve around Wikipedia--in fact, precisely the opposite, we are supposed to revolve around the world, record the world, and yet because we run around in burocratic circles, we attempt to get other people to change for us.


 * All we're just supposed to record what is and do it accurately, and in this instance, we've only ever been hindered by ourselves. We've had permission all along, and haven't utilized it, making excuse after excuse after excuse, coming up with other ways to record things, but we're not supposed to be creating our own images of access and using fonts no one can see is pointless.  There's an international symbol for a reason and we are actively avoiding using it--how encyclopedic is that?  All of the articles that we're talking about having this images are ones that utilize it themselves, and yet, because we don't want to use the image we're changing the record.  First we used that drawing to demonstrate access--which isn't OR--it's just wrong.  And now we're using a font that can't be seen.  And using text is shaky--different places have different levels of accessibilty, and laws about what needs to be done in order to be considered accesible.  Text carries a level of specificity, and we have to find that information and verify it.  If we can't find text information about the extent of access, then there's no text that can be provided that's verifiable.  All that's verifiable is the usage of the symbol at a place, and not what they are using it to mean.
 * In the interest of full discretion, you can let loose the dogs of war on my userpage. Miss Mondegreen  talk  09:35, May 21 2007


 * that even lets us use it in appropriate userboxes (this user is disabled/in a wheelchair). - I don't get that from the section you've quoted. A userbox does not identify, mark or show the way to any buildings or facilities.  Also, for users who are disabled but not in a wheelchair, an alternate image doesn't work--it's an image of a wheelchair, whereas this image in particular means disabled in general It most certainly does not mean 'disabled in general'.  It specifically limits itself to restricted mobility.   Dan Beale  11:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can have restricted mobility without being in a wheelchair. This is the image used for diabled parking placards, and being a wheelchair is one of many reasons for a parking placard.  And, this is the last thing I'll say about myself personally, but the placard I scanned is my own and I'm not in wheelchair.  Other then the obvious, it is possible to get a placard for various mental disorders--if they affect mobility.
 * "'and useable by all persons whose mobility is restricted, including wheelchair users'"
 * How would that not let someone who was mobility disabled use the image in a userbox?
 * What I meant by disabled in general, is that this icon has a specific but wide ranging meaning, whereas a stick drawing of a wheelchair is, just that, a stick drawing of a wheelchair. It's impossible to come up with images to adequately represent various other types of mobility related disablities, and because of the iconic nature of this image, this image of a wheelchair means something different than other images.  That's one of the reasons for creating an international symbol, and an international symbol can't be substituted by something that looks similar, as something that looks similar carries none of the weight and meaning of the symbol, but of whatever it is an image of.  Such is the case here with the ISA and our stick wheelchair drawing.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  12:33, May 21 2007


 * Maybe we're talking at cross purposes. The symbol only denotes access for people with limited mobility.  You said the image means "disabled in general".  So, I was just providing a minor clarification.  Also, the text you quoted says "'The Symbol shall be displayed only to identify, mark or show the way to buildings and facilities that are accessible to and useable by all persons whose mobility is restricted, including wheelchair users.'" - this, I think, clearly rules out user boxes which are not identifying, marking or showing the way to buildings or facilities that are accessible and usable by people whose mobility is restricted.  Dan Beale  18:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The world doesn't revolve around Wikipedia--in fact, precisely the opposite, we are supposed to revolve around the world, record the world, and yet because we run around in burocratic circles, we attempt to get other people to change for us. - I don't get this, are you suggesting that we should not contact copyright holders in an attempt to get them to freely license their content? Their image is not free as in freedom, simple as that.  Why not contact them?  --Iamunknown 04:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting that, when they have already given permission that is more than adequate, contacting them asking them to freely license their content is hubris itself. I'm suggesting that what we are doing by saying "conform to us or..." is arrogant and stupid, and the effect it has on this encylopedia is to make it a bad encyclopedia.  We, along with anyone else have permission to use the symbol to "indentify, mark or show the way to buildings or facilities that are accessable to and usable by..."  Well--that's what we want to do, is it not?  Identify places that are accessable to the mobility restricted?  And there are other things about the image itself--using it facing to the right and keeping it on the blue background unless a change is necessitated for some reason, but we aren't looking to change the image.  We're looking to represent information that's already respresented elsewhere.  And this doesn't restrict our doing that in any way.  This even lets our users use the image for userboxes in order to inform people that their mobility is restricted, ("...and useable by all persons whose mobility is restricted, including wheelchair users.").
 * And yet, this isn't good enough for us. Why?  We don't need to or want to use the image in any other way.  And the ISA changing the licensing of the image does have consequences--it keeps them from persuing people who use the image for something completely unrelated to mobility restriction.
 * The only real reason that we would require an image to be FREE, would be so that we could abuse it. We either believe in the wiki system and that we can keep images from being used improperly, or we don't.  And if we don't believe in the wiki system, and are specifically creating rules because the wiki system can't work, then whats the point?  Miss Mondegreen  talk  06:33, May 22 2007 (UTC)


