Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive BJ

sysops/admins: edit patrol problem
Dear admins, if I understand correctly there is an edit patrol tag to every new edit, which admins can set to "patrolled". This creates the following problem: a powerful part of wiki editing is that first editor1 has a good idea but words it poorly or leaves out proper sourcing, and (much) later editors 2,3,4 come along and correct this. For a good article, such an improvement trajectory could mean a temporary decline in quality. By the need for admins to patrol edits, edit1 will now be reverted because the admin is not the editor with the knowledge or ambition to be editor 2,3,4. This slows down the improvement of articles drastically, as well as wasting a lot of editor and admin time in reverting; possibly warring or scaring away new editors.

&#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Does this analysis make sense?
 * 2) Possible solution: create a permanent =Draft= section on the talk page, to which all potentially useful reverted edits are copied and kept for e.g. 3 months. Better still a "draft" tab in the wiki software.


 * There is no universal edit patrol looking at every edit, just catch-as-catch-can. Reverted edits are already kept as long as the article exists, and are in the article history (with the exception of some WP:BLP violations).  An editor who wishes to avoid having edits reverted but recognizes the cites are lacking, should tag his or her own article to demonstrate recognition of the problem, or discuss on the talk page first.  But reversions are part of the editing process. rTHF 08:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only admins go on recent changes patrol. As with new page patrolling, some people can be a little overzealous. I think we just need to remind editors not to bite newcomers and assume good faith. However if the added material in unintelligable garbage, then there's no choice but to remove it. Recurring dreams 11:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Recurring dreams. And: please do not treat needy edits as if they were bad edits &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note - may I suggest that all Editors (including Admins) refrain from editing articles on subjects that they know nothing about. For example this one turned a statement which was arguably true into one which was indisputably false. (The Admin later admitted he knows nothing about Formula 1!). This is one example I have seen others. Kelpin 16:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No. WP:EXPERT is a failed proposal.  Corvus cornix 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Kelpin is suggesting any particular standard of expertise, just "some knowledge". I can see both sides of that argument, though. SamBC(talk) 21:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's right - I'm not saying you need to be an expert to edit an article but for someone to remove a comment that a Formula 1 race where the gap between the first 2 was 0.014s was the "third closest Formula 1 finish" on the basis that no race could be that close and change the comment to "the closest" is madness. Even if I hadn't seen both that race and a closer one I know that these things can be checked at the official formula 1 site.  (Which I did).  Why does an Admin who later admitted he doesn't know anything about F1 feel the need to edit out a valid comment?  Its true the comment he took out was open to debate (I later changed it to something that wasn't) but the comment he replaced it with was blatantly false.  Kelpin 07:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing policy concerning succession boxes in articles concerning fictional characters
A proposal has passed at WP:WAF and WP:SBS to allow in-universe succession boxes in articles with fictional elements. A template was created, Template:s-fic, to deal with the in-universe-ness of the succession boxes and a proposal to delete the template failed last week. I am wonder what needs to be done to cancel this policy and allow succession boxes officially on templates, because currently succession boxes such as those of the Kings of Arnor are not technically allowed in their articles, although they provide an excellent method of navigating the multiple generations of kings and heirs. Similar succession boxes have been removed from certain Harry Potter and Star Wars pages, as well as many others. Can anyone tell me how to do this, because I would really like to know. Thank you! – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 00:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmph... Can anyone explain why we even have articles on all the various kings of Arnor (and other such fictional kingdoms etc.) ... I can understand having the King of Arnor article ... The concept of the Kingdom of Arnor is an important background plot element in the story line of LOTR... but why in the world do we have seperate article on, for example, Arantar, who isn't even notable to the background plot and is barely even mentioned in the apendix of the series?
 * I see this as being similar to having articles on every single episode of a TV show, or every minor character in the Harry Potter books. There is a clear precedent for rolling all such articles into one larger article.  I know the LOTR fans will be unhappy if all the little stub articles get cut... but so were the Potter and Simpsons fans when we started to roll their stubs into larger "group" articles.  Shouldn't we be consistant between project groups on such things? Blueboar 14:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for not answering my question. Example aside, the question is how to get succession boxes allowed on fictional pages.  It has been approved, in a sense, three times in three different forums, yet there is still a rule stating otherwise that needs to be removed and I would like to know how procedure goes to do that.  Not all fictional articles are as brief as Middle Earth kings.  Pages such as Albus Dumbledore and Palpatine also qualify very much for succession boxes but cannot under the current rules.


 * Regarding the reason for the individual pages. People seem to forget that this is an encyclopedia, which is "a book or set of books [in our case a website] giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject..." I believe that fact of this encyclopedia has been lost in some of these policy and procedure groups.  I miss the days when I could go onto Wikipedia and type anything after /wiki/ and get results.  Those days are gone because people have felt that to be respectable, we have to have less information instead of more.  To all those people who say "that is what we have Wookiepedia for" or "that is what Wikia is for" I say, NO!, that is why we have WIKIPEDIA! – Whale  y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to comment here that, even in cases that a person is only given a section in a larger article rather than their own article, a succession box may still be added at the end of that section, especially since, in such a case, its size will generally be limited to one or two lines. That way, continuity is ensured (thank Unicorn there are section redirects!) and everything is in perspective as far as importance is concerned. Waltham, The Duke of 06:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble following this. You say that a proposal passed to allow succession boxes, and then you ask if this can be changed to allow succession boxes? What's the difference? Also, judged by the amount of formalisms and references to "officialness" I think you misunderstand the non-bureaucratic nature of Wikipedia. We don't do official.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "succession boxes such as those of the Kings of Arnor are not technically allowed in their articles" - not allowed by whom? Where is this policy?  Corvus cornix 21:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Some people tend to take policies overly seriously, Radiant, and the policy in question is Manual of Style (writing about fiction), or "WAF". The thing is, while there has been a great debate in the talk page, which one could reasonably say has ended with great support for the policy's modification to allow for succession boxes in articles for fictional characters, nothing whatsoever has been done towards that direction. Moreover, this policy never ceased being used as a justification to delete succession boxes in such articles and to disallow the creation of new ones. So, the question is, what do we do now? Waltham, The Duke of 10:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Removal
I have a question about article removal. A company that I work for has an article on Wikipedia that meets the notability guidelines for an article and is a relatively extensive article. I was recently asked, because I use wikipedia frequently, if the company were unhappy with the article, would it be able to have the article removed? If so, how could that be accomplished? 131.230.103.184 04:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, if the article met notability guidelines then it would not be removed. However, pressure from the company it's about could result in removal of all unreferenced statements from the article. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be difficult without a specific concern to address. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. On a related issue, if the article in question were rated as GA quality, would removal of any unsourced statement by editors, without pressure from the company, be considered vandalism? Or, would this constitute keeping the article clean?131.230.103.184 04:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Any unsourced statement believed to be untrue may be removed at any time by any editor. However, make sure to explain this in the edit summary or else it may be misinterpreted as vandalism. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you again to both of you for your helpful and prompt responses. I think this will help me reassure my employer about the content of our article.131.230.103.184 05:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, see WP:OTRS, which is a convenient way of reporting problems in articles about you or your company. On the other hand, see WP:COI, our guideline on conflict of interest (some companies are attempting to use Wikipedia for advertising, which is inappropriate). HTH!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A
What regulations does this website have for postings


 * For starters, you need to sign your posts on discussion pages such as this one with four tildes ( ~ ). &larr;BenB4 21:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to have a look at WP:HELP. SamBC(talk) 21:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Overcapitalization or is it Commonwealth English?
Sometimes in articles I see this bizarre overcapitalization which I don't understand the rationale behind. But I do see it a lot from U.K. and Australian users, so it's possible this is a British convention I'm not familiar with. You especially see it in regards to public services where they capitalize the type of service, not just the name of the organization. For example, being from the U.S. I'd capitalize "Boston Police" or "Boston Public Schools", but they capitalize things like "the Police" or "the Schools" meaning any police department or any school system. Squidfryerchef 22:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Example pages? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Those two examples are simply incorrect rather than regional. Blame the education system (or "the Schools"!)  Adrian  M. H.  08:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd only say it was useful if, for example, you were referring to the Boston Police - you may use 'the Police' subsequently where the reference to Boston is implicit, but the lowercase 'the police' may be used more generally.--Breadandcheese 11:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a specific policy/notation
I posted my question over on the Spam project but I'm not sure that was the right place. Radiant! suggested I ask here. I fully understand the reasons, but I'd like to know if there's a specific page/guideline/policy that covers users adding photobucket.com links to articles (most often to the "external links" section, linking to pictures at photobucket of the subject). I know that the uploading, or using of those images is covered under copyvio policy, and I understand the theoretical reason for not allowing them to be in links, but I'd like to be able to cite a specific policy, if asked. Does one exist? Thanks in advance! Ariel ♥ Gold 11:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is actual policy about it, but there are good reasons why not to do it.


 * 1) If the picture is relevant to the article, why is it not in the article.
 * 2) If the picture is not relevant to the article, why should it be an external link?
 * 3) If the picture is relevant to the article, but would violate policy being in the article itself, it would also violate policy if it is hosted on photobucket.
 * Remember this is wikipedia, and there doesn't have to be policy for everything someone does. He can just do it because he thinks it will make wikipedia better. And if it doesn't then someone will come along and fix it. Martijn Hoekstra 14:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Martijn, and yeah, I've said all those things, I just wondered if there was a specific policy I'd missed. This isn't in regards to any specific situation, just more my boundless curiosity and anticipating a need to explain it in the future. Thanks for the tips! Ariel ♥ Gold 14:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not all external links to photobucket.com are prohibited. There is no reason for a policy, guideline, manual of style to specifically says you should not link to "photobucket.com" since each such external link is handled situation by situation. As an aside, linking to photobucket.com is not use of an image from photobucket on Wikipedia as posted here. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 14:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Jreferee, could you please clarify this: "As an aside, linking to photobucket.com is not use of an image from photobucket on Wikipedia as posted here"


 * Are you saying that was 'not a violation of the user to link to a photobucket.com image? The person's edit was [IMG]http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w156/kb8207/osceolahs.jpg[/IMG] clearly (although they tried to do it with HTML) the intent was to add a photobucket image to the article. Even if it is not the actual image appearing in the article, are you saying that the link itself is allowed? As Marty wrote above, "If the picture is relevant to the article, but would violate policy being in the article itself, it would also violate policy if it is hosted on photobucket." - so that makes me think that linking to an image such as the above issue, would be the same thing?


 * Perhaps a word is missing there that's making me not understand you, but I'm a bit more confused now, because it seems as though you're telling me that it is just fine to create links to photobucket? Also, you say that the MoS specifically mentions Photobucket? I was unable to find this, so if you can point to that I'd really appreciate it! Thanks! Ariel ♥ Gold 06:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As stated above, this is a matter of common sense. Since our policies/guidelines are descriptive, and to my knowledge this hasn't been a big issue in the past, nobody has bothered to codify it so far. But if that user is asking "is this against policy", he's asking the wrong question - the proper question is "does this improve the encyclopedia". As Martijn said, if the image is appropriate, we should host it; if it's not, it shouldn't be in the article anyway.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of arbcom and resolving disputes
It seems that arbcom is technically on the list of solutions for dispute resolution. However, it apparently cannot resolve disputes. I propose changing this, because apparently, there are some cases when all other steps in dispute resolution just fail for one reason or another. Of corse, it should only be done only after all other measures in WP:DR have been both tried and failed, and at the agreement of all involved parties to abide by the arbcom decision.-- Sef rin gle Talk 23:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, what are you basing these comments on? SamBC(talk) 23:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently I, and many other editors seem to be unable to reach a consensus over the allegations of apartheid articles, and we seem to be unable to reach a solution through regular means in WP:DR (only an unresolved content dispute). See Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. At first, I thought that was the purpose of arbcom, but apparently it isn't, and apparently, a lot of other people involved in the dispute thought so as well.-- Sef rin gle Talk 23:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom doesn't, and never has, arbitrated content disputes except in rare exceptions. ArbCom deals with user conduct. Sean William @ 00:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that, but there appears to be some confusion by many parties about this, and it seems like a group of highly respected editors who can make decisions over content disputes might be in order, which is partially why I am proposing this change.-- Sef rin gle Talk 02:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Sefringle., We desperately need some higher court of appeal for resolving content disputes. Otherwise what are dispute resolutions for? Not all disputes can be solved by addressing user conduct. Sometimes, both sides show good etiquette, but simply cannot come to resolution about some highly volatile issue. --Steve, Sm8900 02:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be a really bad idea to have some higher authority empowered to make decisions on content. Work it out; I know it's not easy, but usually if users behave then discussions can lead to reasonable compromises or some sort of consensus. Dicklyon 02:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But then again, there are those rare cases where no matter how much you try to work out a dispute, a compromise that is reasonable and agreeable by both sides cannot be reached, reguardless of how much discussion goes on.-- Sef rin gle Talk 02:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, it happens. So let it happen.  I'd rather see an infinite edit war than a set of people empowered to make content decisions. Dicklyon 02:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with giving some people the power to make content decisions. Besides, no process is immune from appeal, even at the highest levels; there is always the ability to simply discuss it individually, at the talk pages of each of the individual arbiters.


 * By the way, I'd much rather see final decisions made on content, rather than on individual editors' status, like we have now.


 * Also, the currrent system is creating a direct incentive for editors to hurl accusations and counter-accusations, since that is the only way to pursue these matters, according to the official procedures themselves.


 * By the way, Dickylon, actually I'd rather see a set of people empowered to make content decisions, than an infinite edit war. --Steve, Sm8900 03:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. It goes against a fundamental part of Wikipedia which is that content disputes are resolved through discussion and concensus and not by allowing certain editors to make excecutive decisions on content. I recall a comment by Jimbo that even he was scared to edit Nupedia. Also, this seems a bit WP:CREEPy to me. MartinDK 06:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Content or respect of wp principles ?
It is obvious that giving a court the right to decide on content is dangerous and could give more bad results that good ones (censorship - oriented editorial lines) but could not a court state that some choices do not respect wikipedia principles ? For example, if it is clear that a court cannot decide about the reality or pertinence of an information, cannot it take decisions or give advices concerning the formulation's compliance with fundamental principles ? Alithien 09:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent point by Alithien. i agree completely, and feel this is an extremely fair and reasonable idea to add to the sturcture and format of dispute resolution processes. --Steve, Sm8900 16:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No need. If the issue is whether a source is reliable, ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. If the issue is BLP, ask at the BLP noticeboard. If we come up with another type of issue for which clearly correct answers are likely to be forthcoming and that regularly occurs, we'll set up another noticeboard for that type of issue. Those are good, functioning, and non-court like mechanisms that give advice. Article RfCs sometimes succeed - and would more often if more editors paid attention to them.

