Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 75: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 17:
I am looking at some of these and very tragic yes, gained some third party reliable sources, I am just unsure if i can Justify them as Worthy of a whole article. Seems to me most could be neutral one or two sentences in a cyber bullying article or any laws that were passed a result. rather than post Slew of AFDs (Especially since a couple have been kept in previous ones) i thought i come here to get some input. [[User:Weaponbb7|Weaponbb7]] ([[User talk:Weaponbb7|talk]]) 21:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
:A couple of points. First, [[WP:SINGLEEVENT]] is mostly concerned with living people. The suicides described in these articles are obviously not living, though of course other aspects of [[WP:BLP]] apply to survivors. Second, four of the listed articles are not biographies, but rather are articles about the suicides. This is similar to some famous murders in which the victims are only notable due to their deaths. We might have an article about the crime but not about the victim. [[WP:SINGLEEVENT]] applies to people, not events. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<
::'''Comment/Question''': I notice the mentioned articles are framed as "XXXX was a XXXX who committed suicide" instead of "The suicide of XXXX was XXXX". I've not read multiple articles of this kind before; so, I don't know the answer to my question. Is this the recommended format for these types of articles? <small><span>[[User:Chickenmonkey|<span style="background-color:#FF8833; color:black;"> '''Chicken'''</span>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<span style="background-color:black; color:#FF8833;">'''monkey''' </span>]]</span></small> 21:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
::Actually, I'd say the first four are obvious biographical articles. Calling the article "suicide of x" doesn't change the content or style, and I think these articles very easily fall under ONEEVENT along with [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. Using their cases as examples in articles detailing the legal issues and ramifications of bullying would be ideal. But as standalone articles, lets call them what they are. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 22:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
:::If they are excessively biographical then that can be fixed through editing. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<
:It's not about the person. It's about the '''event'''. Is the event notable? If, indeed, as one the article says "Her death brought calls for more stringent, specific anti-bullying laws in Massachusetts" then I'd say yes. Quite simple. The rest (trimming down bio etc.) is secondary. [[User:East of Borschov|East of Borschov]] ([[User talk:East of Borschov|talk]]) 12:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Line 42:
== Fallingrain.com ==
Hi please join in the thread at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Fallingrain.com here]. Falling rain was compiled in 1995-1996 and lists false population estimated within a 7 km radius and altitude data which reliable government sources and google earth and consistently proved wrong, often dramatically so and oftne lists settlements or draws railway lines which no longer exist. Unfortunately many editors believe this data to be reliable and have used it or linked to it in over 9000 of our encyclopedia articles, presenting the read with false information or directing them to false information through external links. This site has recently been used as a source for the mass creating of generic stubs about Kenyan village. The creator is now aware of the problem and thanks to a Xenobot has now been dealt with but we still have 9000 articles using this as a source/link. I and other well trsuted experienced editors/admins such as [[User:Darwinek]], [[User:Orderinchaos]] and [[User:Satusuro]] have called for this to be blacklisted asap and did so back in December. Four months later we are still stuck with 9000 links in articles and a lot of data which we know are false. It seems however this is not adequate enough for deletion and that a wider consensus is needed. Please can you comment on the black list page in the link given and offer your views on this situation. Thankyou.[[User:Dr. Blofeld| <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;"> <
:Do we have enough sources to create an article about the website (and its problems)? If the blacklisting fails, then an article might save you the trouble of re-re-re-explaining the problems to each person in turn. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Line 74:
::Jimbo didn't really mean what you think he meant, and even if he did, it wouldn't matter. We decide by the consensus of the community, and by what primary, secondary, sources say. Imagine disallowing primary sources in all cases, and you can kind of get the idea of how far this proposal will go. Fiction editors are some of the most numerous and active editors, and they decided that primary sources are fine for plot summaries a long time ago. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) 04:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
So we should write a plot summary on a film and then source it with a [[Roger Ebert]] review? That's unfeasible, sorry. Also, [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. —'''<span style="
:As others have clearly stated, this statement only implies what we already pretty much say through [[WP:NOT#PLOT]] - a published work that is only covered by plot summary is not encyclopedic, but a plot summary as part of a larger work is fine. No need to address any changes --[[User:Masem|M<
:Add me to your "vocal minority". Can we really attain article Completeness without a plot summary? I really don't think so. Then again the spoilers haters are at works here. --[[User:KrebMarkt|KrebMarkt]] 06:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
*I don't agree that the primary sources should be forbidden for plot summaries. Articles that are sourced ''entirely'' from the work of fiction itself are not acceptable, but articles that draw on the primary source ''in addition'' to secondary ones are perfectly fine. [[User:Reyk|<
*We already essentially have such a policy, it's called [[WP:Notability]]. No need for policy creep. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
*'''Comment''' I think there is a serious issue to address and that writing plot summary is being systematically to contravene Wikipedia content policies in relation to fictional characters. Many articles, such as [[Gaius Baltar]] use plot summary to construct [[wiktionary:fictography|fictography]]. Whilst this as a legitimate of literary trope or genre in the real world, in Wikipedia this approach to writing articles it borderline original research. Perhaps we should have a new form of cleanup tag to highlight this issue. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins#top|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Gavin.collins|contribs)]] 08:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Line 108:
:I see no reason, if we accept episode lists for notable TV shows that give title, production number, date of airing, writer(s) and director(s) and guest star(s), and a short plot summary, why the same can't be for itemizing the issues of a notable comic book series, where date of publication, ISBN #s (do comics have these?), writer(s) and artist(s) and a short plot summary.