 * Well--that's what we want to do, is it not? Identify places that are accessable to the mobility restricted? - Is it? Why?  Isn't that something for some other wiki to do?  I'm not sure why public places conforming to various accessibility laws is notable or encyclopeadic.  Perhaps if they were _breaking_ the law it'd be notable.   Dan Beale  18:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I am of the opinion that we should not only produce and distribute free content but also promote it.  I don't see it as "arrogance" as you do, but as simply what we do.  I guess that our opinions differ.  --Iamunknown 18:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing the subject slightly, I think it's better to represent the ISA as a Unicode character rather than using the replacement image. Here is a side-by-side comparison:



<span style="background-color:blue; color:white; display:table-cell; font-family:DejaVu Sans, sans; font-size:20px; font-weight:normal; text-align:center; vertical-align:center; width:20px; height:20px" title="Click here if this character displays as a question mark or empty rectangle">&#x267F;

I know that most users won't already have a compatible font installed. Hopefully this will change in the future. At least with the font option, we are trying to change the world by encouraging font downloads rather than trying to change the world by using a nonstandard symbol instead of a standard one.

Obviously, neither solution is ideal. Either way we're effectively telling the ICTA that their copyright terms aren't good enough (though the nonstandard icon rubs that in their face). The ideal solution would be to just send the ISA as an image. However, I've taken another look at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and it seems to me that we're simply not allowed to send the ISA as an image outside of the article about the ISA. The Foundation's policy should be changed, but I doubt they will do so.

So, what do you all think? Which is better, the nonstandard symbol or the standard symbol that requires a font download? —Remember the dot (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm curious about your interpretation -- are you saying that the editors and admins of en.wikipedia.org can not modify the project's EDP to include this standardized international symbol? I ask because I have seen this interpretation pretty vigorously put forth by other editors... and also, because I would guess the whole point of having a policy dealing with exemptions is to, you know, deal with exemptions to the policy.  Which would seem to indicate one could, in fact, make certain standardized, international symbols exempt from the usual restrictions of WP:NFCC.   Jenolen    speak it!  17:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, I thought that too until I read "regardless of their licensing status". I interpret that to mean that we have to treat all unfree images the as if they were All Rights Reserved images. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok then, so what about euro images? They've created a special tag for them, dealing with the fact that we have permission except..., and those files are linked to in multiple places.  Why the double standard?  We either need to change the tagging on those images, like the euro to fall into what we say we do, i.e. put them up under fair use and take them away from everything except the necessary main article, or we rewrite the main page to adjust to what we really do, and create an appropriate tag for these such images, so that each image doesn't need to create it's own tag the way euro has done, and then that's that really.  But this halfway-we'll do it in someplaces but not others and refuse to awknowledge that we're doing it mumbo jumbo is ridiculous.
 * Unless someone else better equipped to do so is willing to handle this mess, I'll write the necessary section about international symbols, and I'll put it in and leave a not on the talk page explaining that I'm only adjusting the page to our current practices. If people have a problem with that and consensus overrules me, then I'll go and change the tags on the euro files and the other international image files and I'll let them know that consensus told them to take a hike.  But I'm no longer go to sit around and watch people be hypocrites.  This isn't an issue about the ISA--it's an issue about international symbols where we have clear cut permission and we're saying one thing, and sometimes we follow that and sometimes we don't and everyone knows that.  I'm going to leave a message for Jimbo now in case he wants to comment, but if he doesn't we still have the problem of saying one thing and doing something else half of the time. Miss Mondegreen  talk  18:48, May 22 2007 (UTC)


 * Which tag and which images would you be referring to? --Iamunknown 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be referring to Category: Euro images, which contains over 200 images of euros all using the euro copyright tag (it's clever, there's a euro where there should be a copyright symbol). Miss Mondegreen  talk  19:36, May 22 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, a simple answer: those images are non-free and should be treated as non-free like every other non-free image on Wikipedia. I'm already working on them.  --Iamunknown 19:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The nonstandard symbol is far better than displaying a question mark for the majority of readers. --NE2 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. Or perhaps companies and people will adjust.  The non-standard image is very problematic--it says "wheelchair".  The international symbol says restricted mobility--not because the picture is different, but because it's a symbol created to mean that and has been around a long time and therefore means that.  our picture of a wheelchair is just a picture of a wheelchair--it's not a smybol by any means. Miss Mondegreen  talk  19:36, May 22 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I am just slow, but if you choose to use this why not use the image you using on this page. If a user has to go down load a font to use it how are you going to tell them to download it and how accessible is the process and how is a screen reader like JAWS going to know what the weird font is.  Rename the image  [[Image:Wheelchair.svg]] from "wheelchair" to "accessibility wheelchair icon" Jeepday (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The  attribute, which screen readers should pick up, now reads "Disability accessible. Click here if you are seeing a question mark or empty rectangle." The reason we don't want to use [[Image:Wheelchair.svg|20px]] is because it is just a drawing of a wheelchair and not a widely recognized symbol. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Asking people to download a font to display this symbol is ridiculous and serves no practical purpose. The distinction between hosting the symbol ourselves and displaying a symbol stored on the user's computer is utterly meaningless because there is no legal issue that prevents us from doing the former. We're merely skirting our own policy (via a silly technicality, no less). From a philosophical perspective, it makes no difference how the symbol reaches the user; either way, we're displaying non-free content. The idea that it isn't okay for us to supply it directly, but it is okay to do so by having people download it from someone else is mind-bogglingly absurd.

