Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive BE

Add Notes as well as References
The / ). Because Wikipedia is well-accessible in Denmark (and in Danish, too), we also run the risk of prejudice to any criminal proceedings that result.  81.104.175.145 08:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


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


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

Publication bans aside... If someone is contesting an issue in a court case or pending court case, it does seem prudent to withhold sections that are being contested. For instance, say we have newspaper articles that say 'Mister X stole the Pink Diamonds', but Mister X is contesting that in a court case, it might be inappropriate for a Wikipedia article to say 'Mister X stole the Pink Diamonds' even if we can cite those newspapers. For one thing, the court case may well decide that 'Mister X was framed by Mister Y'. We can certainly state that there's a court case pending or in progress, but we should be careful. --Barberio 18:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can always do what the papers do, listing them as alleged. So, "Mister X has been charged with stealing the Pink Diamonds" Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify one thing: Using the word "alleged" or "allegedly" does not absolve you of liability for libel. But you are on solid ground if you simply report a person has been arrested or charged.
 * It seems more discussion on this issue is necessary. Any idea if a policy statement on publication bans could be added to an existing policy, or if an entirely new policy is necessary? -- Mwalcoff 02:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It probably could be added to an existing policy, but I don't think that's a good idea. It's really a significantly different idea from any policies we have. -Amarkov moo! 02:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


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

Administration vandalism
Hi! I just put out an article Crimson Circle (Shaumbra), that I've worked with for quite some time, and made a disambiguation page. After two hours all my work were gone, deleted by an administrator. It is very frustraing to see ones good work just beeing deleted. Sometimes I just feel this place sucks. Resigned and frustrated Geir 14:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WMD and DP. I will assume that you have already asked the admin (politely) for clarification and viewed the deletion log?  Adrian  M. H.  16:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, our conversation is here and here. Maybe not my most polite words.. Anyway, my article can be found here. I basically needed the room for expressing my frustration. Geir 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Having read the log, the article was deleted for being not notable, and that it failed to assert the notability of the subject. Just out of curiosity, what was the content?--Kylohk 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UT
 * It's about a spiritual group, based around channelings -now a world-wide organization.

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

I really can't see any reason why this is notable. The deleting admin seems to me to have been entirely correct and not to have been vandalising in any way. And I hate to say it, but it's really not very well written. The English is most peculiar and it's very difficult to see what you're getting at. I appreciate English isn't your first language, but articles on English Wikipedia do need to be more readable than that. -- Necrothesp 18:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your honest opinion! My intention with the article was not to make it perfect, in content or language, but to make a framwork for colaboration. I know the subject is notable in Wikipedian sense, but I guess the matter is to far away from what is common accepted. If it's so, I guess I want be using so much time here in the future. Geir 19:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the page as it stands suggests "notable in Wikipedian sense". 81.104.175.145 08:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Copyright violation?
Please see Articles for deletion/List of arrested Bengals. Is copying something from here to sportsargumentwiki.com a copyright violation? Especially since the copy was done without attribution to the Wikipedia article as required by GFDL, and since the sportsargumentwiki is not using a compatible license. If so, is there anything that can be done about it now? Corvus cornix 06:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I understand it's a copyvio to transwiki the material to a non-Wikimedia wiki that doesn't use GFDL. No, I don't think there's anything we can do about it, except to advise the user not to do that again. Yechiel Man  05:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a breach of the GFDL copyright. This can be enforced just like any other copyright. I would guess an individual contributor could contact sportsargumentwiki.com to complain, although be careful about WP:NLT. Alternatively the Wikimedia Foundation could take action - you may try writing to them. AndrewRT(Talk) 13:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Creating an account for prevention of vandalism
If, in seeing the account pattern of a vandal with multiple accounts, I believe that I know some future accounts, may I create those accounts to prevent the vandal from getting them? This situation is one which happenned recently. Od Mishehu 09:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pre-emptive strike then. The thing is though that if someone wants to create an account to vandalise they are not going to be put off by a preferred ID being already taken.  ÅÅ¯á¹Ä«Î£Ä» Â¹98Â¹  Speak 10:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at this link, you'll see a reference to a vandal who seems to want a particular set of 4 user names - of which he created 3. Od Mishehu 11:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, I checked out the link before commenting. What you are suggesting is very similar to WP:U clause 5.3 so if the account wasn't used for editing and was clearly marked and justified then it could be acceptable.  ÅÅ¯á¹Ä«Î£Ä» Â¹98Â¹  Speak 11:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. Just don't make any edits with that account so that it will be available for usurpation later (unless it's a clear username violation). Yechiel Man  23:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