:Part of what needs to be noted is that a "topic" is not the same as an "article". A topic may span several articles due to [[WP:SIZE]] and [[WP:SS|Summary style]]. Thus, while Jimbo and [[WP:NOT#PLOT]] clearly state that a topic should not be plot summary only, that doesn't mean an article in support of that topic needs to follow the same. Mind you, this also doesn't mean we break out every character/episode/comic issue/etc. into its own page if it's only going to be plot info, but there is certainly support for topic support articles that are grouped lists of characters or episodes or the like that are otherwise all plot, in support of the larger topic. --[[User:Masem|M<
:: On a personal basis your para 1 is what I'd like to see from an article, complex as it can be for comics. It appears to be generally frowned on though unless craftily weaved in, although the subject is something not discussed recently to my knowledge, so I am assuming a long-term accepted policy. Cheers! [[User:Archiveangel|Archiveangel]] ([[User talk:Archiveangel|talk]]) 11:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The 'opposition' keeps making the same error over and over. Let's try this again, from the top:
Line 114:
# A plot summary ''all by itself'' is not a good encyclopedia article.
Can we keep this in mind for the rest of this conversation? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
:This is exactly why {{tl|All plot}} exists, as contrasted with {{tl|Plot}}. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
:thank you - somewhat more concise than my argument. However, perhaps a caveat on #2. A plot summary can be the start of a good article - 'first step on the long road', 'babies and bathwater' and all that. If someone puts up a plot summary that prepares the ground so those who follow don't have to totally reconstruct, 1) the ground is broken by example for others who may not otherwise get involved 2) with nurturing, example and discussion a well-organised re-write should not demoralise the original writer or others from participating and encourages better from those who contribute (something I believe in implicitly from those who have gracefully spared time to do this with me in our little corner of comics wikipedia - can be easy to forget it's a very steep learning curve). I've come across more than a few articles by people who don't follow the 'rules', but they've set the ball rolling, and cause no harm. IMO better a basic article than none at all. I'm for inclusion unless it can be proved nothing can be improved, putting the onus on those participating to 'remove with reason', and as for improving - [[User:A1r|Air]] ([[User talk:A1r|talk]]) said to me recently 'Inevitably if you know what needs fixed, the burden's on you to fix it' - that's worth a t-shirt slogan at least - to be worn when working around here. Cheers! [[User:Archiveangel|Archiveangel]] ([[User talk:Archiveangel|talk]]) 11:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Line 127:
I asked this over at Commons because that's where the image is located, but they don't seem to be too concerned, so I'll ask it here. [[:File:P1000.png]] is a self-created image with no sourcing as to the scale used. Is there a way to ask for reliable sourcing on an image? [[User:Woogee|Woogee]] ([[User talk:Woogee|talk]]) 20:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
:Ask the author on their talkpage? Also, that image doesn't even seem to be in use on enwiki. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
::How does asking the author resolve the sourcing problem? Plus, they are not users on the English Wiki. And it most definitely is used, in fact, in two different articles, [[Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte]] and [[Landship]]. [[User:Woogee|Woogee]] ([[User talk:Woogee|talk]]) 05:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
:::I would assume that asking the author would either bring to light the information that the image is not based on a reliable source, and thus should not be used, or that they can provide the source they used. Either way, you would get the answer you seek, and that is how it would resolve the sourcing problem. かんぱい！ [[User:Scapler|Scapler]] ([[User talk:Scapler#top|talk]]) 06:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Line 173:
::: Good lord. "I am an actual pedophile but I have never harmed a child." It's probably a troll, so block them. But if it's not a troll, it's a self-admitted pedophile let lose in a playground filled with children. Perhaps wikipedia will help him get started? Where's the block? (If he needs graphic cartoon pornography involving children, he can get it elsewhere.) This is block on site stuff.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 23:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
::::I'm not aware of any "block pedophiles on sight" policy. <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000080">'''Equazcion'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|'''<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>''']]</small> 23:32, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)</font>
::::: Apparently there is one, as Draconian as it sounds. With arbcom, anything is possible. I'd rather have him blocked for trolling or severe POV pushing (which are both applicable here) than his sexual orientation in itself. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<
:::::: Right -- let him hang around, befriend a few kids, get their emails, suggest a meatup over coffee somewhere after school where they can discuss the kids interesting ideas. Is that what you have in mind themfromspace?[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 23:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
::::::: Too much [[moral outrage]] in that argument for me, and not enough substance. There is such a policy? Where? I'm not seeing any advocacy here or POV pushing. That would be one thing, but all I see here is a sexual deviant (maybe) who happened to speak a little too much of their mind for comfort, and I'm not too fond of the idea of blocking people on that basis. If we are to block admitted pedophiles on sight even when they haven't advocated it or pushed article content in that direction, I think that should be written down in some policy. If there already is such a policy please point us to it. <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000080">'''Equazcion'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|'''<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>''']]</small> 23:32, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)</font>
:::::::It's probably just a troll, but he's indef'd now anyway, courtesy of FloNight. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<
*I blocked the account and referred the user to contact ArbCom. For a variety of reasons this account needs to be blocked. Any questions about the block can be taken up with ArbCom on the mailing list. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|♥♥♥♥]] 23:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
:Agreed. Makes my intended comments somewhat redundant. [[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 23:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Line 230:
:I thought the first rule of [[Fight Club|pedophile blocking club]] is "you don't talk about pedophile blocking club". :-O [[Special:Contributions/69.228.170.24|69.228.170.24]] ([[User talk:69.228.170.24|talk]]) 09:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
::Well, the document has been started now so we'll have to wait and see if it is accepted by WMF, ArbCom and the rest of WP --[[User:Jubileeclipman|Jubilee]][[WP:CTM|♫]][[User talk:Jubileeclipman|<
:::Should this be cross posted somewhere for increased visibility and input? Like village pump? [[User:Buddy432|Buddy432]] ([[User talk:Buddy432|talk]]) 15:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
::::Most of this thread should be elsewhere, to be frank: "where", is open to question... --[[User:Jubileeclipman|Jubilee]][[WP:CTM|♫]][[User talk:Jubileeclipman|<