Given the fact that absolutely no legal issues are in play, all that matters is whether it's philosophically appropriate for us to use this symbol for its intended purpose. A strict interpretation of the Foundation principles indicates that it technically isn't, but there appears to be wide agreement that such a prohibition is not the intent of said policy (given the fact that the image's restrictions exist solely to prevent abuse and in no way limit its use by us or anyone else for its internationally recognized purpose). That's why a formal exception should be established at the Foundation level.

The apparent belief of some that we must follow policy to the letter but are welcome to ignore the spirit (by displaying non-free content in a manner that technically complies with the letter) is quite disheartening. —David Levy 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like NE2 just reverted the access icon template back to his original Image:Wheelchair.svg. I thought this issue was pretty much resolved, but I guess not. I honestly don't see the difference between using a unicode character on the site vs. uploading a 20px version of the image. Either way, you're still hosting the copyrighted logo. –Dream out loud 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, with the font solution it's the people distributing the font that are hosting the non-free content, not us. I would like to use the regular image, but that doesn't seem to be allowed. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I would think we are just as liable as the font distributors regarding the non-free content. We are consciously promoting the content via the font, but the font is not in our hands–it's in theirs. Isn't this like a Napster situation? Tinlinkin 20:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, because there are no legal issues with using the ISA, whether as an image or as a Unicode character. It is dumb to have a policy that we have to work around like this, but it's something the Foundation made and so we can't just change it directly. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with NE2. While a nonstandard symbol is far from ideal, it's preferable to code that's broken for most users.  —David Levy 19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Template talk:Access icon. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for baseball players
The members of the Baseball Players Task Force (a part of WikiProject Baseball) have been discussing a set of naming conventions for baseball player bios. I have posted the draft copy here. Please feel free to discuss/propose changes at the talk page for the draft copy. Thanks, Caknuck 04:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

New proposal - Categorizing redirects
Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization, I've started a proposal at Categorizing redirects and would like community input and help to edit the proposal and see if it is acceptable. Please discuss on its talk page, and suggest other places to get input. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and article structure
There is an active discussion regarding article structure and neutral point of view at WT:NPOV. Separate criticism sections would be an example of potential concern. There is currently a proposal to insert a clarification regarding this issue. Vassyana 06:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Is users editing other users' stuff permitted?
Hello. I logged on today and saw that the user Nived 90 had been editing userboxes that were in my namespace. The userbox in question was User:FastLizard4/Userboxing/Federation. Apparently, he changed a border style because it bothered him. Isn't this not something you are supposed to do, or is there somehing I don't know? -- FastLizard4 ( Talk | Contribs ) 05:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC) -- I would also appreciate a response on my Talk Page.
 * Strictly speaking, yes. See Ownership and editing of pages in the userspace. I would contact the user directly and discuss the changes. Now, this is important - the userbox you linked to is used by pages in Star Trek projects. That means that while it is in your user space it affects other people. I am going to assume it was causing some problem and Nived 90 was attempting to fix it. --Edwin Herdman 05:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be an annoyance to some... I personally think user pages are just for someone to edit to their liking, but are not impervious to others editing. But hey, just read the link above :).  Jmlk  1  7  06:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am a relatively new user to wikipedia, so I am not completely familiar with the workings of it.
 * -- FastLizard4 ( Talk | Contribs ) 06:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is so big that even users who've been here a while can be surprised. :) --Edwin Herdman 07:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * lol exactly...I get caught off guard on some things, and I've been here 18 months! Must be odd for the 3 year people.  Jmlk  1  7  21:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No page should be 100% owned by anyone, and WP:AGF Nived 90 had some good reason. Still, I'd always tell the user what I'd done and why.--Runcorn 21:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Nived 90 was probably trying to be helpful :-) I'd thank them, then discuss how to get along. :-) --Kim Bruning 21:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC) if you didn't actually like the change, still say thank you -it's the thought that counts :-) - and then discuss if maybe you can figure out a style that you both like

Is This Covered Under WP:EQ?
If I were to ask someone to repeatedly leave me alone and tell them that I do not welcome their contributions, do not feel that they are in good faith, am disturbed by their constant messages both on article pages in response to myself and on my own talk page, and trace my contributions to find new pages to bother me on, would they be justified under WP:EQ because they feel they have the right to be treated with "good faith" and that they are "helping" a user?