Where things fail is where there are large factions of strongly opinionated pro/anti editors some of whom are not dedicated to NPOV. Group dynamics make achievement of consensus very difficult until there is an agreement to seek NPOV. Sometimes that requires weeding editors who really don't want an NPOV article out of the discussion. GRBerry 16:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. however, that's an interesting idea. i guess you feel that weeding out those POV editors won't involve any further controversy, and would totally solve the problem? not sure I agree. --Steve, Sm8900 16:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing will "solve" the problem of editing tensions on controversial articles; this tension is one of the keys to Wikipedia and how it functions. On the other hand, if tensions go beyond acceptable give-and-take to abusiveness, ArbCom steps in to address the offending behavior. A "content ArbCom" would be unlikely to work, because it would require people who are a) willing to take the inevitable abuse, b) highly experienced Wikipedians, and c) thought to be impartial on all possible content matters by most or all of the community. Few, if any, such people exist. And look what happens to impartial arbiters: User:^demon, a truly uninvolved user without a horse in the race, closed the DRV on an allegations of apartheid article. Within moments, he was being savaged by the side that didn't like his decision as biased, deletionist, not having enough article-writing experience, etc. The problem is the behavior and the atmosphere, not the existence of controversy. MastCell Talk 17:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue though, is not always about the behavior. Editors shouldn't necessarily be weeded out because they have a particular view, unless they prove themselves unwilling and unable to compromise, and sometimes that judgement is made too soon. Sometimes the actual problem is the dispute, and censorship of opposing views is not necessarily the best solution. A trial of the editors is not necessarily what is always needed; not when we are facing content disputes, especially ones which harm wikipedia's value system.-- Sef rin gle Talk 02:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well. I am very interested by the history of 1948 and I am really fed-up to discuss with "pov-pushers" who never even read a book about the topic and who comes and add material destroying good work. And I am not the only one concerned.
 * When wikipedia community will decide to support contributor vs pov-pusher, then signal it.
 * Alithien 18:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. I am very interested in medical and health-related topics, and I get really fed-up with POV-pushers who lack knowledge, perspective, or experience and come along and destroy good work or maintain misinformation. But that is the price of working on an encyclopedia which anyone can edit. In general, the community is pretty good about supporting contributors over POV-pushers (with a few exceptions), though resolving such issues often takes longer than I'd like. MastCell Talk 22:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It doesn't take longer than you would like.
 * It is simply not done.
 * Because when pov-pushers are clever enough not to insult, they are just not stopped.
 * On the topics related to the israeli-palestinian conflict this is clear and well known.
 * So, if the community doesn't want to act, at least, the minimum would be to write : YES, wikipedia is unable to deal with that, that is the reasons why Citizendium appeared.
 * No regards, Alithien 06:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it, it's WP:CREEPy, and reminds me of something out of Animal Farm. All editors are equal, but some editors are more equal that others. Not a path we want to start down. -- 146.115.58.152 18:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Honestly, we'll give arbcom the power to block editors who they believe are causing the problem, and thus we give them the power to decide who wins the dispute, since they can just block the opposition, yet we won't let them just resolve the dispute by executive order. Seems a bit ironic.-- Sef rin gle Talk 04:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. If they were to resolve the dispute by fiat, then no future editor could change the article.  But by getting rid of editors who fail "plays well with others", content-related discussion is merely postponed until another editor comes along to take up the "defeated" side of the dispute. --Carnildo 08:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's really quite simple. Minorities don't get special treatment. Majorities don't get special treatment. No one gets special treatment because we are NPOV and uncensored. Article content is determined through consensus and our policies and guidelines. Those who do not wish to play by those rules are removed from the articles in question by ArbCom. Those who wish to play by the rules but disagree with the current consensus can seek dispute resolution through RFC's and mediation or general feedback through our noticeboards. Wikipedia does not and should never hold any paticular view on a subject while banning those who disagree with that view. There are other Wikis for that kind of thing, like Conservapedia. MartinDK 10:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Frivolous Links to Date / Year
Forgive me if this proposal has come up before, but I could not find it in the archives. I find almost all Wiki pages to be filled with links to dates and years, which is absurd. Although the use of links is subjective, it is generally understood that links are made for nouns that are 1. relevant to the topic, or 2. are not considered to be well understood by all readers. For instance: Square = polygon with four sides of equal lengths and angles. A more subjective example is: Euclid was a greek. Who is to say which countries should be linked and which should not be? However, I take issue with links to dates which is totally irrelevant: The Simpsons Movie was released on Wednesday, 2007-07-25. The date has no relevance to The Simpsons. Granted a tiny minority might be interested in what happened on that date. He/she can merely do a simple search. For the rest of the readers, this is unnecessary clutter. If dates were so important, then how about linking everything else, all nouns, all numbers etc.: Jane wanted a proposal of marriage for each of her four daughters who lived under her roof and whom depended on her savings. Isn't this ridiculous? Therefore, I propose that all links to dates, except where relevant should be banned. Examples of relevant links are: 1666 was an ominous year. The Simpsons Movie was released in 2007 (note the link is to 2007 in film). ICEBreaker 16:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on the linking of years, but there actually is another reason to link month-day dates. Logged in users can adjust their preferences to change how dates are displayed, but it only works on dates that are wikilinked. The default is to display things month-day (August 6), but I have my prefs set to display dates day-month (6 August). I can see in the edit window that you wrote the date of the Simpsons Movie release as 2007-07-25, but it shows up on my screen as 25 July, 2007. Natalie 16:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See also Manual of Style (dates and numbers) — TKD::Talk 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Linking dates is important so that they display correctly for users who have their preferences set. E.g. I have mine set to show Month day, year. However others prefer day Month year, and others prefer all numerical. This is only important when day and month are together or day-month-year. Months (without day) shouldn't be linked, nor days of the week. There is a debate on whether years (on their own) should be linked. I don't see the point unless there's a good reason to; others like to link years. Some of the examples above seem silly, such as linking 4 (number). For more see MOS:DATE. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Years only occasionally need a link. If we ban anything, it should be proposals that demand that inconsequential things be banned (irony).  Adrian  M. H.  17:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should ban irony... Can we agree on a date? LessHeard vanU 20:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * YA Paperlilies AICMFP ? TSP 20:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Adrian, not only is your comment off-topic, but I do not find over-linking to be "inconsequential". Why not link all words then? Non-English speaking people would be pleased to have every word linked to a dictionary. The point is, linking to a year is completely meaningless and adds clutter to the page. ICEBreaker 12:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that linking a date helps format it properly according to user preference. I wonder why it is important to have a user preference over something like this, but if this feature already exist, then so be it. Thanks for your reply. I suppose the next thing would be just to stop people linking to years. ICEBreaker 12:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If people wouldn't use NN-NN-YYYY dates, the absurd wikilinking would be completely avoidable. Chalk it up to a poorly-thought out software quirk, and hope it will all be patched up by a bot in the future. &larr;BenB4 06:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But this has been discussed before. The only possible alternative to wikilinking is a date template that achieves the same effect without displaying a link, but as far as I know, there is currectly no such template. Providing the means to display British date layout as desired is important.  Adrian  M. H.  12:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not just British, by the way, it's most of Europe - I first got used to day month year when I started learning Spanish. But really, anyone will understand that August 7, 2007 and 7 August 2007 are the same thing. The big problem is determining the difference between 7-6-2007 and 6-7-2007. Natalie 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, it is virtually only the US, Philippines, and (perhaps) Canada which prefer month-day-year; just about all other English-speaking countries, and many other language users prefer to see their dates as day-month-year, except for east Asian languages which favour year-month-day. We had huge edit wars over this issue back in 2003 which were only stopped by the adoption of the current software fix and conventions on which national style of English were appropriate to particular articles. People get very attached to how they see their dates. -- Arwel (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the history Arwel_Parry. I see what you mean. Yes, I think it is important that we use neutral date formats, such as YYYY-MM-DD or Month DD, YYYY. DD/MM/YYYY would annoy North American users too much. I can see why people link dates now. It would avoid the format problems. I wish there was also a way that UK/US spellings can be interchanged as well. It'd really help. I've noticed that the younger generation tend to spell things in US format because of the web. Anyway this is a topic for another I guess. ICEBreaker 10:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This issue is discussed in full at Date debate. Synopsis: There is the 4582 request, which may or may not be implemented soon (anyone know?), to allow preference-formatting without the wikilinks. --Quiddity 20:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

None of this will effect the date ideologues who think every stand alone year and indeed every other date (regardless of a future lack of 'date preference' need) should be linked because every link to a date field provides 'context' to the article. These ideologues stand prepared to fight every and any change to this current regime by every sort of nasty method and language you can imagine and to keep all date links in place that were ever placed in every article and to add links where they do not already exist. Hmains 04:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Most full dates are simply not WP:Notable. Day-month combinations on the other hand, could all have an article: every day of the year is dedicated to a particular Christian saint; many are holidays in one or another country and then there should be a disambiguation page. But whatever happened on a particular date needs to be notable enough to have an article on the subject, before even considering to allow it a date-article, and even then the date-article might better include a term that relates to the actual topic that made the date notable (thus several distinct date-articles for the few dates that are important enough to deserve an article, not needing a disambiguation page). For those people who want to check whatever (even trivial) things happened on a particular date, one might have date articles in a specific, fixed, date-format; this should then not be the format that a link on a date in an article would automatically go to, nor should it be one of the formats that are normally written in articles (e.g. "Date 2007-08-14", and for the 'saints & holidays' "Day August 14") [thus one could still intentionally write a link to such 'trivial' date-article in the (rare) case this would be appropriate. A link set on a (rather unnotable) date (full or day-month in any so far recognized format), that has no date-article, should then remain red (and no longer confuse newer readers, while a blue link on a date would finally make experienced readers curious to follow the link, which they now never try. I just wrote more about this topic, in particular on how to differenciate formatting dates from linking (and colouring) dates, see Template talk:Cite web. — SomeHuman 14 Aug2007 22:25–23:59 (UTC)

Easter egg links
Links such as 2007 are not intuitive and should not appear in articles. It should always be obvious which article pressing the link will take you to. violet/riga (t) 07:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Music/MUSTARD point 2 prohibits them, for music articles at least. — The Storm Surfer 18:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Violetriga, may I ask why not?  Mel sa  ran  19:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is not the use of piped links, but maintaining proper context around the links. Consider a sentence discussing films released in 2005, 2006, and 2007.  In such a context the links make sense to a majority of readers.  For the segment of the readership that is unable to understand how context can change the meaning of linked words there is always the Simple English Wikipedia. --Allen3 talk 20:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is counter-intuitive to have links to articles when it is not obvious where you will be taken, and with year links in particular most people would skip them thinking it will just be to the general article rather than an "in film" article or suchlike. This is just the basic reasoning and it's been discussed quite a bit previously with the consensus being that we should avoid such "easter eggs".  violet/riga (t) 01:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, when/if the article is printed on paper, the link will be replaced with bold text. It might be worth debating this specific example, but on the whole, I definitely agree with violetriga that it should be clear where a link goes, whenever possible. – Luna Santin  (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not quite see why one should allow 2007 if the year is not particularly relevant to the article; thus also a link 2007 that simply looks like 2007 should indicate it to be an interesting idea to click on it (just like other links that show one text but link to a differently named article: a year does give some indication about what one may expect, and it should of course relate to the topic like the sample by Allen3), if one has the time and interest to learn more. If that is not likely going to be the case, the 2007 mustnot be linked. The problem arose only because of the linking of unnotable dates in order to get the proper date formatting according to user preferences, and then people started to link the stand-alone years out of habit, or for a consistent appearance of all dates, I guess. If the original problem of distinguishing links from formatting gets solved (see my comment in this section above this Easter egg subsection), lots of full dates will no longer show a link anymore and the straightforward 2007 -style links (which would remain links) could then be cleared (semi-automatically: very few will make sense, they almost never allow linking according to WP:LINK about links in general, and a stand-alone 4-digit year never needs any formatting). — SomeHuman 14 Aug2007 23:37 (UTC)

WP:COI redraft/refactor
There has been a lot of mention recently on WT:COI of the unwieldy, wordy, and poorly-structured nature of the current COI guideline. It has thus been suggested that some interested parties (not as in a conflict of interest, obviously) get together to find a better way of writing the same guideline in a more usable way. There is no intent here to change the meaning of the guideline, just to make it more usable.

Discussion of the redraft/refactor is invited at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/redraft, with the current intent to initially 'recruit' participants and discuss the aims of the redraft before putting together a precise plan of action. SamBC(talk) 20:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed proposel
this one needs views from a wider audience. Please feel free to go there and comment. Regards, Navou banter 19:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

SVG logos
This is something I've always wondered about. Why does Wikipedia allow copyrighted/trademarked logos to be uploaded in SVG format? Part of our policy on non-free content is, and I quote: ''Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace.'' However, can't SVG images be losslessly scaled to any resolution? That makes it seem like they would be a pirate's best friend. So are we violating our own policy by using SVG-format logos? Just wondering. --CrazyLegsKC 10:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been a bone of contention in the past. However, with logos, the primary concern is not copyright, it's trademark.  It's distinct from most copyrighted artwork, where a high resolution could be used to make and sell infringing prints, for example.  An SVG logo allows for accurate reproduction, but using an svg instead of a PNG isn't really allowing a pirate to do anything they couldn't do anyway, especially when companies put .eps logos on their press sites.  Companies want their logos to be reproduced accurately, they just don't want them to be used misleadingly.  Putting up an .svg IBM logo isn't going to abet bad behavior the same way a high resolution scan of a batcave pullout poster is (both actual images). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Should WP:COI guideline limit participation on talk pages?
At Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest, there is a proposal that would (1) strictly limit the ability of editors with a COI to participate on a talk-page, and (2) greatly expand the role of COI/N to include resolution of content disputes. Please comment. (For the record, I think it is a bad idea.) THF 22:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the proposal is one that is typically expected: That if a person who has a Conflict of Interest (say, someone who wrote an article they want included on page, such as Ted did above), that they bring up the proposed addition/edit on the Talk page (already a guideline), raise their COI (already a guideline), raise their reasons and merits for inclusion when they initiate their proposal (not yet a guideline, part of the suggestion), and then sit back and allow others to discuss and debate the merits of the proposal, being strongly encouraged to not debate their own COI proposal except to clarify misunderstandings or address questions directed at them.  This is pretty much already an expectation, and we are proposing it for a guideline, not a policy. So I changed Ted's mistaken title this article. Comments and consensus welcome.  --David Shankbone 22:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is this needed? There is an expectation that use of Talk pages will be constructive rather than argumentative. This applies to pretty much everyone, though. Charles Matthews 07:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Digital Command Control in breach of Wikipedia principles?
I am repeating this post here as suggested by a response to my post on Wikipedia:Wikiquette Alerts

Many of the links in the Digital Command Control page look on the face of it to be standard Wikipedia links but actually point to an external Wiki site www.dccwiki.com. Examples are the word Track in the intro and DCC decoder in the first section. This external site itself seems to be some unknown persons attempt to create there own DCC wiki. I'm not experienced enough with Wikipedia to quite know how it has been done, but it seems wrong to me and much of the material on this external site should be in Wikipedia itself. I would welcome opinions on whether this is a breach of Wikipedia principles and what should be done about it. --St1got 09:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, someone set up the dcc: prefix to go there, but it's not an official sister project. No harm done, so I wouldn't worry about it. &larr;BenB4 09:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to thank Geni for cleaning up the page and removing the external prefix links. St1got 08:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So now there's some unexplained and unlinked jargon: "booster" etc. Did this change improve the encyclopedia?  Would ordinary inline external links to the old targets be better?  &larr;BenB4 10:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Subcultures and Policies
Subcultures and countercultures are definitely important enough to be included in Wikipedia. However, it's virtually impossible to write about them without using original research, or unverifiable information. Subcultures are things that can be only understood through observation.