{{hab}}
Everything above was at ANI. Further discussion can take place below this point. [[User:Buddy431|Buddy431]] ([[User talk:Buddy431|talk]]) 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Line 283:
::Another less-demanding alternative is to propose news, facts or historical events for the "In the news", "Did you know?" or "On this day" sections. However, have in mind that, even if it's not needed that linked articles are featured, they must be of great quality to get it to the Main Page. Each of those sections has it own specific rules for choosing what to include and how to do so. [[User:MBelgrano|MBelgrano]] ([[User talk:MBelgrano|talk]]) 12:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
::I do not support the proposal to give extra points for articles about females. This is an encyclopedia, a summarization of the world we live in, not a blueprint for the world we would like to live in. By all means, work on changing the world to become a better place, and changing attitudes about gender roles is a step in that direction, but we should not conflate the description of the world with the prescription for the world.--<
:::Michael Hart wrote a book called ''The Hundred Most Influential People in History'' (the list is on the internet somewhere). Only 2 are women, & both of those were able to be influential only because they happened to be queens by accident of birth. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 13:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
:::"''This is an encyclopedia, a summarization of the world we live in, not a blueprint for the world we would like to live in.''" that's a wonderful quote, and extremely well said in my opinion. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><
::::Events involving at least two women were recently [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates|nominated for the ITN section]] but were rejected due to their insignificance. Both are under 21 April. The sudden retirement of [[Lorena Ochoa]] at the age of 28 (the world's number one golfer for the past three years) and the death of civil rights campaigner [[Dorothy Height]] at the age of 98 if anyone is interested in pursuing them. --<
:::::Ochoa is a big deal - I don't follow golf and I knew about it.--<
Perhaps this should be a reason for developing articles on particular women, and related topics eg [[Women as theological figures]]. Also, for WP to be balanced, 'transgenders, transsexuals and others.' [[User:Jackiespeel|Jackiespeel]] ([[User talk:Jackiespeel|talk]]) 15:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Line 295:
:I wouldn't be opposed to an extra point for women on the main page. Although there may not be a lot of FAs about women, a lot of FAs will never make the main page unless we start featuring more than one a day, so it actually would increase the number of women FAs on the main page, not just move them up the queue. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) 16:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
There are a huge number of examples to be found in our sister Uncyclopedia, here: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/History_of_Woman [[User:Pietopper|pietopper]] ([[User talk:Pietopper|talk]]) 20:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
::There are already points for diversity, which is appropriate in my view - adding additional points for one specific class of articles would be unwise. Emily (below) has it exactly right. Do the write thing, it's the right thing.--<
:I'm not sure what you're asking for. Don't put articles on the Main Page which aren't about women? Have some sort of equal rights plan? Why don't you write articles that mean the Main Page's goals, and then you'll be happy at the results. [[User:Woogee|Woogee]] ([[User talk:Woogee|talk]]) 20:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Line 319:
{{lw|Public domain}} has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Guidelines|guideline]]. It was previously marked as a [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Guidelines|guideline]]. This is an automated notice of the change ([[User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes|more information]]). -- [[User:VeblenBot|VeblenBot]] ([[User talk:VeblenBot|talk]]) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
These have apparently been recategorized as "[[:Category:Wikipedia project content guidelines|Wikipedia project content guidelines]]" as opposed to regular "content guidelines". --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
== Athlete/Entertainer notability guidelines are wildly at odds ==
Line 353:
I just added a source to [[WPZS]] to replace a broken link. I got there without any effort, so I don't understand the lock, except the computer gave me a pop-up asking if I wanted to view non-secure items. Clicking on "no" didn't affect my ability to see the information.[[User:Vchimpanzee|<font color="Green">Vchimpanzee</font>]] '''·''' [[User talk:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color: orange"> talk</span>]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Vchimpanzee|<span style="color: purple">contributions</span>]] '''·''' 13:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
:It means only part of the page was secured using [[SSL]]/[[HTTPS]], as opposed to the entire page. Doesn't matter for Wikipedia's purposes since most sources aren't and don't need to be secured. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
== Vandalism trickles to Google ==
Line 380:
I don't understand why [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppetry]] is such a crime. As long as none of the accounts vandalize, and they aren't being used as [[WP:MEAT|meatpuppets]], why is it such a big deal? How does it damage Wikipedia? Is it really worth blocking a user indefinitely who has over 1,000 constructive contributions because they use another account? --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The High]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Whale]] 02:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
:"''The purpose of this policy is to forbid '''deceptive or misleading''' use of multiple accounts''." If there's no disruption, not a huge deal. It's nice if they are linked as alternates, but in the absence of disruption, etc. there wouldn't be a block, just discussion with the editor. ~ <
:If someone is innocuously using two or more accounts to edit separate subjects that's fine (for example to keep their sexual fetishes or political interests separate from their public identity) so long as they never use their extra account(s) for policy discussions etc. If two accounts never edit the same subjects or are involved in the same discussions, they'll never be associated with each other. ''Abusive'' sockpuppeteers get investigated precisely because they draw attention to themselves with disruptive editing. Abusive sockpuppetry is a problem due to falsely giving the impression of consensus when there is none, allowing an editor to tag-team with themselves in editing disputes, and allowing an editor to circumvent editing restrictions such as bans and blocks. Fortunately, most editors are poor at hiding abusive sockpuppetry, leaving clues aplenty. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:grey;">&</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 07:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Line 390:
As a user who does a lot of work reverting editors, warning them, and pointing them at the policies and guidelines themselves, I get asked this question pretty often: ''why do we have the policy / guideline in the first place?'' The common Wikipedian response is to refer the users to the text in the guideline itself or to refer them to other policies which themselves refer to other policies. Our internal guidelines are written primarily for experienced users and they can be very confusing and I feel that Wikipedia itself never gives full answers in plain English to these problems.