Or does this fall under WP:STALK and WP:EQ: "If you know you don't get along with someone, don't interact with them more than you need to. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopedia, and is just unpleasant. Actually following someone you dislike around Wikipedia is sometimes considered stalking, and is frowned on because it can be disruptive. If you don't get along with someone, try to become more friendly. If that doesn't help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them."

Also, if that person had contacts that have no involvment with you, had no reason to be going to the same pages, could not have happened onto the conversation via coincidence, and, according to Occam's Razor, probably came to the defense of someone they viewed as a friend, is this also contributing to the violation of the above rule? SanchiTachi 03:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're going to complain about me, best not act coy about it, especially on a page I watch. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * More facts. Don't pose this as a hypothetical. Your user page worries me, as you seem to think that telling people "not to be a dick" is fine. Yes, it's a policy, but like WP:AGF if you use it you are in danger of violating it. --Edwin Herdman 04:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm asking solely about the policy and how it should be interpreted, i.e. when does good faith get overridden. It did not require you to mention my user page, or for you to miscontrue what my userpage says. Please stay on topic or take it to my talk page if you want to further what you are saying. Thanks. Oh, and I don't use the "dick" policy, but this is not the issue, Policy is. Thanks. SanchiTachi 04:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also note the two WP:ANI cases running: User:SanchiTachi and User:Someguy0830. You'll notice in both other users are heavily critical of this user's behavior. This is just another of his branch attempts to somehow pin fault on my actions. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This comment is late due to an edit conflict: Got in before the fix (actually wasn't necessary; I'm reading both ANIs). SanchiTachi, I sympathize with you, but it does not seem good judgement to post this everywhere in hopes of a resolution. I would stick to one thread and work the process there. Brevity is ... wit, as they said on The Simpsons. --Edwin Herdman 05:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)This is already being discussed in a more appropriate venue | here. Why bring this dispute to the Pump? This forum is NOT a part of the dispute resolution process. Doc  Tropics  04:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Retracted complaint and refactored appropriately SanchiTachi 04:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doc. I left an appropriate partial reply to you (SanchiTachi) on my talk page, which noted that I am concerned why you brought this up without giving us appropriate context. To recap, in light of your failure to provide us the necessary context I went to your user page which provided some broad insights into your view of policy. To expand, I should have immediately noted that in your first comment here you are failing to respect WP:OWN by considering another user's edits not "appropriate;" while you may disagree with their judgement and views, no individual editor can say that other edits are "inappropriate." As noted by Doc Tropics, this very same issue is being discussed elsewhere. --Edwin Herdman 04:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Retracted complaint and refactored appropriatelySanchiTachi 04:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not limited to the lexicon you adopt when my terms are appropriate. They are.
 * Your question is diverting us from the true question; you are inherently assuming the other party of bad faith by asking us to classify where they went wrong. Again, as noted in the Administrator's notice board in my last very recent posting after the Gratuitous Section Break, I have been prevented from finding out what actions the other party may have made which were inappropriate because all my time has been occupied dealing with your accusations and hypothetical questions, especially since you feel the need to make redundant comments on personal Talk pages in addition to those on project pages. These questions would likely not stand up to scrutiny when applied to the actual user you're dealing with, and I refuse to waste my time on an unproductive process, or give you a label to apply to another user when it is not clear that label actually applies. --Edwin Herdman 05:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Retracted complaint and refactored appropriately. SanchiTachi 05:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see the point, but logic leads me to consider the possibility that you are assuming bad faith by attempting to find a category in which to classify - and potentially accuse - the other party of violating policy. If you are willing to consider that perhaps the other party has done no such thing, then I will gladly retract the statement that even asking the question is in bad faith, because again logic leads me to conclude that such a thing can be asked innocently. However, your claims that User:Someguy0830 was stalking you (your exact words: "he decided to follow me anyway") explicitly rule this possibility out. Will you consider that Someguy0830 was merely attempting to help you improve the content - and, just as importantly, provide an alternate viewpoint? --Edwin Herdman 05:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for someone to put up traditional interpretations held in the past. The "examples" on the pages are very unclear (or too extreme). I retracted my statements above. SanchiTachi 06:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reconsidering, that makes me very happy :) On striking a comment, I would suggest using the strike (in the tool bar, or put strike on both sides of the text). It wasn't any problem for me to check what you changed in the History, but the strike is even faster.
 * Regarding the prior examples being nebulous: theoretically, I think that a system that doesn't work like the Supreme Court (i.e. no prior cases) has the potential to work better, because we can look at each case individually. WP:AGF in particular makes it very easy to assume that the other party isn't harassing you, and frankly, in all cases it's true. Always. Unless they're just spamming, or you're Tom Cruise and people are out to get you. Nobody hates an anonymous second party when they first meet on the Internet. Anyhow, other editors motioned, the guy just wanted to follow around and see if he agreed with the changes. Ain't stalking; everybody's worried about the integrity of the Encyclopedia. --Edwin Herdman 06:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strike is something that did apply at one time and no longer applied, where as, the deletion via refaction is admittance that it never really applied. Also, what are these hippie optimism drugs that you are smoking. There is good faith, and then there is the drunken "I love you guys" type of thing. :P I consider myself a cynical optimist, I see everything in terms of "suck" and then try to make the best out of it. Oh, and you should check out the Warhammer 40,000 history to see all sorts of nasty vandalism that is put there. Its absurd, vulgar, and sometimes just weird. :) SanchiTachi 07:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Unclear status of Reliable sources/examples
This useful page seems partially forgotten, and has no clear status, I have labelled it with 'proposed'. See also my comments at relevant discussion page about how it ties to aspects of WP:ATT/FAQ.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit page text nonsense.
The big warning at the bottom of edit pages recently changed to: Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL license. It will be deleted.