So, I suggest theses rules be relaxed, or modified when subcultures or countercultures are involved. Skrayl 01:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhhuh. And without reliable sources, how do we know the article isn't just a hoax?  Please read WP:FIVE.  WP:V is non-negotiable.  Corvus cornix 01:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If a counter-culture is so "under the radar" as not to attract media attention, then it probably won't meet WP:N. With the specialization of literature these days -- every subnookandcrannyminorityofpeoplewhohavethesmallestthingincommon has an outlet now -- it'd be hard to convince me that it's notable and undiscovered. Consequentially 05:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not for writing about topics, it is for editing previously written information into cohesive articles. We are "editors" not "writers". ~ JohnnyMrNinja  05:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia's model pretty much makes it impossible to relax rules on original research and verifiability, because any given editor could just be spewing complete nonsense. This means that some things will not be covered to the extent that we'd like, and we just have to deal with that, really. However, like others have said above, I doubt that a subculture that's attracted no media attention is notable anyway. -Amarkov moo! 05:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In practice, this happens all the time, and eventually gets tagged. Also in practice, for these difficult situations primary sources often do just fine. Not that I agree, but it's what actually happens. &larr;BenB4 09:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the statement "Subcultures are things that can be only understood through observation." But what is left out of that statement is the issue of who should be doing the observing.  We, the editors of wikipedia, should not be the ones making the observations (that would be original research)... that job should be done by somebody else...  a reliable source.  We should simply report and compile what that reliable source says. Blueboar 12:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:CK. Statements like, "German is the primary language in Germany," that nobody is skeptical of won't be challenged, and won't need a source &mdash; should have, often if not usually, but won't need. &larr;BenB4 08:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability
The single most poisonous rule on the entire site that allows for mob rule on what a plurality cares about. If someone cares enough to write about it, and it's verifiable, it should have a space. This is the bloody 21st century Library of Alexandria, we shouldn't turn anything away. This article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-notability/Essay says it all. Thanos6 01:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree we should relax on the Notability guideline. Abolishing it altogether is not a good idea, because we need the capacity to verify and cross-check, and we cannot do that with millions of articles on non-noteable subjects. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should. Any random person might care to write about themselves, and their existence, at least, is verifiable from the government. So we get millions of articles saying "Bob is a guy" (or even worse, they accumulate bad things, because we can't monitor that much). -Amarkov moo! 01:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been addressed in Uncle G's essay, User:Uncle G/On notability. At any rate, for the most part, meeting the concepts in Uncle G's essay guarantees someone or something an article or merger somewhere nowadays, unless it's a WP:BLP then who knows. I'm not really sure what this thread hopes to accomplish though... we've had many, many debates on this subject. --W.marsh 02:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'll keep debating it until it changes, the site dies, or I do. Thanos6 05:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then debate it, please. The alternative to notability is having a bunch of articles verified solely from random official records, which means the aforementioned millions of "Bob is a guy" articles. Why is this good? -Amarkov moo! 05:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's information. If it's true, if it exists, there is no such thing as bad information.  Our goal should be nothing less than the sum total of all human knowledge. Thanos6 06:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, but the collection of all human knowledge is not the job of an encyclopedia, it's the job of a database or databank of some sort. The American Heritage Dictionary starts its definition of encyclopedia with "A comprehensive reference work" - I'd suggest that you're focusing too much on the comprehensive part and are forgetting the reference part.  You can, of course, argue the degree of notability required for a certain type of article - I think certain restrictions in WP:BIO could be loosened, for instance - but you're never going to be able to convince people that the notability restrictions should be eliminated completely, because many of the resultant articles would be irrelevant to the purpose of an encyclopedia.  --Tim4christ17 talk 07:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how All Human Knowledge (AHK) would compromise this site's purpose as a reference work. You look up, say, a restaurant (whether world-famous or known just in its hometown) and from there go on to a list of similar restaurants or a list of restaurants in that town or neighborhood.  And each of those in turn branches off to dozens if not hundreds of other articles, much as paper encyclopedias will direct you to other related articles.  Will all the "Bob is a guy" articles be like this?  No, not at first, but like all articles on this site, they could and would be improved. Thanos6 07:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There would be millions of these "Bob is a guy" articles. There is no possible way you could possibly improve all of them. Those numbers would increase exponentially due to vandals creating articles for malicious purpoess. Wikipedia would become absolutely unmanageable. In any case, all of those articles would violate WP:NOT and simply be irrelevant to the casual viewer in every way possible. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 08:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not forgetting, of course, that Bob(bie) may be a gal... The lynchpin is not what you know should go in an encyclopedia but the potential need for it to be searched by someone who doesn't. Bobby/ie doesn't meet that need. LessHeard vanU 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For me, the line is drawn by the question: what is the likelihood that someone (unconnected to "Bob") will need to look up information about "Bob"? If we think that this is likely, then we should have an article on "Bob"... if we think it is not likely, then we should not have an article.  Blueboar 15:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Also keep in mind that to verify information about "Bob" or "Bobbie" you would have to use public records, data bases, etc. Doesn't that constitute "original research" from "primary sources"--something we are not supposed to do? So we would have to change the guidelines not only for notability, but also for verifiability. --Eriastrum 17:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it needs be changed, then let it change. Don't keep a useless rule around simply because it's been around.  *sighs* It bitterly amuses me that one of the principles of this place is alledgedly be bold but then everyone clings to the poisonous Notability rule like a piece of driftwood in the open sea as an excuse NOT to be bold and go beyond what any reference work or database in history has been. Thanos6 17:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is anyone stopping you from starting a "wiki of all existing knowledge"? No.  If the Wikipedia suddenly changed to allowing all possible bits of knowledge, would the Wikipedia collapse upon itself with a huge amount of unverifiable tripe?  Yes.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 20:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer to this is the long-standing policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Or, to put it another way, just because something happens to be true doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. We have standards, after all. My goldfish does not meet them.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that "notability" needs some serious work for Wikipedia. I'm a (weak) deletionist, but I'm happy to see a gajillion "Bob is a guy" articles if they're sourced, and accurate, and written well, and don't insult Bob, or inflate his importance.  But how for would you go with 'not notable, but has verifiable sources about it' - there's plenty of stuff about recent fads (name some children's cartoon / merchandising brand here) but not about fads of equal importance from the 80s.  And then do you include primary sources, where that source is fiction?  "Bob is a guy" is not good, but "Bob is a pokemon, he is green with three legs" is even worse, eh? 84.12.142.218 12:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist the Movie
When the movie had 300.000 views in its first two weeks it was deemed non-notable, because no RS seemed to take notice. It is now over 1.200.000 views, and I was wondering: is there a number of views which would make the movie notable without it being noted by a generally recognized external authority? I would like to suggest 10.000.000 views, which at the present rate of 50.000 per day will be reached in 200 days, ergo around February 2008. I can put it in my diary then. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * google video views
 * I'm afraid that if you do this, you're starting what will inevitably become a giant snowball, where there's now the argument "If videos on Google have a loophole to avoid RS and WP:N, why can't the song that my brother wrote or my girlfriend's cat have an article?" It may be a bit extreme, but there are people who will take advantage of whatever they can get. - Irishnightwish 12:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It still needs reliable sources. Just pointing to the Youtube page doesn't do it.  Corvus cornix 21:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that the counter of google is a reliable primary source for the number of views. Why not, then? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If the google video page is the only source, all we can say about it is "X is a video with Y views on google." That's not sufficient. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

School naming convention RFC
I have requested that the article on State University of New York at Stony Brook be moved to Stony Brook University. Would someone with knowledge in Naming conventions (schools) or Naming conventions in general participate in the discussion at Talk:State University of New York at Stony Brook. Thank you. --Voidvector 04:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists
FYI: This conversation has been moved to User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines due to its size. Please comment there. Thanks! 02:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Should WP lead or follow the culture?
If you like, please check out: Talk:African Wild Dog. These animals are highly endangered and some of the groups working to save them have suggested that their traditional common name, "African wild dog", has been a part of the problem because it sounds kind of negative and could cause confussion with feral domestic dogs. I proposed that the name of WP's article be changed to African Hunting Dog, since that seems to be the trend. However, most of the sites on the Internet still use African Wild Dog. An Internet search for them gives WP's article at the top of the list. I know that WP's general policy is to follow the most common useage in the culture, however I would like to ask if an exception could be made in this case. Thanks. Steve Dufour 14:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is a scientific organization that gives "official" names to African mammals similiar to what the American Ornithologists' Union does for North American birds, and they use African Hunting Dog, then that would be a valid name change. We after all changed Rock Dove to Rock Pigeon even though most common usage is just "pigeon". In absence of of some authoritative source however, we should follow and document the culture and not try to lead it. Dsmdgold 14:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is easy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Encyclopedias are tertiary sources.  Primary sources lead, then secondary sources document, then tertiary sources pick up on things.  When the new name starts to predominate in secondary sources it will be time for Wikipedia to follow.  The primary advocacy sources aren't relevant, except for the possibility of a redirect and mentioning an alternative name.  GRBerry 14:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Alternative names are already given and redirected. I added a mention of the name controversy to the article.  Oh well, it was worth a try. :-)  Steve Dufour 14:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Query about deleted article
Hi there, I recently attempted to post some information about the company Booking.com, an internet travel site. It was removed within minutes of me uploading it, and i was wondering why exactly? All of its competitors and similar companies, such as Expedia and Priceline, have pages with their information, and my piece of writing was in no way advertising or promoting any aspect of the company. Thanks, Samorro
 * Hi. This isn't really the best place to discuss this, so I'll come to your talk page. --Dweller 13:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Secure sign-in page should be linked from regular sign in page
I've just discovered that there's a secure sign-in page. That page should be linked to from the regular sign-in page, so that editors logging in from insecure connections don't transmit their user/pass in plain text over easily harvestable wifi. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Heavy-handed pompous editors are destroying Wikipedia
Case in point, these two comments inserted into the entry for the movie "The Good Shepherd".

"This article or section contains a plot summary that is overly long or excessively detailed compared to the rest of the article."

"This is a trivia section. The section could be improved by integrating relevant items into the main text and removing inappropriate items."

I wanted to read a detailed plot summary, the more detailed the better.

If the editor could write a better trivia section, then write it. What are the inappropriate items?

Because Wikipedia's articles are written by a myriad of people, there will be a myriad of styles reflected. Busting on people because they don't reflect a particular editor's personal preferences, is ridiculous.

And before I finish, let me say that actually gathering and typing in the data for an article, is what counts. That is the hard part. Unless an editor finds something factually incorrect, or completely inappropriate, they need to keep their cotten-pickin' hands off.

Which, as you know, seems to be impossible in this world. The urge to change another person's original work in the name of "quality" or "style" or "consistency" ... is simply irresistible.

Some years ago the US Postal Service decided to "right-size" and anyone who wasn't "touching the mail" got canned.

I would humbly suggest the same criteria be used at Wikipedia. If somebody isn't involved in originating articles, they ought to hit the road.

The founding philosophy of Wikipedia encompassed diversity, that seems to get lost quite a bit nowadays.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.98.237 (talk • contribs) 04:20:54 2007-08-13 (UTC)


 * Since the above material doesn't seem to have anything to do with the purpose of ANI, is it fair game for deletion? I have just learned that having too many windows open at once can make you type stupid things. Raymond Arritt 04:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ??? Does this page have anything to do with ANI?


 * As to the point, I disagree. The hard part is not collecting and typing in stuff.  It's referencing and verifying stuff and making a good article that is encyclopedic and conforms to the policies and goals of wikipedia.  And we're all editors, so who exactly is being criticized?  Some are sometimes too heavy-handed, I agree.  But they don't run things. Dicklyon 04:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Overly long plot summaries quickly become difficult to manage, unduely giving weight to certain aspects of a subject (in this case, the plot), boring to most readers, and poorly written. Trivia sections invite poorly written, unreferenced, and even completely false information. Anything verifiable in the trivia section should be somehow merged into the article proper.


 * I find your suggestion that certain kinds of people should be excluded from editting an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, especially since many of the people you are refering to are highly respected members of the Wikimedia community. By submitting somthing to Wikipedia, you agree that your contribution may be editted mercilessly. Atropos 07:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Over the last year or so, Wikipedia has moved from rapid growth of new articles and content to more quality content and verifiable material. Hence these boxes have been popping up; hence when adding material cite it to make sure it stays in. Recurring dreams 11:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually editing articles, changing text, adding information? Fine. That is the essence of Wikipedia. Saying something needs to be changed and then walk away for someone else to do it? No. An editor either gets their hands dirty, and contributes to the article, or they are just so much useless baggage.

So I am not suggesting excluding anyone from making bona fide edits or changes. But a call-out box that criticizes an article ... doesn't add anything to it. I can figure out pretty quickly if the information is plausible or not.

Ultimately, people that use the internet for research come to Wikipedia for the data. Not for the style, page layout, administrivia associated with Wikipedia, or for all of its highly respected minions. And they don't come for the philosophy, goals, voluminous guidance, or infighting. Either the data in Wikipedia is more convenient to use than other web sources, or people move on elsewhere.

I'm glad people like to check facts, but it is ultimately not going to make much difference. Since changing a page is so incredibly easy, Wikipedia is just not going to be a reliable reference source, period. The data is provided "as is". Let the reader beware. If anyone doesn't understand this, I'm sure Wikipedia's lawyers can provide further explanation of this key point.

As the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Quality sounds great, but starts a "death spiral" of ever more critical picky requirements, until nothing new is ever really "good enough".

Wikipedia achieved its enormous success by embracing diversity and encouraging contributors. There is no need to change a successful formula. So forget the article tagging for improvement, call-out boxes, and any other activity that doesn't "touch the data". Focus that energy on glomming onto as many articles and contributors as possible. The best data are often not neat and tidy.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.11 (talk • contribs) 13:19:01 2007-08-13 (UTC)

I think User:Swatjester's demenor and behavior on Articles for deletion/Eastgate Systems, especially his invitation to the lot of us to leave and go to Citizendium, are highly inappropriate and unbecoming of an admin and a Wikimedia legal intern. --Pleasantville 13:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * An admin's invitation that the lot of us leave and got to Citizendium

Website hosting WP fair-use images
I found a website that is hosting fair-use images from Wikipedia. I'm sure it does waste unnecessary server resources, and may be against policy. If it is not yet against some policy, then it definitely should be. The website is http://www.freewebs.com/u2city/, and I found it at User:CRBR, who claims that it the user's own website. – Dream out loud (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The software should be changed to prevent hotlinking. -Nard 00:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is the problem? That he is linking to his own hobby website?  People can link to all kinds of things from their user pages.  I don't see any harm, or why this is any different than linking to his school, hobby group, favorite team, personal home page, whatever.  If he were to put it in the main space it would invite all kinds of scrutiny regarding reliability, relevance, linkspam, etc.  But I don't see any harm here.  There's no prohibition against linking to fair use galleries.  If you were to determine that the gallery is not fair use and is in fact full of copyright infringement, then it's not an appropriate link even on the user page and can be deleted on site as a violation on WP:COPYRIGHT.  There is still no risk or harm to Wikipedia but we would not want to encourage that sort of thing.  Wikidemo 01:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the images on his hobby website are hosted on Wikipedia. In short, he's getting the benefit, and we're footing the bandwidth bill.  See hotlinking. --Carnildo 03:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me for being dense but I don't see the instances of hotlinking on his talk or user page. If he is using Wikipedia to serve copyrightedimages from third party sources via a hotlink I agree with you, and if it were necessary to think through the copyright implications I would probably take back my statement that it's okay per WP:NONFREE.  Am I missing something? Wikidemo 03:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at his website. The one linked to on his userpage.  Go to the "Discography" section.  Check the URLs of those images.  Those images are being hosted by Wikipedia. --Carnildo 04:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you bothered asking the user to upload the copies to his website, rather than pulling them off of the Wikimedia servers? (for those that see no links, view the U2 discography page) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 03:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that it is hosted by "freewebs" and I can't even find his site on Google, I don't think it is a big deal, but yes, asking him to host those files directly would be the right thing to do. Dragons flight 04:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as more of a technical than a policy issue; why are we letting people leech bandwidth? – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Free encyclopedia, i.e. we want people to use our content. As long as it isn't breaking the bank I think we are going to avoid taking strong generic measures against hotlinking.  However, I know we have blocked selected sites for abusing our generosity in the past (though typically for hotloading entire pages, rather than selected images).  Dragons flight 05:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also if someone is blatantly uploading non-ensuyclopedic images for the sole purpose of using the images on theyr own site we tend pounce on them. I've indefblocked a few repeat offenders of this in the past, but it's fortunately not that common. People who do that rarely even try to follow the image rules with the inevitable result that all theyr images keep getting deleted, making Wikipedia a very "unreliable" image host for them. --Sherool (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is adding summaries refactoring?
WP:REFACTOR states that summarizing is only alright if other editors don't object. However, the kind of summarizing mentioned here seems to be the kind that replaces the original text. What I did here (and in previous edits) was to create a summary at the top of the section, and then enclose the full text in /, since one of the editors tends to write at length.