So I want to throw this idea out there to see how it's receive response: How about we place within our policies a clearly visible section that either explains the purpose of the policy (in language non-Wikipedian readers can understand) or links to the discussions and arguments that have produced the policy. The main argument against this is, of course, instruction creep. There could also be wording issues with the summaries of the most contentious policy areas. But I feel that explaining our policy in a way non-Wikipedians could understand would make Wikipedia a friendlier place for newbies and non-Wikipedians, give us less of a [[wikt:Kafkaesque|Kafkaesque]] reputation, and it would help outsiders understand why we have the policies we do. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<
:I like the idea. However, I'm not so experienced with policy yet, so unfortunately, I would not be able to help you write that stuff. This idea does have my full support though. ''<span style="background:#00BB00">[[User:Brambleclawx|<span style="color:brown">Bramble</span>]][[User talk:Brambleclawx|<span style="color:brown">claw</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Brambleclawx|<span style="color:brown">x</span>]]</span>'' 00:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Line 396:
:Don't most policies already have a {{tl|nutshell}} description on top? Links to discussions are probably going to be less useful to non-Wikipedians than the policy itself. <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 00:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
::The nutshells often contain a good description of the policy, but they usually don't offer any reasons why we have chosen the policy. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<
:I like the idea; the only problem might be that the other thing people perennially complain about regarding our policies is their length, and adding "Rationale" sections to all of them would not help in that department. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
::If we cut a lot of the unnecessary wordage and repetition out of our policies and guidelines, I reckon we could get them down to about a fifth of what they are. Then there'd be plenty of space to add rationales for those points whose reasons aren't obvious.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 06:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
::: I agree. [[WP:NPOV]] is half as long as a month ago. And I believe a concise version combining WIkipedia's key policies is being worked on. Perhaps a rationale section could be explicitly added here. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] ([[User talk:Stephen B Streater|talk]]) 06:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
::::I admire your optimism. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
::::"I believe a concise version combining WIkipedia's key policies is being worked on"? I was under the impression that thre were already several such pages. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 09:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 411:
:It's mostly technical, actually. For [[hysterical raisins]], the way images and their histories are stored is completely unrelated to how wiki pages work and deleting/moving images used to be a very destructive and one-way action, hence the paranoia (which I'm sure was borne out of actual abuse). Now, it's not ''as'' bad, but image histories and undeletion are still tricky enough that you don't want random moves being possible. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 22:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, image moves still are annoying enough that we want them as little as possible. Also, it opens the door for pagemove vandalisme, and since files are not watchlisted as much as articles, it is probably something the vandals will enjoy... Just use {{tl|media rename}} or ask any admin on his talkpage. —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 23:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
:::And it is very easy to tag an image for renaming. I think the response to renames have been timely. ---'''''— [[User:Gadget850|<span style="color:gray">Gadget850 (Ed)</span>]]<span style="color:darkblue"> </span>'''''
== [[WP:CENSOR|"Wikipedia is not censored"]] ==
Line 434:
:I would point out that with regard to the TI keys, even if there was not an OFFICE action in effect, there is currently no consensus on the talk page discussions to put the keys themselves in the article. Just because we're legally allowed to do something doesn't mean that we have to do it, there are ethical (Rohde kidnapping) and pragmatic (TI keys) concerns as well. As for the "one small group" with complete control over content, this is the same small group that legally owns the servers and does almost all of the legal/technical/financial work required to keep the site running, consider yourself thankful that that is basically the only power that they maintain over the site. <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 17:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
J4V4 is absolutely right: Wikipedia ''is'' censored for certain things. There's also a lot of things that aren't censored here, which is what [[wp:NOTCENSORED]] attempts to convey. I agree that it's poorly named. Perhaps better would be "Wikipedia is not censored for everything that anyone might find objectionable". Though to be fair, we censor a lot of stuff only because some people find it objectionable. I agree with the OP: we are censored, so we shouldn't claim we aren't. Our content disclaimer is sufficient, I think. [[User:Buddy431|Buddy431]] ([[User talk:Buddy431|talk]]) 22:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
:The ''Wikimedia Foundation'' censors (and only then for limited legal reasons), ''we the editing community'' don't; significant difference. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
::I agree that "not censored" is an absolute statement that isn't exactly true, especially since the term "censorship," like most words in the English language, means different things to different people. Like almost all of the [[WP:NOT]]s, there are exceptions and qualifications. I can't imagine any benefit to "fixing" it so that it is absolute Truth. Is there a proposal or action that we could take that would make this better? If not, I don't see much point in this discussion. [[User:SDY|SDY]] ([[User talk:SDY|talk]]) 00:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