This is nonsense; it is directly contradicted by the sentence in small print just below:

Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages or images.

Seems like a revert to whatever was there before is appropriate.


 * Hmmm. I don't really see how that contradicts itself.  The bottom says that just because someone found information on a different website, it doesn't mean it is automatically free use.  Jmlk  17  20:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It does contradict it, because PD websites aren't GFDL. We could even copy from CC-BY websites, because GFDL preserves attribution. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The text in question is MediaWiki:Edittools, I've changed it to "GFDL-compatible," because public domain and attribution only work too. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Upload
Could more people look at Upload? It is a form that some people have installed on the sidebar with the aim of improving upon Special:Upload (original discussion at Mediawiki talk:Uploadtext). The talk page shows disputes over whether the page should be full protected, whether it should include an obvious link to Special:Upload (for people who know what they are doing and want to put up with all the new stuff), and how it should be linked from the sidebar. Dragons flight 21:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually looks like it might be usefully user friendly. However, two seemingly identical links in the sidebar is just such a bad idea. Perhaps it should be accessible from the various image guidelines pages to which we direct newcomers, or perhaps give priority to the link that we want to encourage editors to use. <font color="#4B0082">Adrian <font color="#4B0082">M. H.  21:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add: semi-protection should be quite sufficient, I would think. <font color="#4B0082">Adrian <font color="#4B0082">M. H.  21:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Should be at least. I agree. Jmlk17 05:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How do we verify the identity of a Wikipedian who claims to be the subject of an article?
If anyone can answer this question, or if you have knowledge related to the topic, please join in the discussion here. (Please do not respond here, let's keep the discussion in one place.) Thank you! Joie de Vivre 16:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

One-sided accounts of events as biographical articles
Please read the discussion at Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23. I've put forward a view of the application of the neutrality and no original research policies to biographies of living persons, and a suggestion that we can work on. There's discussion there and at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, too. Please contribute to the discussions. Uncle G 13:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a lot less neutrality tags being distributed these days than there should be. SanchiTachi 15:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hear hear; sometimes even POV articles are hard to decipher though. Jmlk17 03:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

British/American English
I've observed that the Baltimore Oriole article is definitely not written in US English, and, unless I'm rather mistaken, rather different from Canadian as well. The Manual of Style says that there will rarely be a compelling reason to change the spelling (or in this case, the vocabulary and usage) of the entire article. Is the North American nature of this bird sufficient to change its spelling, or should it remain as is? Nyttend 02:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For topics specific to a region where one type of english is favored (like an article on Baltimore) we should stick to that flavor. The reluctance in switching applies when a topic isn't regionally specific. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the biggest problem with that isn't the dialect but the utterly inappropriate tone. Needs a rewrite for NPOV style and less puffery. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This will probably end up being a topic of debate for the history of Wikipedia. Colour vs. color, center vs. centre, etc. Jmlk17 07:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what type of English you use in the article, but the type must be consistent throughout.--Kylohk 18:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The definition of proper English differs between our two forms of the language, but they are the same in more than enough ways to get a good point across. Jmlk17 02:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Rolling back BLP abuse
The current situation with WP:BLP has gotten way out of control. The policy was initially intended to prevent a recurrence of something like the Seigenthaler controversy, by ensuring that biography articles were carefully watched and that unsourced gossip and rumor was not included. However, a few administrators have recently begun to interpret it to exclude anything, even if it was published in a reliable source, that might reflect badly on someone. Entire articles have been deleted and salted because they are somehow considered to be "inherent BLP violations," even though by the original understanding of BLP there is no such thing. This trend clearly violates a core Wikipedia policy, Neutral Point of View, as well as the basic principle that Wikipedia is not censored. Consequently, I think it's time that the unnecessary cruft be removed from the BLP policy, so that it can no longer be used as an excuse for high-handed, out-of-consensus administrative actions.