So, is this the kind of refactoring that can be objected to? How about if I put it in the section, at top or bottom, without hiding the original text? (Assuming, of course, that I've accurately characterized the original text, which is always debatable -- snark can be found in the darnedest places...) Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 15:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I guess, but kind of unique. I doubt other editors will object, but if they do, you should probably convert the Hidden begin/end templates into a colored box, I guess. &larr;BenB4 16:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The editor who is trying to WP:OWN the article did indeed object, and forbade me from summarizing his comments (which I ignored, since he doesn't have that right). The admin editor who is trying to moderate between us figured it was a REFACTOR violation, and since I can see how he came to that conclusion, figured I'd bring it to a wider audience to help me evaluate which of us is right. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 16:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify, is not an admin nor has he claimed to be that I know of. Not to take anything away from the way he's handling things, I just don't want there to be any misunderstanding. 24.6.65.83 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks, 24. I had missed that somehow...--SarekOfVulcan 16:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He was explicit about it on his talk page. 24.6.65.83 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So, going back a bit, does anyone else agree/disagree that summarizing despite objection is not a violation of REFACTOR, even if the original text is set off is some way, such as the colored box that Ben suggests?--SarekOfVulcan 17:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest due to Wikia, Inc.
There is a discussion taking place at WP:COI/N (Conflict of Interest Noticeboard). One admin has consented to keeping it in the open there. Two non-admin users have attempted to hide it from general view. I assume that it is fair for me to revert the attempts to hide the material, at least until an administrator is the one who hides it. --Dude Manchap 16:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: All discussion has been moved here. Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I heard that the person who is in charge of the Wikimedia Foundation's finances is the very same person who is in charge of the for-profit Wikia, Inc.'s finances. Is that true? --Dude Manchap 03:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good question. Durova Charge! 20:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So what if it is? I certainly trust them to do a good job if they are, and I'm sure that the board (who is in charge of the person) knows about this considering the owners of Wikia are previous board members.  (...and the Board isn't stupid).  Cbrown1023    talk   23:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine if you personally trust them, Cbrown1023, but you may want to look at the IRS form 1023 (no joke -- it's the same form number as the number found in your User name -- coincidence or irony?), especially what's said about Line 5a: A "conflict of interest" arises when a person in a position of authority over an organization, such as a director, officer, or manager, may benefit personally from a decision he or she could make. Note also Appendix A, starting at Page 25, which outlines a sample Conflict of Interest policy that a non-profit organization might adopt.  Do you think that, as Appendix A suggests, either Jimmy Wales or Michael E. Davis have ever left the room during a Wikimedia Foundation board meeting, so that the other board members could discuss whether a conflict of interest was present for those two, who just happen to be former business partners and are currently vested in Wikia, which benefits from many, many favorable associations within Wikipedia?  Jimmy Wales tried to hire a Wikipedia Arbitration Committee member onto Wikia.  Wikia has many thousands of outbound links from Wikipedia, which point to pages monetized by Google AdSense ads.  I guess, Cbrown1023, the question is not whether the Board "knows about this", but rather, why are they allowing such a gross appearance of conflict of interest to continue unabated? --Dude Manchap 03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you feel that the Wikimedia Foundation is doing something wrong, by all means file a complaint with them. Otherwise, please take this discussion elsewhere.  This noticeboard isn't for solving legal problems.  - Jehochman  Talk 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not currently a legal problem. Nobody said it was.  It is a Conflict of Interest problem.  Another administrator has called it a "Good question", so why should it be swept under the rug and be "Resolved" by a non-administrator? --Dude Manchap 14:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Dude. A few clarifications: you posted to ask whether there's a conflict of interest but haven't supplied much information. Normally requests to this board cite specific activity and evidence. And normally there's an onsite edit history to reference. If this person actually has registered and edits in a way that reflects a conflict of interest, this noticeboard might be able to accomplish something. If the conflict of interest relationship doesn't extend to actual editing activity then I have no direct power and only a little influence. Yet as the founder of Category:Eguor admins I'm particularly open to this type of request. Sure, why not investigate a Wikipedia/Wikia COI? Burden of evidence rests squarely on your shoulders. Go for it if it's particularly important to you. Just expect to shoulder most of the work yourself. I'll check it out, see if there's anything I can do about it, and possibly ask for broader input. That's as fair as I can be. Durova Charge! 15:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a wiki, so the burden of evidence isn't just on me -- it's on the other users who will hopefully see this thread and have enough "wikisleuthing" in their blood to check it out some more. I appreciate your support of it staying in the open, rather than being hastily "resolved", which really would have reflected poorly on the Foundation.  For starters, people may wish to look at these discussions about the Wikia/Wikipedia conflict of interest:
 * Joe Szilagyi blog
 * Wikia article discussion in Wikipedia
 * TechCrunch article by Nik Cubrilovic, including many illuminating comments
 * Court case against Michael E. Davis, Treasurer of both Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia, Inc. This one is important, as it shows that Davis has not paid $817,830 that he was judged to owe the plaintiff. We are simultaneously being asked to "trust" that Davis will do a good job with the books at both Wikimedia and Wikia, Inc.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dude Manchap (talk • contribs).
 * Wikimedia Form 990 (Line 80) indicates there is a financial "relationship" with Wikia, Inc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dude Manchap (talk • contribs).
 * Angela Beesley moved rejected Wikipedia articles to co-opt them for Wikia's benefit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dude Manchap (talk • contribs).
 * Again, I look forward to whether anyone else will step up and investigate this further. --Dude Manchap 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (stepping over issues of whether this is the right page to talk about the subject)...indeed, board members and accountants both have fiduciary duties to act in the best interest of their organizations. By various laws and governance principles they have to recuse themselves or avoid involvement when there is a conflict.  Even a perceived conflict can be corrosive to governance and is sometimes prohibited because people lose faith.  Someone who is on the board of Wikimedia or does its finances and also has a financial stake in Wikia should be very careful about taking positions here on things that benefit Wikia by directing traffic there, banning things from Wikipedia so as to distinguish it from a commercial site, making Wikipedia less attractive to constituents than Wikia.  Actions that seem to raise a conflict include banning commercial links, advertisements, fair use media, conflict-of-interest editors, etc., from Wikipedia so that people go to Wikia for that.Wikidemo 16:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Looking over those five links, two of them are specifically legal issues outside my expertise. I have no qualification to evaluate them. Joe Szlilagyi's blog is hardly a reliable source and another on-wikipedia thread was started by someone who's expended his credibility also. The techcrunch.com article holds water, in my opinion. What exactly are you seeking? If the basic complaint regards financial relationships at that level, then the most I could do would be to ask the WMF board to review this matter, and possibly to ask someone to institute nofollow to outgoing links to Wikia. My sysop tools would be useless to address this. Or is more forthcoming? Durova Charge! 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a wiki -- there's no telling if there is "more forthcoming" or not. Another example might be the Essjay situation.  Essjay was nominated by Jimmy Wales to the Arbitration Committee -- the highest level of dispute resolution below the Board itself.  Only a month earlier (I may be wrong about the timeline), Wales had also hired Essjay to work for Wikia, Inc.  This took place this year, well after the issue of "Conflict of Interest" has been made so noticeable on Wikipedia, thanks in part (ironically) to Wales' discussions of editing by conflicted parties.  Was it appropriate for Wales to nominate one of his Wikia employees to a position on the Arbitration Committee?  I believe that question was obscured by the whole firestorm over Essjay's fabricated credentials.  Yes, I think the Board of Directors should look at this entire matter; but do you realize that it should be while Wales and Davis and Beesley (and any other Wikia parties I may have missed) are not present in the room?   The other factor that I think is important here is that this discussion remain open for some time.  Already two non-admin users have attempted to hide it from plain view, with the reason being it belongs somewhere else.  This seems very weak, being that this is a Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, and this is a conflict of interest issue. --Dude Manchap 17:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) To clarify for newcomers to this thread, we've agreed to refer discussion here from the other locations because this looks like the kind of issue best addressed by community input and (possibly) petition to the WMF board. Durova Charge! 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I only have a few comments on all of this... first, I agree that the issue should not have been posted on the COI noticeboard... that is for EDITING with a COI, not conflicts of interests that have nothing to do with articles or editing them. Second, I am not sure what all this hooplah is about, and frankly I don't care.  If there is an impropper COI at the exectutive level, I am sure that Jimbo's attorneys will notify Jimbo of it and suggest a change.  It does not affect our project of building an encyclopedia, so why should we care?  Blueboar 19:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish even ten percent of the people who offer opinions about how WP:COIN ought to run actually pitched in to help run it. Durova Charge! 20:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A conflict of interest on the board of a nonprofit does potentially affect the nonprofit's projects. Jimbo's pronouncements have a quasi-policy effect here, and the board does vote on resolutions that affect what the encyclopedia looks like, how content is licensed and distributed, and how we go about our business generally.  If a board member were to say "We do not X on Wikipedia, that is for other Wikis" (implying, Wikis where I might make some money from it) I can understand why people would be concerned.  Without saying there is or is not a problem, it's certainly the prerogative of the stakeholders to discuss management issues, and a worthy subject of discussion.   Wikidemo 21:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But, again, what's the resolution? Wikipedia policy is that Jimmy Wales gets to override all the other policies at his whim, so there's always the hypothetical possibility of Wales running Wikipedia for his self-interest, and that's unavoidable unless you want to mirror the site and start over somewhere else and hope people follow you to the new site.  In the absence of an actual policy proposal by Wikia that presents an actual conflict of interest adversely affecting the encyclopedia, this is all hypothetical.  One could argue that the WP:BLP policy, which deletes not just libelous material, but all controversial material even if true, presents a conflict of interest, because it values Wikipedia assets threatened by lawsuit over the judgment of individual editors about how best to produce an encyclopedia by creating ironclad rules.  That's not an argument against BLP, by the way, just against the extreme concerns about conflicts of interest presented here. THF 21:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fiduciary duties are a serious matter. Overriding the will of individual editors for the benefit of the project as a whole is one thing; not saying this is happening but overriding the editors as a group in favor of a board member's private interest is quite another.  One step people could take, and the Board should certainly take, is to subject Jimbo's proclamations to more scrutiny and not adopt them all as a matter of course.  If that means changing policy, policy can be changed.  We have that power.  We don't need to wait for a new, or actual, or proven, conflict to arise before considering the matter.  As a technical matter, Wikimedia is not a membership organization so the actual relation between editors, bureaucrats, administrators, the Foundation, and the public is rather complex.  Practically, I doubt anyone is going to do anything unless there's a melt-down of some sort.  But nothing wrong with discussing.  For an interesting parallel (but a very different organization and context) it's interesting to look at the relationship between Craigslist (a for-profit that runs the website) and the Craigslist Foundation (a nonprofit that gives away all the profits).  They had to separate over conflict of interest issues, but Craig is still on the Board of both. Wikidemo 23:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The community has overruled Jimbo on occasion and if a sufficient number of community members raised this issue with the board it would probably have an effect. Durova Charge! 23:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I am sort of confused. Yes, Wikia and Wikipedia share a number of people. Yes, there are some aspects of cozy relationship. That is public information.

If the accusation is that there's a potential COI, then yes, but everyone's aware of it, from the Board to individual admins and editors who bother to pay attention. It's possible we'd all miss some sort of actual conflict or improper behavior, but I haven't seen any.

If you're suggesting such is going on, then please provide us some more specific proof.

If you're worried about it, ask board members if they can let you know what they're doing to review potential conflicts of interest. Georgewilliamherbert 19:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Georgewilliamherbert, did you see when Jimmy Wales used Wikipedia as a talent pool to hire an admin named Essjay onto the Wikia, Inc. staff? Then about a month later Wales appointed the same Essjay to the Arbitration Committee on Wikipedia.  If the Board was aware of COI, shouldn't Wales be working on reducing the number of Wikia staff members who infiltrate the highest positions of authority on Wikipedia, rather than increasing the count by one more person?  Also, did you notice when Jimmy Wales overruled community consensus and decided that "nofollow" tags should be added to all outgoing links -- but that many of the inter-wiki links to Wikia, Inc. sites were not subject to this decree?  Those are actual conflicts or improper behavior.  Aren't they? --Dude Manchap 00:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of listed affiliation is not evidence that the person is not affiliated?
By this argument, anyone's biography on Wikipedia could claim that they were British Lords, or heirs to the French crown, or recipients of the Nobel Prize, in spite of a lack of evidence to confirm any such wild claim.

Clearly, this is not helpful. I believe that noting that the individual at question is not listed on an official document is not OR, and it is not POV. It is just a plain bland fact. For example, "person X is not listed as an heir to the French Crown on a list published by Y. Person Z does not appear on the list of Nobel Laureates on the official list published at W, although person Z claims to have a Nobel Prize." These statements do not make the leap of inference to say that person Z or person X lied or their information was misrepresented intentionally by someone. That is left to the reader. The inconsistency is noted, and that is all. No speculation as to the reason for this are presented, since that might be OR. For example, stating in an article that the reason for this inconsistency is some given reason, such as: and so on, is probably verging into OR and might violate the rules of WP:BLP. Do I understand this correctly?--Filll 14:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * lying
 * delusion
 * typographic error
 * mistake
 * confusion
 * cheating


 * Comment: That's why we have verification and reliable sourcing guidelines. Sidatio 15:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Saying "person X is not listed as an heir to the French Crown on a list published by Y" is WP:OR unless that observation has already been published. Dicklyon 15:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is somewhat besides the point, but I think that that's stretching the point of OR a bit far... SamBC(talk) 16:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Suppose that a RS and V source Y states that "person X is on list Z" but when list Z is examined, person X does not appear on the list. Your contention is that stating that "person X does not appear on list Z" is OR? --Filll 15:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is. Sadly, perhaps, but that's what the WP:OR and WP:RS rules imply.  You might try in this case to make a case on the talk page that that source is not in fact reliable, based on the evidence. Dicklyon 15:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, no. Where are you getting the list from, anyway? E.G. for Nobel winners, isn't the Nobel website (assuming there is one) a reliable source for a list of winners? This sort of lists are published things, and their publishers are sources. Reading such a publication and verifying that it states what is claimed is not significantly research, and the official desseminator of a list is ipso facto the most reliable source possible for its content.


