Wikipedia talk:Content noticeboard

I am watching with interest. There are many cases when I need to bring wider attention to a content dispute. Chillum 17:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts?
Any ideas? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Should just be Articles noticeboard. But since admins are more important than articles, it'll have to do as it is :)  Majorly  talk  17:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How about WP:Content noticeboard? Chillum  17:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support that. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but unfortunately WP:CN is already taken. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CN is a disambiguation page, so I don't think it's a real issue personally. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also watching with interest. Not sure what else should be done here except to iron out kinks when they happen. Of course, I always miss things others know to be there. --Moni3 (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if there are no objections, I'll go ahead and move it to the project space to see how everything plays out. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it :) Unomi (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Just tried to start a thread. It appeared at AN. I used the "click here" link. That needs to be fixed. --Moni3 (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If people are happy with content noticeboard that's fine. I think Article Builder's Noticeboard or Article Building Noticeboard WP:ABN is kind of fun and catchy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This noticeboard has come to my attention at an AFD where it seemed that a new editor considered it a substitute for discussion at the article itself. The scope of the noticeboard seems both vague and  impractically wide and, as it now seems disruptive, I am considering nominating it for deletion.  Please provide a satisfactory rationale or suggest how its scope may be usefully refined. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Before you do anything rash and acquire a reputation as a rabid deletionist, perhaps you should ask yourself whether this noticeboard is really so disruptive. I guess you are referring to Cassandra73, who asked a question here about a specific technical problem (should you AfD an article if you really think it should be a redirect?) and got some more or less reasonable advice. Cassandra was obviously not in the right place; I guess the AfD talk page or something like that would have been better. Cassandra wasn't sent to a better place. But if this kind of incident is enough to propose a questionable project page for deletion, then I must suppress the rest of this argument per WP:OTHERSTUFF. What was I going to say? Ah, yes: The original purpose of this noticeboard was to facilitate communication between editors who are particularly interested in high quality content production as opposed to the social, technical and political aspects of Wikipedia. I am not sure how well it serves that purpose, but the quality of the discussions here is often unusually high. Hans Adler 13:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant
&mdash;harej (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * — Ched : ?  16:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC) definitely!

Advertised
For what it's worth, I've advertised this on a series of other noticeboards. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, we should send a message to all WikiProjects. They should all be notified of this. iMatthew : Chat  19:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it - but is it focused enough?
An excellent idea. There seems to be a lot of overlap with other established venues FAC/GAC talk, RFC, etc). How is this differentiated?  Not that overlap is all bad, or that those established venues are necessarily useful (I don't find wt:rfa very useful for discussing anything about rfa, for example).  With the right focus, and with good clerking and weeding out irrelevent (and irreverent) forum shopping tendencies, this could be excellent.  Keeper  |  76  02:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it makes more sense to think of it as a WikiProject. That was my first idea when I got Peter's invitation. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
Put as prominent as possible a notice at the top pointing people towards WP:RFF. Far too many people – both newcomers looking for help, and "old sweats" looking to help people – don't realise RFF exists, and it would help lots of people (and avoid this board getting clogged with minor requests) if it were more active. (I used to go through it fairly regularly, but gradually stopped as I realised Lara and I seemed to be the only people ever responding.) – iride  scent  02:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I for one had never heard of WP:RFF. Thanks! Unomi (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Something that I had never heard of: WP:WPNN. I discovered it by accident, when I thought there should be a counterweight to WP:ARS and wanted to double-check that it doesn't exist. I think this could also do with a bit more activity. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Awareness and scope
This, still new, noticeboard is relatively unknown (it has few page views) but I think it has the potential to be of great use for content issues, and assist in dispute resolution, and a place for discussion for some general matters on content, or it could be with a little more participation. However the scope needs to be better defined, some additional guidelines added to the header. I think the last point there should be a little expanded, it should ask to go to more specialized noticeboards if appropriate for example. When those few details will be worked out, this could be naturally mentioned at many places, I just added it to WP:DR among noticeboards for example. I think we could also make a note of this new noticeboard at the footer of Template:Cent for some time. Cenarium (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good addition to WP:DR. I agree this noticeboard would fit well into the centralized discussion template. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive settings
I'd like to set the noticeboard to use atnhead and change the archive names to be compatible with atnhead and. Any objections?