::CC, of course the editing community censors. When it's working correctly it censors unsourced statements, biased material, original research, non-notable material, fringe theories ... When it's not working correctly cabals of editors censor reliable sources they disagree with. If you want an environment that doesn't censor such things go to Wikinfo. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 09:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
::Well of course "we"{{who}} do censor all the time, that's what enforcing WP:NOT,NPOV,NOR and all other no-no's are about. There's nothing wrong in admitting this. Every revert censors someone's input (good or bad). There's nothing wrong in admitting this. [[User:East of Borschov|East of Borschov]] ([[User talk:East of Borschov|talk]]) 12:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
:::This blows the word "censorship" far out of proportion. You're talking about basic ''editing'' being "censorship." It takes all meaning out of the word. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You
*point taken, the Foundation has a legalistic view of copyright that minimizes claims of "Fair Use", which they could use more effectively. they have a zero tolerance policy toward copyright or defamation, which is unrealistic, and when a good faith effort to police the domain is shield enough. while i agree the censorship is light, it's not where i would draw the line. like [[don't be evil]], more of an aspiration than reality. notice the management through slogans. [[Texas Instruments signing key controversy]] is instructive, with all the legal beagles sending warnings around, i'm sure the foundation would prefer to avoid the crossfire. we have the best legal system money can buy; best wikipedia lawyers can intimidate. [[User:Pohick2|Pohick2]] ([[User talk:Pohick2|talk]]) 00:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 461:
::Please stop the accusations and the insults. You've accused me in edit summaries of lying and being dishonest, because I asked "should the NPOV section contain these sections." You may not like it, and others may have phrased it differently, but it's neutral and it's straightforward, so stop the assumptions of bad faith. [[User:SlimVirgin|<span style="color:maroon;">SlimVirgin</span>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:SlimVirgin|<span style="color:red;">talk</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|<span style="color:green;">contribs</span>]]</sup></small> 19:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Stop being dishonest, and I'll stop calling you on it. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 20:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
::::This is not a productive or civil line of discussion. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
== Overturn [[WP:POINT]] guideline so that [[WP:CREEP|instruction creep]] can be better exposed ==
Line 487:
::::On the piece of info in question here, is it not found at any other source? I'd think that should be very openly published across the board as this point and easy to leave out that nytimes bit as a clear error. It does happen. ...I mostly wanted to poke in here and go out of my way to very stubbornly remind that we're never, ever, '''ever''' meant to have Wikipedia to be a reliable source in any firm sense while the project is yet growing, and even then probably never. All we can do as editors is put together the best with what's handed to us, which in this case happens to be wrong and needs a fix. Everyone knows that going about (even if jokingly) thinking about a move to take out nytimes refs is not somewhere we want to be. But hey, there's always [[WP:RS/N]] if someone is feeling lucky. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Datheisen|daTheisen]][[User talk:Datheisen|(talk)]]</span> 13:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
:Reliable is not equivalent to infallible. [[User:TreasuryTag|TreasuryTag's]] advice is good - I'd supplement it by suggesting you explain in the talk page - e.g. NYT says this, but source x, y and z say that, so the article now says that, and please don't add the NYT reference which appears to be mistaken.--<
== On the unwritten rule regarding a limit to number of unblock requests ==
I would appreciate any thoughts on this [[Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Unwritten rule regarding a limit to number of unblock requests should be stricken from the unwritten code|here]]. –[[user:xeno|<
:I agree, the only time an editor should be denied access to a talk page is if that editor is being disruptive or is engaging in vandalism. We at the same time need to be careful when deciding when an editor is being disruptive or just opinionated. the only annoying problem would be the occasional impatient editor asking [[Are We There Yet?|Am I unblocked yet ?]], [[Are We There Yet?|Am I unblocked yet ?]], huh ? huh ? '''[[User:Mlpearc|<span style='font-family:;color:#CFB53B'>Mlpearc</span>]] [[User_talk:Mlpearc|<span style='font-family:;COLOR:#848482'><small>MESSAGE</small></span>]]''' 15:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
::Appreciate the comments, but they should be placed at the linked discussion to keep it all together. Thanks, –[[user:xeno|<
== Additional CSD criteria ==
Line 552:
I look forward to this discussion. — <small>[[User:Timneu22|Timneu22]]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:Timneu22|talk]]</small> 20:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
:CSD is meant to deal with patently problematic articles that show no likelihood of being encyclopedic quality, thus ensuring that deletion by an admin is a non-contentious action. Both topics suggested above, as written, may seem to lack quality, but there's an implication that they are real topics; admin deletion without discussion would be too early in the process. That doesn't mean there's other ways to quickly deal with these articles; both could easily be PROD (particularly the latter as it seems to be a neologism) but that would give time for the creator and other editors to improve upon them. Neither fall into the class of articles we could easily patently delete. --[[User:Masem|M<
:: The problem that I have is {{tl|db-nonsense}} covers only ''nonsense text'', when clearly some topics ("Writing Stories") are, in themselves, patent nonsense. While the article can be understood (''writing stories is fun''), its inclusion on Wikipedia ''cannot be understood''. Prod is too slow, AFD is too time-consuming. CSD is clearly the answer to crush this type of rubbish immediately. Let's ignore my example 2 altogether for right now. Example 1 is clearly an essay, it ''will not be an encyclopedic article'', ever, because:
Line 569:
::::: I agree that PROD is essentially useless. What happens with an article like [[Writing Stories]], is that the editor just removes the PROD, and no one ''ever'' sees it. I think articles have three states: 0) Valid, 1) Invalid, 2) Discuss validity. There is no "invalid if no one responds in a week"; I'm just not a fan of PROD. It seems [[User:A little insignificant|A little insignificant]] has issues with [[WP:NEO]], whereas I have more gripes with [[WP:NOTHOWTO]] or [[WP:NOT#ESSAY]]; in any of these cases it seems that if an article certainly ''is'' something that falls into one of these ''not'' lists, it should be speedily deleted. I understand people have different opinions about articles and some need to be discussed, but [[WP:SNOW|there's not a snowball's chance in hell]] that some of these articles will pass AFD, so why waste everyone's time? Honestly... the article is about someone writing a book. — <small>[[User:Timneu22|Timneu22]]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:Timneu22|talk]]</small> 00:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::* While I'm at it, let us re-read this to show why discussing [[Writing Stories]] is absurd: ''The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start. For example, if an article is speedily deleted for the wrong reason (not one of those listed in the criteria for speedy deletion), but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving deletion through the normal article deletion process, there's no sense in resurrecting it and forcing everyone to go through the motions of deleting it yet again.'' — <small>[[User:Timneu22|Timneu22]]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:Timneu22|talk]]</small> 00:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::: If the editor removes the PROD without addressing the issue, take it to AFD. Mind you, that's ''your'' (that is, the person that doesn't want that content) responsibility to do that, no one is going to do that for you. --[[User:Masem|M<
::::::: I appreciate this feedback, but this discussion isn't about watching PROD articles. It is about finding more CSD criteria, so we don't waste time on here discussing nonsense. Really, the whole thing is about [[WP:SNOW]] being violated again and again. — <small>[[User:Timneu22|Timneu22]]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:Timneu22|talk]]</small> 00:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::What do you mean, 'it's our responsibility'? We patrol new articles and delete the problem ones. It's a job. We're asking for a way to make it easier. [[User:A little insignificant|ALI]] <sup>[[User talk:A little insignificant|nom]] [[Special:Contributions/A_little_insignificant|nom]]</sup> 00:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 589:
::::: Another, [[Digital Service Design and Innovation Processes and Methodologies]] is under PROD. The first sentence in this article ''states that it is a paper'' which means it's original research! Is {{tl|db-essay}} sounding better to anyone else? — <small>[[User:Timneu22|Timneu22]]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:Timneu22|talk]]</small> 12:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
::::: Sorry, I have to post another. We're clearly missing a category when [[Swami vivekananda senior secondary school raipur]] cannot be speedily deleted. — <small>[[User:Timneu22|Timneu22]]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:Timneu22|talk]]</small> 12:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::: Can you say, 100% certainly, that any essay cannot be improved to a workable encyclopedic article (in part by removal of essay-ish statements and addition of third-party sources?) If you cannot say for sure about this, then we should not be CSD'ing these. PROD/AFD, yes, but not what is considered to be a maintenance admin action through CSD. --[[User:Masem|M<
::::::: My CSD reason is for items that are clearly written from an essay perspective, and not as an encyclopedic entry. These examples are pure essays that someone wrote, then added them to WP. There are so many violations here, [[WP:OR]], [[WP:NOT#ESSAY]], [[WP:POV]], [[WP:HOWTO]] etc. The article name on these pages isn't even in the right tone. I'm talking about ''clear misuse of wikipedia to add original information''. When a user writes "this is a paper about...", then there's no ground on which the article should be kept. On the [[WP:NEO]] note for a second, I agree with [[User:A little insignificant]] that things like [[Philosowhisky]] are just horrible to be dismissed by CSD. '''I think there are two separate discussions here, one about essays/how-tos and another about NEO nonsense.''' For now, I'd like to keep this discussion on topic about these nonsense essays. — <small>[[User:Timneu22|Timneu22]]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:Timneu22|talk]]</small> 14:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
: Simplify... let's discuss these three articles and see how we could come up with CSD reasons, or why we shouldn't:
Line 596:
:* [[Writing Stories]]
: Thanks. — <small>[[User:Timneu22|Timneu22]]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:Timneu22|talk]]</small> 14:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
::It doesn't matter if we're talking essays or neologisms, the same point stands. CSD is an admin maintenance action - it is meant to be done after a CSD-partol admin does a quick review to make sure the CSD wasn't inappropriately placed, and then delete the article no questions asked. If there is any chance that the content (essay, neologism, etc.) can be improved, CSD is the ''wrong step''. There's still the PROD and following that AFD, which are both wait-and-see approaches to see if the problem is rectified, but CSD is too fast a step. --[[User:Masem|M<
::: '''This discussion is about amending the CSD reasons'''; the articles in question ''cannot be improved'' and I'd like to see valid CSD reasons to stop wasting time. These articles are pure essay/WP:OR and they should be speedily deletable based on that. That's the discussion. — <small>[[User:Timneu22|Timneu22]]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:Timneu22|talk]]</small> 14:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
::::But why the rush? Copyvios and BLP vios obviously need to be removed as rapidly as possible - but I see no pressing need to expand CSD to deal with essays. Prod and AfD are adequate and sufficient. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 14:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 615:
::Allow me to also try again, how can one justify creating new, controversial CSDs when the same people seem to completely dismiss PROD as a solution to deleting articles, and block any attempt to mention PROD in this discussion? [[User:OrangeDog|OrangeDog]] <small>([[User talk:OrangeDog|τ]] • [[Special:Contributions/OrangeDog|ε]])</small> 18:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