 * When we are talking about institutional affiliation (which seems to be the issue at hand) such lists generally are often not easily citable per se, and we are forced to rely on secondary sources. Since those sources are generally the originators of the claims of phony affiliation, however, they are generally citable. I would also note in the case in question that the affiliation issue is being used to cast doubt on whether the person in question was a signatory to a specific document. That document is available on-line from what can be considered to be an official enough source; therefore it can be cited directly as the authority as to whether he is a signatory. Mangoe 16:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The dispute here, is not about whether the person signed the list, or appears on the petition. The dispute is about whether his incorrect or out of date affiliation on the list is something that can be stated in Wikipedia or not, without some third source stating it.--Filll 16:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That may not be the focus of the dispute, but nonetheless the controversy is being used as the occaision for deleting the statement that he is a signatory. Mangoe 18:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a correct statement, I believe.--Filll 18:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this now mute moot, because I have found a source. Thanks. I just wanted to understand this better.--Filll 15:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Moot-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs)

Absolutely correct. moot not mute!--Filll 15:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It might no longer be moot. We will see.--Filll 18:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Moot or not... I want to suggest a different way of dealing with this. If Source A says Person X is on List Y... but after checking the list you discover that Person X is not on List Y, then you have a legitimate reason to question the reliability of Source A.  I would delete the entire statement as demonstratably inaccurate.
 * If someone insists on including it, then rephrase the statement as an opinion... "According to Source A, Person X is listed on List Y (cite to Source A). However, Source A is inaccurate on this point and Person X is not actually listed on List Y (cite to List Y)" Blueboar 16:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleting the reference entirely is not appropriate here since it is an integral part of notability. The second statement is exactly what I did, and I was accused of OR.--Filll 16:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like OR to note that two sources disagree. Where is this happening? SamBC(talk) 16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ongoing at Bernard d'Abrera. The situation is that Bernard d'Abrera's name appears on a petition, "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism". His affiliation is to an institution which ceased to be known by this name over 15 years ago, in 1992. The petition was only begun in 2001, so even if d'Abrera was an early signatory of the petition (which is verifiably incorrect), this affiliation would have been incorrect by at least 9 years. The institution is currently known officially as the Natural History Museum, and d'Abrera currently does not appear on their list of staff. I have written to the Natural History Museum some weeks ago, and they were able to find no record of d'Abrera at all and sent me to the Museum Archives Department, and I have had no response from them for weeks. I have written to the Natural History Museum again to try to clear this up subsequently. Today I went through Internet Archives and found d'Abrera's name listed on the official Museum website in 2001, 2002, 2003 but d'Abrera's appears to have been dropped in early 2004, and did not appear on the official Museum website staff directory in 2004, 2005 or currently. d'Abrera appears to have signed the petition by 2006, but was not present on the original 2001 version of the petition. Out of date affiliations and wrong affiliations are very common on this petition, and we have WP:RS and WP:V sources that state this.--Filll 16:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... after reading both articles, I am confused... what list are you saying Bernard d'Abrera was not on? It seems his name was on the Scientific Dissent petition (allbeit with arguably inflated credentials), and he was listed on the Natural History Museum website from 2001-2003.  So what list was he not on?  Blueboar 18:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I claim d'Abrera is on the Dissent list. I claim d'Abrera's affiliation on the Dissent list is incorrect, and refers to an organization that changed names at least 9 years before the Dissent list was created. I claim that d'Abrera was listed on the Natural History Museum website in 2001, 2002 and 2003. I claim that d'Abrera is not listed on the Natural History Museum website staff list in 2004, 2005, 2006 and is not currently listed on the Natural History Museum staff list. I claim that a WP:V and WP:RS source states that this kind of misleading affiliation is common on the Dissent list. Others want to remove reference to d'Abrera appearing on the list, d'Abrera having an incorrect affiliation, d'Abrera not currently appearing on the Natural History Museum staff list and the citation to the source stating that this kind of misleading affiliation is common on the Dissent list. Is that clearer?--Filll 18:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to say that it sounds like you're engaging in quite a bit of original research. -Chunky Rice 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In what way am I engaging in original research? Perhaps our definitions of original research are different. I believe that looking up a source, and reporting what the source says, is not original research. Is stating that someone appears on a published list or not original research? I do not believe it is, and if it is, then a large fraction of Wikipedia would have to be removed.--Filll 19:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a subtle Synthesis linking all of these disperate facts to make a clearly implied conclusion (that both the Descent list and d'Abrera lied about his credentials). Which would be a OR violation. Blueboar 19:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "In what way am I engaging in original research?" You are synthesizing your findings into something that no source has yet published (as far as we know), and which if it was published you'd love to cite.  So get it published some place reliable, and then it will be fair game for inclusion in wikipedia after that. Dicklyon 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all clear that d'Abrera lied about his credentials. We do not know that he was the person who listed his credentials in that way. We just know that those credentials are inaccurate, or at least that three sources state two different things.--Filll 19:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will also point out that much of this really does not belong in his biography article. This seems more of a comment on the people who compiled the Dissent list than on d'Abrera himself.  Blueboar 19:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

d'Abrera's appearance on this petition is actually a major part of his notability. And it is not just a list, but a petition which people willingly sign, as opposed to other creationist lists. d'Abrera has made vigorous efforts to promote creationism and attack evolution. Other than that, he is just a butterfly photographer without a science degree or a graduate degree, and is not particularly notable or noteworthy, as near as I can tell.--Filll 19:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the d'Abrera article should mention the fact that he signed the petition... that does seem relevant. But disagree about everything else... I would go NO further than a simple statement that he signed the petition.  All the stuff about his credentials and how they appear on the list simply does not belong the bio article on him.  It might be relevant in the article on the petition itself (in fact, I believe it is mentioned there) but is either irrelevant to his article or a WP:SYNT vio. Blueboar 20:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree vehemently. That is like saying an article about George W. Bush should not mention that he is President of the United States, or an article about Bill Gates should not mention that he is Chairman of Microsoft. You can try to maintain that, but I think you will have trouble getting many to agree with you.--Filll 20:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is turning into a lot of discussion to be sitting here, but I think putting together all this stuff is pushing into OR a bit. I'm not saying exactly how far you can go. I think it's reasonable to mention that the name of the institution as given is anchronistic, and maybe note that his affiliation with the institution (as listed) begins in whenever (provided you can cite it). Synthesizing it into a false claim on his part is defintely going too far, though. Mangoe 21:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree completely, which is why I never claimed that d'Abrera had lied about his affiliation or whatever. And I do not claim this now. We do not know the reason for the confusion in affiliation (error, typo, confusion, mistake, economical with the facts, etc). All we know is that it exists. Period.--Filll 21:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And, thus, there is no need to discuss it in the bio article on d'Abrera. Since we don't know if d'Abrera had anything to do with how his credentials were listed in the Petition, we should not mention it. Doing so implies a connection that can not be sustained. Note again that I am AGREEING that you should mention that he signed the Petition (which is like saying Bush is President)... I am simply saying that you should stop there.  Discussing how the Petition lists his credentials is irrelevant in the article on him, since it may not have been his error. The error is relevant in the article on the Petition.  Not every fact belongs in every article relating to it. But we should take this to the article talk page... You asked for our opinions, we gave them, and if you need to discuss further we should do so elsewhere. Blueboar 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete for a duplicate stub type
What would people think for a "speedy delete" criteria for a stub type that is a complete or implied overlap of an existing stub type (type=template+category). A recent example is US-bio-stub and American-biography-stub, or AFL-bio-1980s-stub and Afl-bio-1980s-stub. Proposing deletion the old-fashioned way is tedious, but this kind of thing happens often. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  06:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My feeling is these are probably worth listing, lest there be an argument that they should be kept as an upmerged template, or as a redirect (from a alternative spelling or usage, typically). I've no objections to having them 'speedied by acclaim'.  Alai 06:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy by acclaim sounds fine to me. This would at least halve the current one-week period for such cases. Valentinian T / C 09:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents pages, and lists of lists
We cannot agree on which namespace some of these pages belong in: Contents pages (header bar):


 * 1) What namespace do items 2–6 belong in, mainspace or projectspace? (see example log for many disputed moves) Part of the problem seems to be the overlap of Avoid self-references and Lists.
 * 2) If they are in mainspace, should they have the fancy but unnecessary colouring and icons? Can and are they aiming for Featured List status?
 * 3) We desperately need more participation. I'm still shocked that Contents made it into the sidebar so easily. We need more editors to go through all the subpages, to add missing items and remove unwarranted items. There aren't nearly enough people watchlisting the central talkpage to have a discussion there. (Please do, it's a very low update page. Actually all 8 are).

That's the very condensed version, with many tangential issues. Previous discussions abound, most recently here, here, here, and here.

Please advise. --Quiddity 17:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They are in the main namespace, as evidenced by the lack of "wikipedia:" or "template:" or something else at the start of their name. If you wish to discuss their layout, either edit them yourself or use the talk page. Wrt featured lists, refer to the WP:FLC page  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonono. They have been moved back and forth between mainspace and projectspace a number of times. That is the problem. Many (most?) editors believe pages like Lists of basic topics belong in projectspace. They cannot pass Featured list criteria (WP:WIAFL), as by design they have no references or lead section. They look and act like portals, but don't belong in that namespace either. As the admin Prodego said (referring to List of overviews): "Obviously this is a list of Wikipedia overviews, not all overviews, so I think it probably belongs in the Wikipedia namespace." User Rbellin said: "... I don't think a move to the Wikipedia namespace is a bad idea for most of the list-of-topics/contents lists ..." User Moe Epsilon said: "Lists of topics is maintained like a WikiProject, not an article that provides disambiguation, and thus should have been moved to the Wikipedia namespace." The Transhumanist is the main (only?) proponent of moving them to/keeping them in mainspace (see User talk:The Transhumanist and User talk:Quiddity for his reasons, which I find partly compelling, and mostly confusing). (With the exception of List of academic disciplines, which we all seem to agree belongs in mainspace) If this were simple, I wouldn't have brought it here! And as I explained, only a handful of people watchlist Contents (the low participation is a major problem in itself), so it isn't productive to discuss it there. --Quiddity 17:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability isn't working
I guess I'm a bit of deletionist myself, but I've had not much luck getting articles deleted for failure to cite evidence of notability (see, for example, Paul Ashley Chase and Maria Hart, clear non-notable COI family member articles, Bed Head, and square root of 5, which may have picked up a usable citation in the process, but look at the comments). It seems that if enough people assert that it's important or interesting, the just about any article can survive, without citing a single independent reliable source on the subject (sometimes with no references at all, in fact); sadly, the keep votes in an AfD do seem to get counted, even when they make no attempt to address how the article relates to notability guidelines. I think that if this is the way it goes, we might as well flush the policy and take all comers. Dicklyon 00:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And now I'm being told by User:Newyorkbrad that my placing of notability|Numbers tags on certain unreferenced articles such as 193 (number) is "disruptive". What's up with that? Dicklyon 01:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Paul Chase was a major executive at Warner Brothers, Maria Hart was an actress who had starring roles in several movies, Bed Head is a product line with worldwide distribution, and the square root of five is the basis for the geometrical construction of a golden rectangle (among other things). I don't see how these are non-notable, the failure to delete those articles looks like a success to me. Bryan Derksen 15:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The only possible source on Chase is the obituary, which I have not seen. The book on the early history of Warner ignores him.  Maria Hart had no starring roles, just minor roles and a couple of minor mentions in the LA Times.  Bed Head is not the subject of any secondary sources, much less any significant coverage.  You make a good example of my point; people say "I don't see how" without reading the guidelines and looking for the evidence. Dicklyon 18:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Whenever you find yourself getting upset at AfD debates, take a wander through Special:Newpages and I guarantee it will change your attitude. &larr;BenB4 15:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but some of the reason people become upset at AfD debates (particularly, but not limited to, lists) is that the articles under attack are not at all new articles, but instead articles that have been around for years, with hundreds of edits, representing the contributions of dozens or more editors - and the delete brigades stormtroop their way through them, often misusing policies to further their goals. So it's not as simple as  Special:Newpages.  Perhaps there should be something incorporated into the decision-making process at Afd that takes longevity and level of contribution into account when closing these debates. Substituting the closer's opinion for the opinions of multiple editors - as I see on Afd all the time when they misuse concepts like "indiscriminate" - is bad for the encyclopedia as it results in less information being presented to the world, not more. Tvoz | talk 16:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. But the ones I'm talking about in AfD are all new articles. Dicklyon 19:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand the complaint. Articles get deleted all the time on the basis of notability. The ones you're upset about seem to be, at worst, marginal. -Chunky Rice 16:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The complaint is about the policies and guidelines being thrown out in favor of opinions and hearsay. The policy calls for evidence, but these "marginal" articles survive with none. Dicklyon 19:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Maria Hart now has evidence: two articles from the LA Times about her; the second one points to a rather interesting life, actually. I suspect if you looked for evidence for one of the founding executives of one of the largest and most influential movie studios of all time, you'd find it too. Don't work so hard at deleting articles, work hard at sourcing them. Deleting articles is a last resort, it's not our goal. Our goal is to write articles. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I did look; that's why I went and found and bought the cited book on Warner; it has nothing on Chase. As to the two LA Times articles on Maria Hart, I didn't get past the headlines because I didn't subscribe; do you have a copy I could see?  Because then we could actually cite it to support some of the points in the article, and maybe even make a better estimate of whether two mentions in the LA Times constitutes significant coverage in multiple independent sources.  But also do keep in the mind that the other reason I picked on these two and a few of their relatives in particular is that they were all written with blatant COI by a family member working from unpublished OR. This is NOT what we want to be doing here. Dicklyon