I propose the following wording, to constitute BLP in its entirety:

Things have gotten way out of control on this issue. We can't rely upon Arbcom to make policy; they clearly don't want to, and it isn't their job. This needs to be worked out within the community. And the feedback I have seen over the past week within the community makes it clear that a majority of editors do not like the expansive, overreaching manner in which BLP has been applied. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 22:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Entirely sensible, but you may need to add a little, er, "cruft" to flesh out some parts. But I think you've got the right idea - it nails the letter and the spirit of the policy while making it easy to understand and difficult to abuse. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes any version will violate the spirit of BLP.--Docg 23:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Those versions are unsourced or poorly sourced, and thus don't meet our core content policies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not all about sources.--Docg 23:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you offer some examples where the BLP policy has been applied improperly? --Kevin Murray 23:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Recent deletions of articles, like the whole QZ shitstorm and Crystal Gail Mangum have taken place even though the articles were perfectly sourced and contained nothing negative that wasn't attributed, because some people felt that BLP meant we shouldn't be a platform for saying embarrassing things about people that they didn't think deserved to have those things said about them. Up on DRV right now is a case where people are claiming that BLP prohibits us from having an article about kids who were switched at birth and the subject of a TV program because of that, because our article might come back to haunt them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hard to see a problem with QZ since there were many experienced and respected editors indicating delete over three AfDs, and not citing BLP. But the CGM deletion seems unwarranted.  I worked on the Bruce McMahan article for a while trying to keep the content out of the gutter, while not caving in to special interests trying to whitewash the article.  In the end both sides became so disreputable that it wasn't worth the hassle.  The Mangum article may have been more trouble to babysit than the information was worth.--Kevin Murray 01:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It could have just been reverted or stubbed, but it was speedied out of process instead. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree with this analysis. WP:BLP is a crucial policy in the effort to maintain encyclopaedic standards for Wikipedia. If anything it needs to be enforced more rigorously. FNMF 01:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly, but within reason and without becoming censorship. --Kevin Murray 01:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of proper place for this discussion
Please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons. If you have any specific cases of overreaching, please post a notice in the BLP noticeboard. And if you have specific concerns about admin actions, please post a notice in the Admin noticeboard ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed. Information is in History. I have said my peace. This is a refactor. I would normally scratch it out, but the issue is no longer pertaining directly to the article at hand.SanchiTachi 01:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi hasn't wheel warred. That requires using admin tools. You're just trying to demonize an editor who disagrees with you. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed. Information is in History. I have said my peace. This is a refactor. I would normally scratch it out, but the issue is no longer pertaining directly to the article at hand. SanchiTachi 02:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, uh. You don't get to play this off your hypocritical policy citing. "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's administrative actions — specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user; undeleting and redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting an article." Show us where Jossi does this. Reverting an edit is not an administrative action. Don't make any excuses. Show where Jossi has done this. — Someguy0830 (T | C)
 * That means providing diffs, by the way, not just saying "Jossi did it". — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed. Information is in History. I have said my peace. This is a refactor. I would normally scratch it out, but the issue is no longer pertaining directly to the article at hand. SanchiTachi 02:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You've cited nothing. You're claiming a difference of opinion to be wheel warring, and it's complete nonsense. Jossi hasn't reverted a single edit of Swatjester's. Jossi has barely even edited the page. Nor has Jossi undone a block, protection, or any other administrative action of Swat's. Jossi's endorsing of the removal of a link in opposition to Swatjester is not wheel warring, it's called discussion. I realize this concept may be lost on you, but people do have differences of opinion, and your claims that such a difference constitues wheel-warring is completely false, as well as fairly ignorant. Until you can bring forth evidence, not your opinion, as to why Jossi is wheel-warring, I suggest you drop it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed. Information is in History. I have said my peace. This is a refactor. I would normally scratch it out, but the issue is no longer pertaining directly to the article at hand.SanchiTachi 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh, and this is why you have no argument. You cannot back up your argument with diffs, you can't correctly quote the policy, and you devolve into ridiculous hypocrisy when you're out of material. Quoting a policy and giving no link to where it was broken isn't a cite, it's wikilawyering. I'll say this once more. Prove it. Where, when, and in what fashion does Jossi wheel war? Provide a diff, provide a link, hell, link to a section, but accomplish something instead of trying to assassinate the character of everyone who disagrees with you. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SanchiTachi: I think that you'd be better-off taking a break. You are in embarrassing yourself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed. Information is in History. I have said my peace. This is a refactor. I would normally scratch it out, but the issue is no longer pertaining directly to the article at hand. SanchiTachi 03:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have proof, why is it such a chore for you to provide? Surely such damning evidence would be easy to copy and paste. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This issue is between myself and Jossi 's allusions and threats to block me on multiple occassions dealing with BLP . If you would like to add yourself into the conversation, please provide evidence to why you are important in deciding anything on this matter. If you feel that you can add yourself to mediating between Jossi and myself, please provide evidence that you are capable and qualified ot doing so. If you feel that you are an interested party because you have encouraged Jossi into posting such things on their Talk Page about me, please state so. Otherwise, this is an issue between Jossi and myself, and my only demand is that Jossi recuse theirself from this discussion based on possible NPOV conflicts. If you do not want to do any of what I have stated, please state that. SanchiTachi 03:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That didn't sound like an answer. That sounded like dodging the question. You can't expect to come on a public page and get a private conversation. I ask again, where's your evidence? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Someguy0830, I have no response or reply for you on this issue unless you fall under one of the mediation catagories above. If Jossi would want to ask the question of me, I will respond. If you want to read this as WP:EQ "Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste." Do so. If you want to contribute in a way that I proposed above, please respond as requested. Thank you. SanchiTachi 04:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, because I'm not going to play your game. I do not have to be a mediator, as this is not a mediation case. This is you accusing an admin of wrongdoing with no proof (on a policy page no less). I want proof. I ask a third time, where is your proof? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