As a separate issue, I'd like to extend the time from 48h to 96h, since there isn't too much traffic to deal with at the moment. Thoughts?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thread removal
I've noticed several recent thread removals lately from this board, and wanted to make a comment. Since this is a relatively new board, I think it's important that we inform the posters of any threads which are removed of the reasons for the removal. While I believe that this is equally beneficial to our established editors, I feel it is extremely important to extend this courtesy to our new users. Editors approach these boards with requests for assistance; and when they return to find their dilemma has simply vanished, it's bound to induce some feelings of frustration and confusion. I'm not so much thinking of the obvious "vandalism" or "troll for lulz" stuff, but the items that are better placed at ANI, BLP/N, AE, etc. I realize that we do have page headers, and edit notices - but not everybody is exactly reading through all that when they are distressed with a problem. That's my 2-cents for the day, have a good one folks - I'm out. ;) — Ched : ?  10:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. I have been the main culprit here, so I take full responsibility for that. I made two removals, and both users have been notified of the reasons (one contacted my before I had the chance to explain, the other received a notice on his talk page). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As one of the parties, I would state that I do feel that you have both left me with a positive impression. Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to archive and mention they should go to some other noticeboard like WQA does rather than outright removal? Livewireo (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well they could be manually archived, but I think that removing (with links in edit summary) + mentioning it on the editor's talkpage should be enough IMO. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And thankfully, this is a fairly low traffic noticeboard (for now). If the volume does increase, a bot could do that. We can save that issue for another day. Livewireo (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Help needed on Gatineau Park articles
I would like advice/help in assessing what is going on on the Politics of Gatineau Park/Gatineau Park files. I have been blocked from editing for 24 hours because I broke the 3R rule. However, the reason I broke it was that two editors (Ahunt and M.nelson) were changing my contributions and edits, in a manner I feel to be arbitrary. Although it is clear that I broke the letter of the 3R rule, I feel these two editors have violated its spirit, by together reversing my work. Their changes do not affect the neutrality of the article. They have changed simple wording, and have removed a quote attributed to a reliable source.

Moreover, they claim I am in a conflict of interest because of my link to the "Gatineau Park Protection Committee." However, this is only an informal, on-paper group with no funding, no web site, no "personal" interest in the matter--in the sense that we are not in it for ourselves. Our interest is purely public, historical and factual. We have tried to provide all references requested. We consider ourselves to be experts on this issue, and as the COI Wiki rules say, "experts on trees are not discouraged from contributing to articles on trees," or some such formula.

Anyhow, any advice, help you might provide on this article, and/or the edits for which I have been "benched" would be appreciated.--Stoneacres (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

in Arbitration
Hi, I have proposed that this noticeboard is were content disputes be advertised once the article is placed under probation. Discussion here or under the proposal would be good.

The other arbitration case to mention this noticeboard is the completed Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2.