 * By the way, AnonEMouse, if you check the record I think you'll agree that I DO work hard at sourcing articles. I would never propose one for deletion without first looking for refs.  I have about a ton of books that I've bought in the process. Dicklyon 06:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * but COI is not and should not be a reason for deletion--it is a reason to inspect the article carefully, and see if the notability claimed is actually justified, human nature being what it is. And at least half the time the person or whatever is clearly not notable by any reasonable definition, and the article should be deleted--by speedy if nothing rational is claimed, by Prod or Afd otherwise. And generally articles with COI where the subject is in fact notable need to be much re-written. But many of our good article started that way. If the subject seems clearly notable from the their position or verifiable accomplishments, then the thingto do is to edit, down to a stub if necessary.   DGG (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And that's why I didn't ever assert COI as the reason for deletion; just an additional point making it clear that the article was not written from verifiable sources. I tried hard to get the guy to provide sources before I proposed deletion, but with no sources I can't even reduce the Chase article to a sensible stub (if I had the obit I could, maybe). Dicklyon 04:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Perhaps there should be something incorporated into the decision-making process at Afd that takes longevity and level of contribution into account when closing these debates." Agreed. Articles that have been around for years and have had hundreds of edits and yet still fail to assert notability should be deleted far more frequently than articles that have had 1-5 editors and have been around for days. It is irresponsible to the topic to not assert notability beyond any doubt, so as to protect the article from deletion. And please remember, popularity, recognition, or financial wealth are not notability. Notability is the fact that a professional publication thought the subject would be interesting enough for it's readers to warrant writing about. If a recognizable subject has failed to be noted it is likely not notable. For all his impact, Paul Ashley Chase might as well have been a root vegetable (a fabulously wealthy root vegetable, mind you). ~ JohnnyMrNinja  04:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree, except there's no evidence that he was wealthy; that's just a guess based on the position he allegedly had, right? As to earning the right, I agree.  I spend at least half my edits reverting, warning, and cleaning up after newbies.  If they had to earn the right to post external links, or to create new articles, or to remove more than a few lines, there would be less mess to clean up.  Dicklyon 04:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My personal pet peeve was Meow Wars. No secondary sources, no hope of any, but it was basically kept on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IREMEMBERITMYSELF. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Phone book reliability
I live in Logan County, Ohio, a rural area of farms and little villages. I'd like to add small sections about the government of the villages in my county to the village articles, but villages around here don't generally have websites or other print sources for their government. My local phone book has a section wherein the members of the respective village councils and other governmental people are listed. Is a phone book a reliable source in this way, since I'm not using it as a list of people, but as a governmental directory? Nyttend 12:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be a primary source, which are generally avoided, but you may get some guidance as to whether this is an acceptable exception. SamBC(talk) 12:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not meaning a section discussing the government of these villages in depth, just something saying "As of ___, the mayor was ___ and the village council was composed of ___, ___, ___, ___, and ___." Nyttend 13:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That shouldn't be a problem, but you could just as well cite something like an official announcement, just to have a more reputable source. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would a phone book be a primary source for listing government personnel? It's not published by the government, it's published by the phone company, and so would be a secondary source for government information.  Postdlf 19:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the breakdown, No_original_research. I'd say it's primary.  Which doesn't mean that it can't be used, just that it's not ideal.-Chunky Rice 23:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a secondary source — the local governments don't publish lists of their leaders in the phone book. However, the question is whether it would be reliable.  Per Night Gyr's remark: the reason I have to use the phone book is that places around here are so small that if they produce official announcements, I have no way to access it.  Nyttend 01:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A more interesting question to me is what use there is for Wikipedia to publish the names of local officials who aren't documented outside of the phone book. I'm all for expanding information on state and local government, but at some point you have to wonder if every local office holder is worth mentioning, particularly if the only information you can document is their name.  In such cases, why not just describe the form of the village government, such as how many councilmembers, how they are elected, etc.?  Their names seem completely useless to me unless you can say something else about them.  Postdlf 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wanted to add this because I believe that they're relevant to the place articles. The government of a municipality is significant for a municipality article, and I think that the inclusion of notes on local politicians (assuming that the notes are sourced) is significant enough.  I'm not trying to write articles about them, but strictly to mention their positions.  Nyttend 05:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No original research: favoring secondary sources over primary and tertiary sources?
I just wanted to draw the attention of the broader Wikipedia community to a policy discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research, having to do with the use of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. The dispute concerns an edit made in the summer of 2006 which says in bold: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources", and indicates that primary sources should be rarely used. This is a policy statement, not a guideline, and the issue reflects countless Wikipedia articles that use citations to primary sources such as journal articles, poetry, novels, song lyrics, and historical documents. I personally do not think that this accurately reflects the consensus of the Wikipedia community, since primary sources are in wide use. Moreover, for some articles, such as current events articles, the primary sources are all we have to go on, because there hasn't been time for synthesis and commentary by third parties. Citations to tertiary sources, as well, such as treatises and textbooks, should be welcome in Wikipedia. The concerns about improperly synthesizing source material apply to apply to any kind of source, not just primary sources, and the policy should reflect that. CO GDEN  21:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think one of the issues is that if we include information from primary sources that's not covered in any secondary source, we don't have fact checking, we don't have analysis, and we don't have a filter of notability. BTW, journal articles are not really primary sources, because while they're reports of research, they are writing about something else.  For an article on a piece of literature, for example, that literature would be a primary source and a journal article analyzing it would be secondary, and a much better source than the work itself, as it provides analysis. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And we definitely don't report news from primary sources. Only what's in newspapers and magazines and radio reports, which are secondary.  If you see a swindle going down, call the cops or the newspaper, don't put it in wikipedia. Dicklyon 22:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy does not mean we CAN'T cite to primary sources... sometimes it is appropiate to quote them. For example, in an article on the First Amendment to the US Constitution, it makes sense to quote (and thus cite) what the Constitution actually says.  As long as we stop there, that is fine.  What we should not do is use the primary source to back conclusionary statements or analysis of the topic.  For that we need to use reliable secondary sources. Blueboar 22:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Dicklyon has a rather minimal view of what constitutes a primary source. I'm going from how it's explained in the primary source article, and based on that definition, journal articles are indeed primary sources. Basically, a primary source is something said or written by someone who is in "a position to know", based on their research or observation.
 * News articles, too, can be primary source material, and they quite frequently are. Whenever a reporter quotes somebody, the citation is a primary source. For example, if an article says, "In a 1974 news report, L. Ron Hubbard said that aliens were in control of Richard Nixon's mind{footnote}", the citation is used to show what Hubbard told the news reporter (not the truth of what he said), and therefore it is a primary source citation. The reporter is the authoritative source who was in a position to know what Hubbard said, and the citation goes to the fact of what was said in the interview. This would not become a secondary source unless the reporter made some commentary about what Hubbard said, and that was cited in the article. CO GDEN  20:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's splitting hairs. It's just a matter of phrasing, rephrasing shouldn't make the difference between what is a primary or secondary source. Unless the article is about Hubbard's relationship to the reporter, the reporter is secondary. The information we're getting across is, presumably, "L. Ron Hubbard believed X." The news reporter is not the primary source, only Hubbard is, the way the sentence is phrased doesn't change a secondary source into a primary one, unless whether or not Hubbard actually said that is in dispute. The news reporter is acting as any secondary source, deciding whether Hubbard's belief of X is important enough to report. Presumably Hubbard also told the reporter, "Hello", and "Are you Jane Smith from the Tribune?", and "It's getting late, and I have another interview tomorrow, can we wrap this up?", and other things the reporter did not choose to put in the article. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about phrasing, it's about how the citation is used. I'm assuming here that the L. Ron Hubbard article is about Hubbard's views. If, on the other hand, this is an article about Richard Nixon, then it's going to be a secondary source, because Hubbard is not presumably in a position to know the facts.
 * The whole primary/secondary source distinction is a historiographic idea, and I can tell you that historians refer to newspaper reports as primary sources when the article is reporting an interview, or quoting somebody. When it's an editorial or news analysis, then it's a secondary source. CO GDEN  21:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think "should" is the right way to say it. When we can, we should, but when we can't, primary and tertiary sources are acceptable when they meet the WP:RS criteria. &larr;BenB4 22:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The other point to note is the word "rely"; primary sources can thus be used to add to an article, but nothing in them (except, say, quotes, that can by their nature never come from a non-primary source) should be relied upon. We shouldn't analyse them ourselves, but simply reporting the content of them (if not a copyvio) can be okay. SamBC(talk) 22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly "relying" on secondary sources is a good policy, but not to the exclusion of primary sources. We should "rely" on them, too, when appropriate. The policy implies that primary sources are always inferior to secondary sources and should be used only as a last resort.


 * In actual Wikipedia practice, articles rely heavily on primary sources, often accompanied by secondary sources to do the work of explanation and analysis. It often makes no sense to cite a secondary source about a primary source document, without quoting or citing the original text that they are talking about.


 * For example, suppose I have a primary source citation that says:
 * "In 1792, James Madison wrote a letter to Benjamin Franklin stating, 'obviously, the Second Amendment as we wrote it does not give an individual the right to own guns' {see Madison Letter, p. 3 (published in 2005 by the NRA)}"
 * Normally, if a Wikipedian found secondary source material concerning this quotation in James Madison's letter, she would cite the letter first, then follow it up with the secondary commentary about the letter. For example, she might write the following:
 * "In 1792, James Madison wrote a letter to Benjamin Franklin stating, 'obviously, the Second Amendment as we wrote it does not give an individual the right to own guns' {see Madison Letter, p. 3 (published in 2005 by the NRA)}. Some scholars believe that this letter shows that Madison did not intend the Second Amendment to give an individual the right to own guns.{see secondary sources} Other scholars believe that Madison was referring to 'guns' in the sense of strong bicep muscles.{see other secondary sources}"
 * Now, suppose an editor read the NOR policy and understood that primary sources were discouraged, and should not be "relied" on. She might, therefore, edit the article to say:
 * "Some scholars believe that James Madison wrote a letter in 1792 showing that Madison did not intend the Second Amendment to give an individual the right to own guns.{see secondary sources} Other scholars believe that Madison's letter was referring to 'guns' in the sense of strong bicep muscles.{see other secondary sources}
 * Which is better? Obviously the one with both primary and secondary sources. I think any good Wikipedia article uses both primary and secondary sources (as well as tertiary sources, when one is lucky enough to have them). And in my years of experience at Wikipedia, I think this is the general consensus. Different types of sources are "relied on" for different things, and one is not inherently more important than another. CO GDEN  20:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that the discussion has been carried here, rather than referred there. To paraphrase my comments, classifying sources as primary, secondary or tertiary is subjective at best, and the terms are used differently in different contexts, for example by journalists, scientists and historians, so this only further complicates the issue. Sources may also fit into multiple categories, and the classification also depends on the use. For example, when a secondary source is biased, it may be prudent to quote it as a primary source, rather than cite it as a secondary source supporting a statement of fact. So a simplistic prescriptive ban would be unworkable, even if it were reasonable, which it is not. Stupid rules don't stop stupid people.
 * The real issue is misuse of sources to make a point, and secondary sources are even easier to misuse in this regard, because they are more biased than primary sources. It is OK to present primary source data and let the reader do their own synthesis, and often this is the best way to deal with controversial POV subjects. The problem is when the editor does the analysis, and that is what needs to be corrected on a case by case basis. Dhaluza 00:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Is bolding necessary for the article title?
I asked this on Wikipedia talk:Lead section but received no answer. On an article like Interstate 15 in Arizona, bolding the title but not linking within it results in ridiculous sentences like "Interstate 15 in Arizona is the portion of Interstate 15 in the U.S. state of Arizona." Is the proper solution to bold nothing? --NE2 00:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MoS the article subject should be bolded in the first instance of use, and not contain wikilinks. You could try using alternative text to the wikilink required, so your example would be typed; " Interstate 15 in Arizona is the portion of the highway in the U.S. state of Arizona, United States." This allows the link to Interstate 15 with a more natural style of writing. LessHeard vanU 10:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC) ps. You were, of course, intending to note the nation alongside the state!? ;~)
 * I have seen some articles, where such usage is cumbersome, "creatively" using the bolding, and have not seen objections. For example, you could start the article something like Interstate 15 is a major Interstate Highway in Arizona.  Of I-15's XXXX total mileage, XXXX miles are in Arizona.  Not sure if that usage is completely frowned upon, and not sure I did it perfect, but that might give you some more ideas on how to stay within the bounds.  Remember, ignore all rules, especially where said rules make for a worse article.  Bending of the rules where said rules actually produce a worse article is encouraged, as long as just IAR cases are easily justified... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that it says If the topic of an article has no name, and the title is simply descriptive...the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface. I think this is probably the case with Interstate 15 in Arizona.  — The Storm Surfer 05:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actually a convention of the Wikimedia software. If you link to the article you're in, the text is bolded, but not linked. See: Village pump (policy). --John Nagle 05:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Directories?
It was recently pointed out to me that WP nav pages (header bar) is rather lengthy. It has a directory, and a quick directory, and a maintenance directory, and a shortcut directory, all of which essentially cover the same material in a slightly different order or layout. Do people actually use all of these? Perhaps we could make WP more friendly to novice users by combining these into one unified/simplified directory?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is some overlap. It depends how much material is actually duplicated and where it is best placed for logical reasons. I think the shortcuts should remain separate, for example, given the quantity involved. The first two directories could perhaps be merged.  Adrian  M. H.  17:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Department directory was originally User:Go for it!'s draft for the Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1a, so there is significant overlap/redundancy with the Community Portal too.
 * The Quick directory and Requests were fairly low-usage link collections, until User:The Transhumanist collected them into that navbar.
 * I strongly urge some sort of merging/consolidation/simplification. --Quiddity 23:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of content by discourteous editors
There seems to be no firm rules against people discourteously deleting content.

This is what often leads to Edit Wars which then lead to disputes which need to be resolved by higher authority.

There are some guidelines about how to courteously delete content. For some reason it is not listed in Etiquette, but instead it is listed in Avoiding_common_mistakes

At the very least, this information about 'courtesy and deleting' should be moved to the official Etiquette page. But I think there should be firm rules about it, like there are on 3RR. It would help prevent 3RR and other similar situations.

Before deleting content that others have written, it should be compulsory for people to state a clear reason in the edit window. Why are there no rules about this? It should also be compulsory for people to initiate a discussion when deleting content.

I can see there is lots of discourteous deletions going on in political pages. Usually by editors who want to maintain a political slant on the existing article. Sometimes, there are armies of editors waiting to delete properly referenced content the second it is added. Those deleting often leave no reasonable explanation in the edit window, and don't want to consult or engage in dialog.

What it achieves, is that the process of adding content to pages or making changes is slowed down to a crawl. When the deleting editor does not respond to negotiation or mediation, it leaves formal arbitration as the only answer. But for every sentence?