External links to Geocaches. Appropriate per WP:EL?
An external link to a page describing a specific geocache site (see geocaching) has been added to Elsbridge. My gut feeling is that the link is not appropriate, and should be deleted, especially since the article is about a fictional location! However, I have had a look at WP:EL and I'm still uncertain.

The main reason for seeking advice here is that the External Link search tool currently brings up just over 100 links to www.geocaching.com, the most popular site, and I was wondering whether there was any kind of precedent/guidance/policy/advice for including or removing links to specific geocache locations?

The list includes a large number of user pages, and a number of links that are probably appropriate examples, neither of which are a problem. However, a significant number of instances occur on specific location pages, pointing at specific cache details, and it is these in particular that I am questioning. Should a WP location article feature a link to a geocache sited at that location?

(This query was previously posted, without attracting a response, on the VP(assistance) page.)

EdJogg 13:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not heard of this before. It is obviously of great interest to a minority of people, but that hardly justifies the link. If it does not directly relate to the subject matter in a useful way, get rid of it. Just my opinion. <font color="#4B0082">Adrian  <font color="#4B0082">M. H.  18:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis (WP:BRAIN )
The WP:NOR discussion page has significant discussion on the WP:SYN section of the synthesis policy. WP:SYN currently prohibits "synthesis that advances a position" but there is no coherent Synthesis policy that defines "synthesis" or shows what is appropriate and inappropriate forms of synthesis. I have started an essay that highlights this dilemma, (WP:BRAIN but I don't know where to draw the line on "good vs bad" synthesis. Please help me edit this essay to assist formation of a coherent synthesis policy. Peace, MPS 03:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your essay is quite good for discussing when "using your brain" and discussing synthesis is allowed (on talk pages, for example)... but it could use some ballancing statements to clarify when it is not allowed (in articles). Blueboar 13:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to create a New Policy WP:LockdownBeforeRFM
For some highly controversial articles that need Request-for-Meditation(RfM), recently it is suspected that certain users changed the article into a personal form, then immediately request WP:RFP to lock into the expected form before meditation and disputation resolution. The sysadmin who is (randomly) assigned to do the lockdown knows a little about the actual details, then almost surely performs the lockdown after seeing the editing war. This loophole does look like a vulnerable point of the wikipedia system. If not countermeasured, this could soon become a standard trick in editing wars. A countermeasure is not very complex, for example, a new wikipolicy WP:LockdownBeforeRFM could be defined to say that the disputed article must be locked before meditation and locked to an early stable version at least 3 days before the appearance of the disputation (even if this version could be the 1st one-liner version). This stable version can be easily identified by looking at the article's history page.