John Vandenberg (chat) 00:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be fine I think. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean?
What does it mean that this noticeboard is "not the place to discuss problems due to revert wars and other behavioural issues. However, it is perfectly OK to ask  for advice on how to solve those problems"? How is asking for advice on how to solve a problem different from discussing a problem? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin closure needed at Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings
After a lengthy discussion at Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings, the primary participants can not seem to agree on a resolution of the discussion. Admin closure is requested, but it is unclear where this request should be posted. If this is not the right place, please be helpful and repost in the correct place. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Teramo cathedral
The article is abysmal English and needs a complete overhaul. Can you check it out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDF19483 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Inactive tag
As a Third Opinion Wikipedian I've been blindly referring folks to this board when their disputes do not qualify for a Third Opinion. I'm rather shocked to see that not one listing here has received an answer in the last six months, so I've marked the project as inactive. Whether there's no one watching or no one simply cares to answer, since many of the requests made here are made by newcomers, it's not right for this to be just a dead end. Regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 14:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This is a relatively new noticeboard, so not very active yet. Recently the noticeboard has seen an unhealthy mixture of very complicated requests that belong here but would have required a lot of research, and requests of extremely poor quality. It's no wonder that nobody felt a need to respond. Let's look at what happened since the last extensive discussion, which was on 11 April (17 days ago, not 6 months):
 * A request to get involved at the contentious racist music article. (No effect.)
 * A request concerning unsourced addition of BLP information to an article. (No effect.)
 * A rambling and open-ended request to somehow get involved in a stale discussion about the history section of an article on very recent technology. I have no idea what the editor wanted, but the next day he started a slightly clearer RfC and got one (1) opinion from a previously uninvolved editor.
 * A content dispute at Kingdom of Sardinia, of a kind that is hard to deal with because a lot of research is required. (No effect.)
 * An anonymous request for an admin (this is not an admin noticeboard) to rename an article, written in broken English. Contrary to what the request said, there was no consensus on the talk page at the time.
 * A request that starts "Nteinkvnc's need help to rewrite sentences", ends "Notes, There someting missing to and I need help to remove from grammar", and manages to be less comprehensible in between. (What automatic translator produces such gibberish?)
 * A request for additional eyes at Irreligion. Shortly after the request a new editor joined the discussion at the talk page there. (I don't know whether that was in response to this request.)
 * A request for experienced editors to join a discussion about an ultra-obscure topic relating to a Philippine university campus. (No success.)
 * A cross-posted request to join a discussion that affects content-oriented editors. As the discussion already happened in several places, it would have been very inappropriate to duplicate it here. (No response here required.)
 * I suggest that you simply stop blindly referring editors here. The original idea for this noticeboard was to have a place where content oriented editors can notify each other about things that concern them specifically. The last post, by Richard Myers, is an excellent example of this. If too much boring, outright stupid or extremely difficult stuff comes in, the noticeboard can easily get overwhelmed. It currently has 234 page watchers. That's less than twice the number of page watchers of my talk page and less than eight times the number of yours. You can't expect miracles under such circumstances. Hans Adler 16:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, you had me at "I disagree" but thanks for all the detail. I was wrong, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, and I apologize for the drama. But where do you get the page watcher count? I didn't know you could do that and wouldn't have tagged it if I had seen it. Regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 18:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Found the count site. TM
 * Sorry for the verbosity. In case you have found a more complicated way: The pagewatcher count is linked from the history page. Hans Adler 19:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Rainbow trout.png|20px]] self-whack! It's amazing that I can be around here for years and not see what's been staring me in the face for all that time. Sheepishly,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 19:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These links come and go, but we've had this one for at least a year. Today I noticed the link to the page contributors tool for the first time. I have no idea how long it has been there. Hans Adler 08:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Get rid of it. This noticeboard is not that new (2009), and it's almost worthless. It seems to best merged with WP:NPOVN as content and neutrality go hand in hand when WP:WEIGHT considerations are taken into account. Ocaasi c 08:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard proposal
I have opened a final proposal on the Village pump to implement some changes to the dispute resolution process. The initial discussion for the idea can be found here, and the proposal outlining the changes that would be made if enacted are are outlined here. In summary, this proposal would create a new noticeboard, Dispute resolution noticeboard, move dispute-related ANI threads that don't belong there, to DRN and for a trial, deprecated WQA and the Content noticeboard with these sorts of discussions moved to DRN. Full details on the proposal are at the relevant pages. Thank you. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  08:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the point of this board?
Nothing gets accomplished by reporting anything here. The notifications just get scrolled off the page and nothing ever done. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * True. This should be one of our most important noticeboards but, guessing by the number of posts on other boards, other people seem to disagree. Sad state of affairs. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

DRN stage 2
The dispute resolution noticeboard has been undergoing a one month trial to see how it works, and has had some success. As part of the original proposal, I suggested another one-month trial after that, closing WP:WQA and WP:CNB, and redirecting posts to DRN to see if the new board can handle these posts more effectively. The proposal is located here. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  22:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)