I think some firm rules would help the situation. Firm rules about leaving a proper description in the edit window. Firm rules about initiating a discussion when deleting. It should be official etiquette to obey common courtesy when deleting. What do you think? Lester2 04:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When it comes to disruptive editing, you can always alert administrators at the incidents noticeboard. Edit warriors and disruptive editors develop a editing pattern that are quite easy to spot and in these cases, are acted upon quite rapidly. In other cases when it is just a basic content dispute, you can pursue the dispute resolution process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree. There's a balancing act here: if you put too much process on deleting content, less bad content will get deleted. Sometimes an addition is bad faith or the explanation can fit in the edit summary. Typically unexplained deletions are simply reverted, if anyone cares - so it works out. Dcoetzee 07:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think the guidelines for deleting, listed in the "Avoiding common mistakes" section should also be listed in the Etiquette section? Wouldn't it be good to have it listed as good etiquette? Lester2 23:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User insists that logo is in public domain
I changed Image:SNES logo.svg from a public domain license to a non-free logo license. As soon as I did so, the user reverted the edit and put it back in public domain, and insisted that it is in public domain. I don't want to start and edit war here, so wanted to resolve the dispute otherwise. He left a message on my talk page, saying that it is in public domain because one other editor said so at. It cannot be in public domain because of the folllowing: – Dream out loud (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The logo is trademarked and typically has a TM symbol next to it (example)
 * Public domain means that no one has rights to the image, therefore the image page's statement "All trademark rights are held by Nintendo of America Inc." should be redundant
 * The image is SVG and even if it was a free image, the image tag used is not applicable because it explicitly states "This does not apply to vector format images of fonts, such as SVG."
 * That tag needs to be changed badly. Vector coded fonts are copyrighted because the programming behind them is. A newly created vector image of the font is not copyrighted, because it has different coding. The font itself is not copyrighted, only the computer code for it is. And yes, I insist that image is PD, per the ruling of the closing administrator. See clean room design. -Nard 00:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing to note is that a newly-created vector image of a font should not be uploaded to commons (I don't believe), since font designs themselves are copyrighted in many countries (France among them). I have not seen whether there has actually been a court ruling on whether "font software" (the code behind vector coded fonts) actually has copyright protection in America, but Adobe and many other font creators certainly believe it does, and Wikipedia is not the best forum for testing this limit of American copyright law.  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The current interpretation seems to be that it does have protection. See, which mentions especially Adobe vs. Southern Software Inc. Also and  on that case. nadav (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected -- I hadn't followed the industry since the mid-90s and missed this important case. Thanks! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Dream out. You have made the same mistake about the meaning of "public domain" that I once did. "Public domain" refers only to copyright status, which is very different from concerns about trademark. The logo cannot be copyrighted in the US because it consists of a name, a short phrase, and "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring" . The fact that the logo is trademarked is incontrovertible, but for Wikipedia purposes this is irrelevant. Trademarks appear all the time in the text, and there is no way (or legal reson) to avoid using trademarks in an encyclopedia. See General disclaimer. nadav (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a generic example of a logo, which we assume to be copyrighted unless proven otherwise. I would have been conservative, given it the logo copyright tag, and written a use rationale exactly the same as Image:Super Famicom logo.svg.  Even if copyrighted, the way it's used in the article is completely appropriate.  But as per the above and the deletion discussion there's a convincing case that it's not copyrighted, so that's fine too.  I just don't see the fuss either way.  Reproducing something by computer program, hand, photo/scanner, or any other method does not change its copyright status; you end up with a copy that has the same copyright as the original.  SVG creation is not a clean room procedure.  Wikidemo 01:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What reason is there to assume a logo is copyrighted when it consists of typographical ornamentation, which is ineligible for copyright, applied to a copyright-ineligible short name or title? It seems to me that non-free logo is unsuitable for situations like this, and that trademark together with PD-ineligible would be more accurate. (Per Image:Coca-Cola logo.svg, although in that case any copyright that might be claimed has expired regardless of eligibility.) I see no reason to unnecessarily encumber any media with a non-free tag. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Typefaces (fonts) are definitely not eligible for copyright in the U.S., but are considered copyrightable in the EU (and just about everywhere else). It is very rare for a party to claim copyright on a logo. Some logos (e.g.) are almost certainly ineligible for copyright, since they contain nothing but a couple of words in a typeface. De minimis non curat lex. Others are almost certainly eligible for copyright, like any other detailed image (e.g.) As Wikidemo says, it's better to err on the side of caution, but let's not get carried away: these sorts of images are never going to be eligible for copyright. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that typefaces cannot be copyrighted, so how should those logos be tagged? Many of them have PD-font, but should they have trademark too?  What about logos that are more than just a font, but cannot be copyrighted?  How can we draw the line between copyright eligibility and ineligibility?  I think there should be an image tag just for logos that cannot be copyrighted and are therefore in public domain. – Dream out loud  (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User who Outed Himself and is Well Known Wants Nobody to Now Say Who He Is, aka User:THF and Michael Moore
User:THF has become an issue, specifically, that he is a well-known individual off of Wikipedia. Under his previous user name (one need only go the very first cache of his current User page), which was his real name, he introduced himself on his User page using his real name and also that of his employer. He also wrote an attack piece on Michael Moore here, using his real name, which he wanted inserted into 25 articles on Wikipedia. For these actions I and another editor raised WP:COIN issues against THF, both of which failed. During those COINs, THF chucked his Real Name User Name for the one he currently has, which are his real initials, THF. Now he wants the bell unrung, and despite all this prior history of introducing himself, his employer, his real name User name, and trying to put work he authored and was published by his employer, he wants nobody on Wikipedia to make any mention of his formerly-used Real Name User Name or his real name. This has caused a massive amount of bad feelings and disruption. First, Michael Moore's website, upon learning who THF was, and how often he edits all of Moore's articles on Wikipedia, made a note of it on his website. There was not attack, and I have a screen shot saved. It was factual: this is who THF is, and this is what he is doing. However, there was a perceived invitation to harass THF by including links to edit his User page (it's possible they thought this was where we leave messages to each other) and also an invitation to edit the Sicko page (nothing wrong with that). However, THF, under the banner of WP:HARASS, led a fight to have MichaelMoore.com removed from Wikipedia. Why? Because Moore revealed who THF is, and Moore was inviting harassment with the link to edit his User page. This caused a massive argument on AN/I, which continues in various forms to this day. Edit wars over removing Moore's website from his encyclopedia articles ensued. Consensus is divided whether this falls under WP:NPA or not. At the least, we asked Moore to remove the links to the edit pages, which he did. Now what is argued is that the very mention of THF's real-life identity, which remains on that page, qualifies MichaelMoore.com as an attack site under WP:NPA, even though there is no "attack" as that word is defined, but a factual statement. The fall-back argument is now that THF has elected to unring the bell he run of disclosing his identity, Moore's site is in violation of WP:HARASS. So, many people want removed from Wikipedia a link to one of the most influential Americans out there because THF wants the bell of his identity unrung, and we are going to "punish" Moore for disclosing who THF is. One would thing that if mattered that much at this point, THF would switch to another User name. Instead, for the wishes of THF and his second thoughts, we are going to start de-linking pertinent websites and remove information from the encyclopedia we are building. My RfC: I would like to have an RfC to find out how feasible it is for a notable person on the outside who did all of the above (introduce himself, edit under his real name, reveal his employer, then switch to a User name with his real initials, and effort to have work he wrote under his real name inserted into multiple articles) to not have that persons name ever used on Wikipedia, to the length of removing content because an outside relevant website points out a statement of fact: This is who this person is, and they edit my Wikipedia pages. Comment on unring the bell and its feasibility? -- David  Shankbone  18:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The ridiculous BADSITES pseudo-policy strikes again and again and again... who will rid this site of this troublesome policy? *Dan T.* 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop your ridiculous BADSITES jihad. This has nothing to do with that. A self-identified user with an ideological axe to grind is editing Michael Moore-related articles. Moore is justifiably teed off. There is no "badsites" policy so stop flogging that strawman.--Mantanmoreland 18:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Mantamoreland, if you wish to falsely accuse me of COI violations, please raise the issue at WP:COI/N. THF 18:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I said you had an ideological axe to grind. You clearly do. That is separate and apart from whether that gave rise to a COI violation. If you don't understand why Moore would be teed off by your editing articles on Sicko, than I would suggest that you're being a bit disingenuous.--Mantanmoreland 19:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And he's already opened a counter-thread at WP:ANI. Whee. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also alerted Jimbo to this issue. I think THF's thread at ANI shows the problem:  he essentially wants a gag order on all his prior edits because they reveal who he is.  We simply can't discuss his edits, and the work he did on Wikipedia, because of a choice he once made.  This is a serious discussion.  I find what THF wants to be impossible.  This goes beyond the SlimVirgin issue.  -- David  Shankbone  18:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained why I'm not changing my username a second time. WP:HARASS explicitly permits a user to change their username without having their real name discussed, even if the personal information is available in a cache. My complaint is that David Shankbone is making false COI accusations against me on yet a seventh different page after being rejected in the first six forums he shopped at, and this is a real WP:STALK problem that I would like an administrator to deal with. If he wishes to discuss changing the WP:HARASS rule without personalizing it with false characterizations of my behavior, he is welcome to do so. Again, I note that I was threatened with an indefinite block when I inadvertently revealed User:Jance's real name in the identical situation where she changed her username, and multiple editors have been doing it deliberately multiple times without so much as a warning. I'd merely like some even enforcement of the rules. THF 18:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think someone is breaking the rules, report them or warn them yourself. Administrators don't have an all-seeing eye. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 18:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * DavidShankBone, how many more venues are you going to bring this up on? This is getting a bit silly. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)I agree the raising of this issue on multiple forums is becoming disruptive. At a minimum I urge the involved parties to argue at one forum. If David Shankbone wants to discuss the policies in general or changes to the policy, that might be more appropriate at Wikipedia talk:Harassment, with a note here linking to it. The title of this thread has nothing to do with policy. My two cents. Flyguy649 talk contribs 19:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The policy issue is that WP:HARASS does not apply here. THF is a public person, involved in issues and in writing Wall Street Journal Op-Eds and pieces that attack Michael Moore.  THF is a public person, not a private person.  He has no reason to expect WP:HARASS applies to him, especially when he brings his public battles with other public people to Wikipedia, as he has done with Michael Moore.  After all, THF wrote this attack piece on Moore and argued to have it inserted into 25 articles on Wikipedia.  I can't believe we are defending the right of a public person trying to conceal his identity when he brings his public spats with other public people onto Wikipedia.  Frankly, it looks like we are taking sides.  And that's not WP:NPOV and WP:HARASS does not apply.  -- David  Shankbone  19:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

'''WP:HARASS clearly applies to the actions of DavidShankBone, and heres why. I've only ever known user THF under that name, i did not know he had changed his user name until editors started to publish it and other personal details in violation of WP:HARASS that simple.''' ( Hypnosadist )  19:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Has it occurred to anyone that branding Michael Moore's official website an "attack site" and purging its links from the English Wikipedia will only draw additional attention to the matter (and to THF's identity) and possibly spark a new controversy? It isn't as though it will actually prevent anyone from finding Moore's website, so what's the point? —David Levy 19:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think someone should poke Noronton about this, but he appears to be acting alone. Are there any new issues here? Why must we relive this again every day? THF is not currently trying to "punish" michaelmoore.com&mdash;I don't see what this could possibly accomplish. Cool Hand Luke 19:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we add up the number of misrepresentations in Shankbone's claims?


 * I have never asked for Moore to be delinked permanently. I have asked for policy on websites that try to intimidate Wikipedia authors to be applied evenly, whatever that policy is, and protested when an editor who was applying that policy in good faith was blocked (and agreed that he should be reblocked when he continued acting disruptively after he was unblocked).  If policy doesn't require delinking, then policy doesn't require delinking, and I don't seek a change in policy--though I strongly suspect that the policy is not being enforced consistently, and that the results would be different if it had been David Horowitz trying to intimidate a left-wing editor.
 * The Moore page was clearly intended as harassment and intimidation, and I'll be happy to forward the numerous obscene emails and phone calls and death threats I received as a result to anyone who contests this.
 * The offwiki harassment by Moore in an effort to intimidate me from making legitimate edits on Wikipedia is entirely separate from the on-wiki violations of WP:HARASS by Cyde and others. WP:HARASS explicitly says it "applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives."  So the fact that I once disclosed my name on Wikipedia is irrelevant to whether people can use it on-wiki today.  Numerous users are violating this rule and one admin announced that the rule didn't apply to him.  Given that I was once threatened with an indef block for inadvertently violating this rule in the identical situation of User:Jance (who also publicized her real identity off-wiki and on- before a username change), why aren't these users getting so much as polite reminders from other admins?
 * David complains that two weeks ago, I used a talk page to suggest the addition of a cite to an article I wrote. That's exactly what Wikipedia guidelines on WP:COI say I should do, which is why his complaints about this have been rejected in six different forums in the last two weeks, and he has now raised them on at least three other forums today, complete with a series of false characterizations and allegations.  When an RFC agreed that the cite should not be added, I dropped the subject.  On other pages, other editors have chosen to add links to items I have written; on Robert Bork, I deleted a link someone added to a blog post I wrote, because the paragraph violated WP:WEIGHT.
 * I have never "written about Michael Moore for the Wall Street Journal." I write for the WSJ about legal issues.  I wrote an article about movie statistics for The American that mentioned Moore in passing.  I may or may not write about Moore in the future (I'm almost forced to now just to show that I will not be intimidated), but that is irrelevant: we don't forbid experts from writing in Wikipedia, so long as their edits are not controversially self-promotional, just as we don't forbid photographers from adding their own photographs to Wikipedia articles.
 * I have not violated the COI guideline. I even self-reported myself at WP:COI/N to ask for guidance.  My edits to Sicko have all complied with Wikipedia policies, which require edits to have a neutral point of view, not editors.
 * I have never asked for a gag order on my edits. If you have a problem with my specific edits, show diffs and discuss.  I have always been reasonable in that regard.  I have asked that WP:NPA be adhered to: comment on edits, not editors.  My resume is irrelevant to whether my edits comply with Wikipedia policy.
 * Changing my username is only going to make the harassment worse for reasons I have repeatedly discussed, including in private email with Shankbone. I'm keeping my username for good reasons, not to be disruptive.  I simply politely ask that people refer to me on Wikipedia as THF, not by my real name.  I have legitimate reasons for doing this, including several instances of off-wiki harassment by on-wiki users (including one instance of a threat that a participant in this thread is intimately familiar with), and is it really so hard for people to respect that?  If some people remember who I am, or learn about it off-wiki, so it goes.  It can be an open secret, I'm not asking for memory wipes or oversight of thousands of pages.  I'm just asking that WP:HARASS be respected and enforced on a going-forward basis on-wiki.
 * Am I notable? I'll leave that for other people to decide.  There used to be a page about me on Wikipedia for a year or so, an anon vandalized it to delete all the useful information and insert many BLP violations, and it got CSD'd as an attack page months before I was an active Wikipedia editor.  I haven't asked for it to be created, and I don't particularly care if it is or isn't.  In a week, I'll be named the director of an organization that already has a wiki page about it that I have steadfastly avoided editing, and I'll have a lot less time to spend on Wikipedia.
 * I have real writing to do. I resent being forced to defend myself in forum after forum after forum on the same stale false charges.  WP:STALK applies, and I wish it would be enforced against David's disruption. THF 20:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * THF, I am totally new to this issue but I agree that you have serious writing to do. You have contributed extensively to Wikipedia, and whether or not some of your contributions are problematic you have done a heck of a lot of good, positive editing.  Michael Moore is an excellent article as Wikipedia goes - biased or not (something we all can and should filter for) it presents a lot of good, sourced information, references, and links.  So wherever you stand politically it is a good starting point to learn more about the individual and his work.  Slanting the prose one way or another does not really influence the state of the world or the usefulness of the article.  Not that it will do any good but it seems to me that everyone involved ought to take a deep breath and consider whether this (meaning the Wikipedia bickering, not the underlying issues) is worth the bother.  There are bigger fish to fry.  As a public figure you can't expect privacy.  Editing articles despite an obvious COI is allowable, as long as your edits are neutral and in good faith, and I commend you on being forthcoming form the beginning.  But it is hard to discuss the matter seriously without mentioning who you are.  However, I will honor your request that we spare you some of the very real stalker/harassment trouble that comes from being prominent on the Internet.  As for notability, I just wrote a Wikipedia article about you, trying to be as neutral as possible, so we'll see.  In my opinion you clearly satisfy the Wikipedia biographical criteria for notability.  Nevertheless, it was hard to find good sources...many thousands of articles by THF but I couldn't find reliable sources about THF.  If you or someone else could add those references or leave a note on the talk page that would be super.  Thanks, Wikidemo 20:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is this: THF edited under his user name and outed himself over a year of editing. Two weeks ago he decided he wanted to be anonymous.  He has written attack pieces about Michael Moore.  THF is a public person whose career revolves around public policy and public people.  He edits every Michael Moore article, and has attacked Moore outside of Wikipedia.  Moore identified that this public critic of his also edits his Wikipedia page.  Cue the mob: remove Michael Moore's website from Wikipedia for "outing" THF.  My RfC is over two things: 1.  to what length should a public person involved in public disputes, who then edits articles related to those public disputes, be afforded anonymity when requesting it, especially since they edit for a year under the name with their employer proclaimed on their User page; and 2. Is Moore identifying a public critic of his on his website as a Wikipedia editor an "attack" or "harassment" in any spirit of policy and guideline?  -- David  Shankbone  21:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "2. Is Moore identifying a public critic of his on his website as a Wikipedia editor an "attack" or "harassment" in any spirit of policy and guideline?" Yes WP:NPA and linking repeatedly violates WP:Harass. ( Hypnosadist )  21:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Enough. Moore's behavior does not make his site an attack site for these purposes. THF does have a possible conflict but as far as I can tell all his edits have been NPOV or close to NPOV. He should of course be careful to continue abiding by NPOV and pay particular attention to the WP:COI guideline. JoshuaZ 21:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The applicable policy and section here is WP:NPA, which has been modified in recent days. - Crockspot 21:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Greating?
so is any of you gonna cum great me? i've bin on here for a few weeks and made lots of editz. Haute Fuzze 05:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Automatic signing
I dare say there's an amazingly obvious and good reason, but why isn't there automatic signing of comments on talk pages and reference desks etc? DuncanHill 01:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all edits to those pages involve the addition of comments; some involve header/sidebar/footer templates or page formatting; others merely move a discussion from one place to another. There are other examples. Unfortunately (or fortunately?), MediaWiki can't yet read editors' minds. :) — TKD::Talk 01:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's pretty obvious :) DuncanHill 01:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hagermanbot used to take care of this on certain pages when people forgot. Hagerman left the project in april and the bot stopped running about a month later. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that a replacement, SineBot, is under discussion. — TKD::Talk 02:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to redirect all Conspiracy theory titles
Conspiracy theory titles is a proposal to redirect all articles containing the phrase "Conspiracy Theory" in their titles. The basic premis is that the phrase is, by its nature, POV and non-neutral. This has been proposed before... (see Conspiracy theory) by the same editor and was rejected. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory titles. Blueboar 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Online libel on imdb
I didn't know where else to post this, but I thought this should get some attention: a film director is suing imdb.com (and its parent company, amazon.com) in New York state court because her imdb listing incorrectly credited her with directing pornographic films.  My understanding of how imdb works is that all of the information is user submitted, but it differs from Wikipedia in that it is reviewed by paid employees before it is publicly posted. Still, it should be interesting to see the plaintiff's arguments and how this is resolved. I have yet to find a copy of the complaint online. Postdlf 15:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Doesn't quite meet WP:N yet, or it could be an article. Here are a few links I found searching.