 * Email the orts volonteer first. If you have a statement with a reliable source that got removed, then the orts employee shouldn't had done so. If it was an unsourced statement then he was right. â Esurnir 19:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above linked page, and comments made by OTRS volunteers (note, volunteers not employees) here seems to suggest that some act as if they are entitled to remove any content or whole articles if they judge them to need removing, and that they can't have their action reversed. --Barberio 19:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be because that is exactly the situation. They have access to some information, you don't have access to it.  Therefore, they can make an informed decision about whether the statement needs to be removed, and you cannot.  I smell a hint of WP:POINT here.  81.104.175.145 00:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

am or brit
In articles with no direct relation to an Anglophonic country, should American English or British English be used? âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by RockRNC (talk â¢ contribs).
 * Preferably whatever is in use. Take a look at:Manual_of_Style - Nabla 02:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Like Nabla said, it's up to you, but try to be consistent within a particular article and not to change a style once it's there. Yechiel Man 05:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The language is the same; it's often just the spelling of a word (color vs. colour, center vs. centre, etc.) that differs.  But as long as it's concise and in encyclopedic, all should be good.  Jmlk  1  7  08:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of consistency. Both types of English should not be used simutaneously in an article. It's either this or that. Apart from this, a popular practice is to choose the spelling type depending on the subject. E.g. if the article is something to do with Britain, Australia, etc, use British English. This is particularly true for films.--Kylohk 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True. The issue seems to arise in those article in which the two dialects are intertwined.  I speak fluent and native English, but for those of us who don't, I can imagine it could potentially be somewhat harder when it switches back and forth.  Jmlk  1  7  01:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'm representative but this doesn't bother me at all. Actually, I switch back and forth when I write English, and I guess this can annoy native speakers... _R_ 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an old one. As said above, consistentency within the granularity of an article seems to be the the guideline. ~ Infrangible 19:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we have 16 x 1000s of stub articles on non-notable Lords?
This afd Articles for deletion/John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott I hope will be a test case for whether the Wikipedia community wants thousands of these stub like articles on non notable peers. I am not against articles on peers who have actually done anything of note but to have thousands of these articles that just say x was born and married y and then died is just pure idiocy. There is no reason why these people cannot be covered on the relevant Wikipedia article for the title in question. If you support my view please comment on the above afd. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To me, the answer is yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If we must have raw lists of information, let's at least get them into one article rather than scattered across many. Friday (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually seeing a reason to delete it, aside from "I don't like it". EVula // talk // [[User:EVula/admin|&#9775; ]] // 19:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason is that the person has done nothing of note and the information known on him can easily be included on the main page of the title Viscount of Arbuthnott. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And the information could just as easily exist in a stubbed article. Again, I'm just seeing a "I don't like it" as your rationale (note that I don't care one way or the other, I'm merely stating my opinion). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure his rationale is linked to notability. I don't see anything in the keep camp's rationale other than "it can't hurt." -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 09:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * why do people always take perfectly straightforward merge-jobs to afd? redirect it to the title in question, no questions asked, no vote necessary. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 19:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because we have done that (in the case of Baronets) but some people complained about it so I thought it better be brought to an afd where the wider community could have some input. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The place to request comment from the wider community on some issue is Requests for comment. Articles for deletion is  for deletion, as the name states.  Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage in the process.  Do not nominate articles for deletion unless an administrator hitting a delete button is what you want. Uncle G 10:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer is clearly No, we don't need all this stuff about people who have done nothing apart from been born into a family. If the articles were decently sourced, and had some kind of information in them it'd be less of a problem, but often they're poorly written stubs with no informative content and no verifiable information.  Dan Beale  20:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Got some sources on tha? At any rate, whenever the discussion is "should we have many short articles on some particular subject" the solution tends to be to merge them. &gt;Radi a n t &lt;  08:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. Every single one of my ancestors was born in some family and reproduced. Same for your ancestors. No big deal, not assisted by the right to sit in the House of Lords. -- Hoary 09:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


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


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


 * Peerages and the like ought to be treated in much the same way as WP:EPISODE. Start with a meta-article on the title, list the holders of the title, and as and when the holders make their own mark, create an article on them. Besides, I quite like the parallel between an inbred peer of the realm being equated with a 10 minute Pinky and the Brain cartoon - Tiswas (t) 10:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. Like a television episode, if there is enough substance to warrant an article for a given peer, then there should be one; otherwise, it should be part of a list. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 09:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Begin quote:

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


 * See discussion at Articles for deletion/Toki Pona (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Most people in that discussion voted to keep. Furtheron, it became one of the biggest conlangs in the last years, having more than 100 speakers, and in some time will probably pass by languages like Ido. Yet it seems to be more in use than Lojban. And I often came back to read the article, because it really is interesting. And this article has many interwiki-links too, which indicates a lot too. So please put the article back! --LaPingvino, moderator of the biggest toki pona mailing list (moderated, few hundred members), fluent speaker

End quote


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


 * I've read over the AfD and it seems like it was deleted for legitimate reasons (namely no reliable, outside sources). Like Kylohk said, Afd is not a vote. The decision over whether to delete the article is decided by the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes. It is clear that the delete arguments on this AfD were much stronger than the keep ones and easily refuted any claims made by the keep votes. --132 12:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

Â§âNikro 23:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is covered at Subpages. You might want to bear in mind that subpages can be made in any namespace apart from the article namespace. Tra (Talk) 23:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Be wary of your journal getting MfD'd. âPomte 20:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)