It seems that the countermeasure may effectively repair the loophole.--Jiejunkong 09:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. If protection is not meant to be an endorsement of the protected version, you might as well lock it at a point before the conflict took place. Otherwise, it may still be perceived by others as being biased.--Kylohk 14:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Page protection is a temporary measure. It is known, and accepted, that sometimes the Wrong Version will be protected. For a tongue in cheek view of the matter, check out Wrong version. Cheers! Vassyana 14:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In this sort of situation, whatever version is locked down, one party will cry foul.--Runcorn 19:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not speaking for the MedCom here, I feel that if a mediation cannot take place without the users involved being willing enough to disengage in order to help resolve the dispute, then mediation is doomed to failure. Mediation is based on good faith between those involved in the process, and if users are so unwilling to help to resolve the dispute by preventing themselves from editing the article, then in a lot of cases (not all) they will be unwilling to help resolve the dispute. Furthermore, full protection is horrible and pointless in a long term mediation situation, becuase it only serves to lock out uninvolved editors from making useful changes. Martinp23 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems to be another itteration of the old complaint that "The article got locked in the wrong version". Blueboar 19:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely a Wrong Version situation. Move along, nothing here at all. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the version which is initially locked, it seems appropriate for the arbitrator or an appointee to re-lock the most recent stable version. --Kevin Murray 19:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There have been some cases of late where controversial policy changes were made and then locked into the new version (e.g. the recent lock of WP:NPA). Mangoe 23:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply I am not asking for locking on the so-called "right" version (we know there is no such thing), but an earlier stable version before the potential attacker had the chance to interfere. Because traveling back in time is impossible, this effectively eliminates the attack I described at the beginning of this section.--Jiejunkong 01:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There generally isn't such thing. If there's a "stable" version and an "attacker", it is generally a matter of vandalism that is reverted. If there is sufficient dispute to warrant mediation, suggesting a priori that one version is "better" will only cause more strife.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Security is indeed a transformation of randomization (See Shannon's perfect secrecy and Ciphertext indistinguishability, basically encryption is nothing more than a decryptable operation with result indistinguishable from truly randomness). I have never said something like "right" or "better" (we know there is no such thing).  It is only a countermeasure to a very specific loophole.  Please check my original post carefully. --Jiejunkong 02:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Māori names
There is currently a discussion at New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board about inclusion of Māori language names in infoboxes of New Zealand cities. Further input is welcome.- gadfium 20:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been broadened to include any "foreign" language names (italicisation, etc) - although obviously in a New Zealand context the vast majority will Māori (rather than Dutch, French or German, etc) and is rapidly approaching a consensus. 89.242.173.97 11:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes
I tried to stay as far away as possible from userboxes as I can, but what is the current consensus/policy on userboxes like User:EVula/Userboxes/User against Bush? Leave those in template-space, move to user-space, speedy-delete? —Ruud 19:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would file that under "userfy and ignore" myself. -- Visviva 23:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely move to user space. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely userfy. In that case, and in some others, I'd then nominate at MfD.  It doesn't look to meet the criteria for T1, but it does run afoul of WP:UP.  An alternative approach would be to nominate at TfD/MfD first, and only usefy if kept.  (This is fewer edits in the event of a deletion.)  GRBerry 19:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Feel free to move it into my space, if you want. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now at User:EVula/Userboxes/User against Bush. --Iamunknown 18:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure why it would be speedy-deleted. It's free speech and someone's personal belief. :) Jmlk17 07:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack question
A week ago, I removed a one-sentence ad from an article on a small town, New Hampshire, Ohio, and left a no-ads template message on the talk page of the IP that added the ad. This morning, I got a personal attack from the IP on my talk page and on the New Hampshire talk page. My question is this: what level of warning template should be left for the IP? Should it get a first-level, since this is its first personal attack? Or a second-level, since it's already had another warning recently, by me? Or a third-level, since the message was given twice in slightly different versions, both of which are very obviously bad faith ("Get an effing life...")? Regardless of which is correct, I'm not entirely sure what the WP:UTM guidelines want me to do. And by the way, I'd appreciate it if someone else left a warning for the IP. Nyttend 15:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not second-level; that would only apply if there had been a previous warning for personal attacks. I guess this particular issue has already been dealt with, but I would have said third-level, since the attacks are in flagrantly bad faith and do not deserve our usual level of patience.  -- Visviva 15:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A good, firm warning is necessary, but it doesn't really need to be extreme. Jmlk17 07:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Resizing Images
This is regarding Category:Non-free image size reduction request (i cant figure out how to internal link a category page, could someone drop the answer at my talk page) I need to know if there is a specific size that the images should be smaller than, or can i just resize according to my ideas... <font color="#83F52C">Cyberoid  X   13:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Answers Anybody?
 * There is no specific limit, the quality of the image should be consistent to its purpose in the article. Usually Common sense is sufficient. Alex Bakharev 13:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Common sense is almost always a good idea, especially when no set rules apply, as I believe is the case here. I mean, if something is huge and oppressive, it is obviously going to distract from the article as a whole in certain areas. Jmlk17 07:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Captions for all logos on wikipedia
There is now a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Logos about a proposed policy that all (trademarked) logos on wikipedia have a caption. nadav (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that all trademarked logos on wikipedia are there under WP:FU, and that captions of logos are already available via alt tags. Any trademarked logo that violates fair-use should be immediatley removed, however any logos that comply with fair-use should be added and retained in infoboxes without the need for captioning. This proposition is redundant, and serves no practical purpose that is not already in use. Stickeylabel 07:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've replied at the discussion page. WP:FU is not relevant for trademark issues. nadav (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)