:::I understand that one can look at an essay and determine it is an essay fairly easily, but CSD requires that we specify the attributes concisely. It may be OK for a Supreme Court Justice to say "I know it when I see it" but even the Supreme Court did not accept that a single person should make this call. You gave an example that an article starting "this is a paper about..." is a clear example of something that should be deleted. Maybe, but if the editor went on to say "about general relativity, as written by Albert Einstein", then it may need just a bit of copy-editing. I don't want to give the impression I missed your point, I am sure that virtually all editors would catch the difference, but we need to articulate a rule. The border between unacceptable-essays and poorly-written- articles-that-may-look-like-an-essay-but-just-need-copy-editing is a blurry line, not bright, which is why we ask multiple humans at AFD to look. If it is easy, it won't take many or take long. But CSD means a single editor can make this call and virtually never be wrong. I'm not ready to say we can write a rule covering essays that easily.--<
:::: {{edit conflict}} I have to agree- I tried and couldn't figure out how to word an essay criteria that would apply in all cases of essay articles. [[User:A little insignificant|ALI]] <sup>[[User talk:A little insignificant|nom]] [[Special:Contributions/A_little_insignificant|nom]]</sup> 19:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
: '''Should we move this to the CSD talk page, as suggested?''' @OrangeDog, why keep an article around for seven days in PROD when it would receive close to 100% AFD? And if it's getting close to 100% AFD, why not CSD? We're talking about patterns here, and it seems [[User:Ultraexactzz]] understands this. — <small>[[User:Timneu22|Timneu22]]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:Timneu22|talk]]</small> 19:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 762:
Does anyone else think the confusion would justify such a demand? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 19:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
* My name is Guy and I've been using this sig for a long time. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
:* Could the confusion you envisage not be prevented by a redirect from the userpage matching the signature to the editor's account page? For instance, User:Guy and User talk:Guy → User:JzG (or User talk:JzG). [[User talk:AGK|<
::*JzG's username used to be [[User:Just zis Guy, you know?]] - that's what JzG means, and that is why his signature is Guy. Coincidently, that was a ''very'' bad block on [[User:Guy]], JzG. [[User:Prodego|<
:::I never knew that was what "Jzg" meant. Obviously I find that hilarious. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
::::AGK, that's a reasonable idea. Because "impersonating another user" ''is'' prohibited by the policy, the page should always be available to be made into a redirect. There will be some especially confused subset of users who don't understand the redirect system much, but it's a smaller problem.
::::Still, I have to wonder... if you're going to redirect from the page on the signature to the page not matching it, why not instead redirect from the page not matching it to the name one actually signs with? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 19:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::JzG would need to usurp the name in this case. –[[user:xeno on an iPhone|<
::::I see what you mean, Zaphod. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 10:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 826:
:I Think images are an important aspect, just like words, references and quotes. I also think we as editors tend to forget about the "End user" of Wikipedia, the person who just looks here for information, they don't have an account, they don't edit and so on, which [[User:Cameron Scott|Cameron Scott]] brings to point. Pictures, like words can become a problem, we would tag an article quickly and with little thought for "rambling" in the same aspect Images can create the same problem. Images are just as important as words for the end user but an article can ramble on with images just as easy it can with words. Sorry it took me a paragraph to get to the subject of the discussion, but I think we need to be reminded of the end users. Galleries, I think the editor should be able to justify the need for it. If the images cannot be worked into the body of the article, there might be the need to have a gallery, if it's "justifiably" large why not just have a link to a subpage or I suspect that's what moving them to commons would do. Storage doesn't seem to be an issue, so if the gallery turns into the "elephant" in the room, then create a subpage for it. '''[[User:Mlpearc|<span style='font-family:;color:#CFB53B'>Mlpearc</span>]] [[User_talk:Mlpearc|<span style='font-family:;COLOR:#848482'><small>MESSAGE</small></span>]]''' 15:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
::It's not the issue of having galleries (of free images, natch), but that if the galleries are just used to dump every possible Commons picture for a topic in there. A gallery with a good representative selection of images that can be found with Commons, alongside a link that says "More images of (topic) can be found at Wikimedia Commons" is a better option for readers (considering size, amount of content to dl, etc. as well as context and readability) than to display every possible image in a gallery, as they then lose their functionality. --[[User:Masem|M<
::::Thanks for the further discussion. I'll summarize my understanding of what seems to be the consensus:
Line 835:
* I agree to the summery, but, I think we need to have more discussion on just how we are going to "judge" an articles images on their relevance, what I'm trying to say I don't think any one editor should go around "Fixing" images and or gallery's '''[[User:Mlpearc|<span style='font-family:;color:#CFB53B'>Mlpearc</span>]] [[User_talk:Mlpearc|<span style='font-family:;COLOR:#848482'><small>MESSAGE</small></span>]]''' 15:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
** Yea, I would not go around deleting image galleries just yet. You could flag them as being too large, but that means they can be trimmed alongside the additional pointer text to commons for more images. --[[User:Masem|M<
Strawberry, unlike the other editors, I'd recommend that you start implementing your plan -- just slowly, and starting with the 'worst of the worst' rather than the borderline cases.