 * Her lawyer's letter to IMDB in 2006
 * "Bio", more of a resume/CV
 * We have an article on her deceased husband, David Blue, including a link to a bio page she wrote on him. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was actually more interested in any legal implications for Wikipedia than in writing an article about the plaintiff or the case. Postdlf 15:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally these things get taken care of by a legal letter to OTRS, which gets the article blanked and rewritten with strict adherence to verifiable facts, without taking it to court. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance vs. SYNT?
I've noticed in the past year or so a sudden spike in the use of NOR/SYNT in wikilawyering. The claims about SYNT which I did not agree with generally had to do with some tangent in the article that one editor didn't feel was relevant, or to remove cruft, so they'd use a strained intepretation of SYNT to argue against it.

To me, SYNT means you infer/deduce new facts and put them in the article. Not because you might lead the reader to infer new facts, not because you put a couple of sentences close together in a novel way, it's when you write down the new inference.

Is it possible that the proposed relevance guideline could cut down on this overuse of SYNT? Squidfryerchef 14:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd have to see an example of this misuse to know if a "Relevance" guideline would help the situation. Could you provide one?--Father Goose 19:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with the Squid Chef that the SYNT is an overly abused argument, ad naseum. However, I don't see any remedy offered within the scope of Relevance as one has to do with the quality of references/NPOV and the other has to do with staying on topic.  --Kevin Murray 19:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, if constraints need to be put on SYNT, isn't the natural place for doing that at SYNT? —WikiLen 21:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see far more violations of WP:SYN than I see misuse of WP:SYN arguments. The ratio is ginormous.  Could we see some examples of abuse of the argument for appropriately cited material?  The tag is only used on a couple of dozen pages. THF 21:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing proposal, seeking more participants
Hi. Please take a look at Relevance of content and offer what comments you can.--Father Goose 08:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I like what I see so far. Nothing to add at this point but I'll wait for others to chime in. Timneu22 11:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. There's a bit of an edit war going on over it, so it may take a while before the discussion becomes intelligible again.--Father Goose 07:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a proposal for a new policy/guideline inspired by problems at Trivia. It was originally proposed as "Relevance" and reverted there by myself and others as "not needed". This version is a complete re-write, much better, and deserving of a re-look in my opinion as a new proposal. However, the more fundamental issue of whether or not a policy is needed has not been resolved. —WikiLen 16:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is a Relevance policy needed?

 * Or is this just rule creep?

Consensus has proved very difficult to reach on "not needed" and is sorely needed. In general, the argument against any such policy is that relevance is determined both through the give-and-take between editors and through the constraints applied by all the other rules. As a consequence, when one tries to write a Relevance guideline it either: states the obvious, states what is already a rule somewhere else, states what belongs as a rule somewhere else, or is so vague a Mack truck could drive through. Although I prefer "not needed", I would much prefer putting the "not needed" issue to rest either way. —WikiLen 16:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that many hours of hard work have brought about the best that can be achieved; however, it is still not sufficient to remove subjectivity from the decision of what should be included in articles. (a) I don't think that it is practical to try to legislate a sufficient definition of what is relevant, and (b) I don't think that what has been achieved outweighs the negative aspects of further rule creep?.  --Kevin Murray 17:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If yes, is "Relevance of content" the one?

 * Or is there some minimalist approach that would work? (Only approach not considered yet.)

All editors working on this are focused on what to have at Relevance. The current and historical work: - (WikiLen)
 * 1) Relevance of content — This proposal.
 * 2) Relevance emerges — Somewhat of a compromise between positions of "Relevance of content" and "no policy needed." I originated this one and got persuaded it belongs as an essay, which is what it is now and what I expect it to remain as. Furthermore some ideas in it migrated to this new proposal, "Relevance of content."
 * 3) Relevance - This is not a policy or essay. It exists as a place holder and is called the "umbrella" version and has obvious errors. If the consensus is "no policy needed" then this version would presumably get revised to reflect that consensus.

Currently, a bizarre compromise is in effect: links to "Relevance" go to Relevance and shortcuts to "Relevance", such as WP:RELEVANCE redirect to Relevance of content. There must be a way to untangle this zoo of issues... editors please help, especially those with policy experience! —WikiLen 16:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed redirect at WP:RELEVANCE to point tot he page which has been established for almost 2 years at WP:Relevance. Will add link at latter to the proposed Relevance of content. --Kevin Murray 19:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough. However, the redirect WP:REL was created at the same time as the proposal (as was WP:RELEVANCE), and what few links to WP:REL there are specifically mention the proposal, so I'm going to retain WP:REL as the shortcut to the proposal (but not WP:RELEVANCE).  I'll add a disambiguation header to the proposal to mention Relevance and change the link you added to Relevance to a standard disambiguation format as well.--Father Goose 00:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

IP editors should be blocked…
I would like to propose a new guideline: IP editors should be blocked for 2 weeks each time 10 different users suggest that they create an account, a user may suggest account creation any number of times as long as they suggest once per "10 suggest cycle." An IP editor must have 1 month to try out Wikipedia before being blocked for this reason, after the IP editor's block has expired the editor must have an additional 2 weeks to continue to try out Wikipedia before they can be blocked again for this reason. When an IP editor has not made any contributions for 1 month and then makes another contribution an editor with blocking powers cannot block the editor again for this reason for 1 month then 2 weeks each "10 suggest cycle" again. What do you think? Tcrow777 talk  06:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No. It's a foundation issue. We can't change it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This would be a guideline, the IP editors would still be able to try out Wikipedia before registering. Tcrow777  talk  06:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, there's no "try-out". "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is a founding principle. Your idea seeks to change that. That's not happening, plain and simple. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think of "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" differently, if this becomes a guideline then anyone can still edit, even IP editors, after an IP editor trys out Wikipedia, they can create an account, anyone could still edit Wikipedia, anyone can create an account. Tcrow777  talk  07:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you take The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit at face value, it's against policy to block anyone ever. — The Storm Surfer 07:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What this suggests is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit until enough people bitch at them to register". Sorry for being frank, but that's what it's saying. This isn't a difficult concept to understand. IP users get to edit same as you or me. So long as they follow the rules, there is nothing harmful about them editing anomalously. If they break the rules, they get blocked. Plus, your guideline would be woefully ineffective against dynamic IPs, and would hamper a number of decent IP editors. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is a founding principle. Your idea seeks to change that. No it doesn't, because anyone can get a UID and use that for editing. But this in turn shows how this proposal would anyway be ineffectual (unless implemented in conjunction with lots of other changes): Dimwits, nitwits, fools, pseudoscience-pushers, advertisers, vandals etc who now edit as IPs would instead just get one new UID after another and edit via those UIDs. Incidentally, for a person who wants to reform WP for the better, Tcrow777 has an extraordinarily bulky signature. -- Hoary 07:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I can say that I am tired of the "Do you want me to register? Sorry, not interested. A string of numbers is all I need:}" attitude that many IP editors have, this guideline will not efect dynamic IPs (we have ways of telling the difference). Tcrow777 talk  07:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For someone with so few article edits, why does it concern you so much that some IP have a name? IP editing hurts no one, and as Hoery points out it wouldn't stop people from making throwaway accounts over and over. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My artlcle edit count is irrelevant. Tcrow777 (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So is your signature, but it's still annoying and something brought up. Also, you didn't answer the rest of my question. Is your only reason for proposing this guideline annoyance? Is there any merit to this proposal beside your annoyance? There's nothing wrong with IPs editing, and in fact it makes policing the bag eggs among them all the more simple. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Goodnight! Tcrow777 (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"...luverlee, "IP's Should Be Banned!", that, the Norwegien Blue!" (With apologies to Monty & Friends) LessHeard vanU 12:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do IP editors refuse to get an account so many times when it is suggested? Oh, by the way, I changed my sig, even when there was nothing wrong with it. Tcrow777 (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, no, there was nothing wrong with your sig - and it was a pointless arguement to refer to it. There is nothing in the rules, policies and guidelines that meant you should have needed to alter it... as there is nothing in said rules, policies or guidelines that say you must register to edit Wikipedia. I suggest you revert your sig to the way you had it, and you grit your teeth and allow the contributions of ip's. LessHeard vanU 20:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I like IP editors and think they have the right to contribute to Wikipedia, but when a really good IP editor gets many suggestions to register and they turn them all down, I think that is just wrong. Tcrow777  talk  22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And they should be banned because you think it's wrong? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point of this guideline. What's to be gained? -Chunky Rice 22:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Those stubborn IP editors get an account. They will not be banned, they will just get a 2 week block. Tcrow777 talk  22:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What's it to you if they don't register? Is it harming you in some way? If not, Wikipedia doesn't cater to your annoyances. Maybe they don't want to register. It's not up to us to force it on them. Regardless, this has about as much chance of happening as your "ban bad language" proposal a while back. You should turn your attention to other, more helpful pursuits, rather than harping on an issue you can't change. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

IP editors who refuse to register are harmful to Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales said himself in response to a complaint by an IP editor: "Sorry, but anon ip numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits. I really don't care about your complaint as currently stated." -- Jimbo Wales Tcrow777 talk  23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? I don't see the word harmful. I don't even see the implication. I see a lack of importance, which is not the same as harmful. I suggest you not misinterpret selective quotes to suit your needs. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, this is the source of Tcrow's complaints: User talk:24.20.69.240. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Prove it! Why are you against IP editors registering? Tcrow777 talk  23:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No one is against it. However, no one should be required to make an account in order to edit. If someone does not wish to register, then so be it. Does it really matter in the end? No - they make their edits irregardless of what name they are under. Drop it. This topic is a beaten bush. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 23:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The way I see it is you either want them to register, or you are against them registering. Tcrow777  talk  23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hit a nerve, did I? One, you quote the first line on that talk page: "Sorry, not interested. A string of numbers is all I need:}". Two, you act like a troll and remove his userboxes under a flimsy pretext. As for your other question, again you have a way of misinterpreting words. I did not say I'm against it. I said it's their choice. If they do not want to register, we have no right to force it upon them, not when their ability to edit is a fundamental part of Wikipedia. Now, I ask you once more, what do you have against them editing anonymously, aside from simply finding their refusal to register annoying? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm clarifying that no one here is against someone getting an account, which you accused Someguy0830 of above. I am against a proposal that requires people to register, as it is ultimately futile. What is the point of requiring them to register? If someone is going to vandalize, they will vandalize whether it is with or without an account. Someone is not going to become a better editor merely by getting an account either. What is the reasoning behind your proposal? Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will never be able to get you to understand my point of view, so I give up! Tcrow777  talk  00:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only am I against any sort of forced or required registration but the above "formula" is needlessly complicated and would be hard to practically enforce. Any block would require an admin to count the number of requests since the last block, see how long they have been editing since being blocked, and then check their own block log to make sure they have not blocked that IP in the last month. It also seems sort of rude, blocking people who are making constructive contributions but not registering. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 01:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have edited since the start of 2007 but only created an account recently - Pheonix15 14:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am strongly against anything that furthers the trend of IP addresses contributors being second-class citizens. Why are you trying to block genuine contributors to the project just because of their preference regarding signing p? -81.178.104.145 02:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Once upon a time I was a registered user (User:Orkadian). Then User:Mais oui! took a dislike to my contributions because they disagreed with his point of view and so he started a) reverting my every edit and then b) constantly accused me of being a sock puppet of another user he disliked until I got unjustly banned. As a registered user it is all to easy to become prey to POV stalkers like User:Mais oui! (The unjustly blocked User:Orkadian)
 * Horrible idea. Why would we ever willingly stop people from making positive contributions to the project? Who cares if they're logged in? A productive IP is still productive, a vandalizing account is still a vandal. When it comes to improving the project it doesn't matter. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 03:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If an anon wants to contribute positively, he only has 6 weeks to do so? That's against policy, it's downright wrong; it's forceful and arrogant. A person should be able decide for themselves. James   Luftan  contribs 17:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "If you take The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit at face value, it's against policy to block anyone ever."
 * Exactly. Anyone can create an account. Anons cause far more hassle than is justified by what little they contribute.
 * "I am strongly against anything that furthers the trend of IP addresses contributors being second-class citizens. Why are you trying to block genuine contributors to the project just because of their preference regarding signing p?"
 * Second class citizens? Preference? Quite frankly this is just silly. There is absolutely no reason why people wishing to contribute shouldnt take the few seconds required to set up an account. Its a pretty minor and petty convenience to become protective of and its also a convenience which allows a hell of a lot more vandalism to go on than would be the case if everyone had to be registered. siarach 11:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is equally easy for registered users to vandalise Wikipedia, although they may have to use different techniques. I will be accused of making personal attacks for saying this, but it needs to be said nevertheless, that some registered users will do their utmost to push their particular point of view, even to the extent of getting other innocent registered users who disagree with them banned from editing (see above).  They will make so many edits and reversions in a day, that their opinion simply swamps all dissent, and dissenters get pushed aside, put off contributing, attacked and banned on account of a barrage of false accusations.  I think that a limit should be placed on the number of edits any user (registered or IP) can make in a 24 hour period.  This would restrict all types of vandalism and curb the excesses of those who will regularly make over 100 edits a day - most of them blanket reversions of the edits of users with whom they disagree.  Furthermore, such a limitation would make an edit too valuable a comodity to waste on vendettas and false accusations.  (The unjustly blocked User:Orkadian).
 * I definitely agree. I have seen so much vandalism by new users and other users that have left Wikipedia entirely because of attacks. The worst thing is if you get one of these POV Wikipedians that become admins! (See User:Ryulong). Power is a very dangerous thing indeed. And, sadly, Wikipedia rarely protects its users, but merely its own. Silver seren 21:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:PERRENIAL. &larr;BenB4 11:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do think it should be a guideline, but not a policy. Actually, I think we should try to enforce existing policies, not come up with new ones to stress the admins. LaleenaTalk to me Contributions to Wikipedia 20:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. IP edits are not anonymous. 81.153.125.209 22:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Killing Trivia sections: OK or not?
Considering that "Trivia" or "Pop culture" sections keep popping up like mushrooms after a rainstorm, I would like to know if it would ever be acceptable for an editor to unilaterally remove one of these sections from an article. The consensus seems to be that Trivia is "bad" but deleting a giant section of an article might not be looked upon very kindly, either. So, for example, if I was to remove the "in Popular culture" section from the article Mr. T, would I be violating any kind of policy (assuming I announced my intentions beforehand on the talk page)? GhostPirate 06:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not all trivia is actually trivia, but more like a misc. section of an article. WP:TRIVIA talks about finding good homes for the relevant information, if there is any. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to work information into the article where possible. Whatever other randomness is left, I typically move to the article talk page with a notice that it needs to be worked into the body... and anything unsourced needs to be sourced or stay out of the article altogether. Lara  ♥Love  06:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't remove a trivia section because it is labeled Trivia. Individual items in a trivia section (which are usually in my experience formatted as bulleted lists) should be removed if they are unsourced or, well, trivial.  — The Storm Surfer 04:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've suggested an approach over at Village pump (proposals); I didn't realize that I was duplicating the existing discussion here. In any case, I would suggest that
 * Where an article is mature (established for a long period of time, fairly stable, and comprehensive); and
 * where little or no recent effort has been made to incorporate material from the trivia section into the body of the article (the dated maintenance categories are helpful here)
 * it would be appropriate to move the entire Trivia section to the article's talk page. No information is lost, and the people who are saying that 'Well, eventually the trivia section's material will be added to the article body' can put their money where their mouths are.  I wouldn't tend to kill trivia sections in new articles, as they can be a quick way to gather facts on a topic.  I recommend further discussion take place at the Proposals Pump thread linked above.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)