Line 863:
::But Wikipedia policy clearly says that a gallery ''should'' be about a sub-topic, and it specifically says that a gallery should ''not'' be used as a "place to put generally illustrative images of aspects that may not be specifically referred to in the article;" it should illustrate an "aspect" of the subject. As to the usefulness of such galleries, I see from discussion here and elsewhere that many people would agree that "images which show the ordinary reality of a place are just as helpful as those that only show its famous or unique features," but whether that's true or not, galleries of such images are clearly not in compliance with current policy. People who don't like the policy should try to change it; meanwhile, while the policy exists, it's appropriate for it to be enforced, and any editor ought to feel free to alter such galleries to bring them into compliance. (And as for their "usefulness," let's not forget that if moved to Commons, as provided by policy, users can still get to them with a click.) [[User:Strawberryjampot|Strawberryjampot]] ([[User talk:Strawberryjampot|talk]]) 14:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Perhaps the real issue is simply that not enough effort is going into informative captions and alt-texts. For inline images that accompany article text we often overlook this, but in a gallery the lack is more evident. Geocoding landscape images (either in their captions or metadata) would be an easy start. [[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] <small>[[User talk:LeadSongDog#top|<
I have some questions about the exact meaning of "move the gallery to Commons," which seems like a simple statement but when you look into doing it turns out to have a number of complications. Where is the proper place to ask for clarification of the policy, and to discuss whether the policy itself needs to be re-worded to be clearer: here, or some other page? Thanks for any advice. 21:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Strawberryjampot|Strawberryjampot]] ([[User talk:Strawberryjampot|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strawberryjampot|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Line 871:
{{discussion top}}
Why change Wikipedia's look? It look's a lot less awesome. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Denting5|Denting5]] ([[User talk:Denting5|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Denting5|contribs]]) 02:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You can still use the old one by clicking the "take me back" link at the top of the page. [[User:Prodego|<
::I would have stayed with the new design if not for it not allowing me to create my own edit summary when I use the rollback feature, which the old design does allow me to do. [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 03:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
:::That's not a feature of the skin, its probably a user script you installed or a gadget that's broken in the new skin. In the case of the former, you just need to copy things from [[Special:Mypage/monobook.js|Mypage/monobook.js]] to [[Special:Mypage/vector.js|Mypage/vector.js]]. In the case of the latter, you can report it at [[WP:VPT]]. <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 03:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 884:
== Bordeline cases of Username violation ==
I have found many users which in my opinion are Username violiotions. Some of them contain the words "Rape", "Sex", or even a [[trademark]] like User:WindowsNT. Some admins say it is not a username violiotion but I think otherwise. What do you guys think? And can somebody please expand what usernams can be considered "offensive"? --[[User:Tyw7|<
:I would tell you that [[Wikipedia talk:Username policy]] is a good place to discuss this, but since you just posted there as well you apparently already know that. Administrators are granted the ability to block because they are expected to be able to make decisions rather than rigidly adhering to policies. What is offensive is often very much in the eye of the beholder and open to interpretation. "Sex" in and of itself is not sufficient in my opinion, but "rape" usually would be. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
::I found many users (some dead) with the word "rape" in their username. --[[User:Tyw7|<
:::Context matters: a User:PreventRapeAndViolence or User:PollutionIsEnvironmentalRape might be accepted. We expect our admins to be able to make judgement calls -- calls that permit a given string of letters when they're well-intentioned, and prohibit "otherwise acceptable" strings of letters when they're not.
:::Also, it's worth making sure that you're looking at [[Special:ActiveUsers]], rather than abandoned or already-blocked accounts. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Good point, there's no point blocking inactive or deceased users. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::How about [[User:Sexyredpolish]] --[[User:Tyw7|<
::::::Not even close to a blockable offense, it's a reference to [[nail polish]], how is that offensive to anyone? In your other post [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy&diff=prev&oldid=361364997] you made reference to "taboos," it's not helpful to think of them that way, it's the context that is important, as pointed out in Whatamidoing's examples above. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 00:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::What about usernames that consist entirely of random letters (e.g., {{user|hjhkjgkh}}). Are these allowed, or are they blockable? [[User:Immunize|Immunize ]] ([[User talk:Immunize|talk]]) 19:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Confusing usernames are discouraged but not blockable in and of themselves. On the other hand most of the time if you see a username like that it turns out to be someone up to no good, so they end up getting blocked anyway for vandalizing. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 00:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::If the user turns out to be a ocnstructive contributor, then is it possible to force them to be [[WP:RENAME|Renamed]]? [[User:Immunize|Immunize ]] ([[User talk:Immunize|talk]]) 19:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
:If it is a borderline case, then the matter should be discussed openly by established users at [[WP:RFCUN]]. An attempt should be made to discuss the matter with the user first. --[[User:Jayron32|<
I am confused ... and concerned. Why so much interest in controlling other editor's choices of names? Sure, offensive names are undesirable for the comfort level of others but who in the end (barring truly malicious/hateful names and trademarks) I think an editor's name choice should be left undisturbed. Would [[User:BraAndPanties]] be considered offensive? Even if the editor was a professional lingerie designer editing on related topics? Let me illustrate with a couple of [[IRL|real life]] examples: I once worked with a guy named Dick Fuchs and I went to school with a girl named Sally Kuntz. Should we get a court order to force these people to change their real names because they ''might'' be considered offensive to some people? What about [[User:BBROYGBVGW]] ? Is that name a problem? Ask anyone with any experience in analog electronics and they will tell you this name makes perfect sense. As does [[User:TQRFJOTLBD]] to any typist. Just because ''YOU'' don't understand the name doesn't mean it has no meaning or value. As far as I am concerned, dabbling in censoring and altering user names is [[WP:CREEP]] that is a needless distraction from building Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/66.102.204.126|66.102.204.126]] ([[User talk:66.102.204.126|talk]]) 01:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 904:
[[User:Orthohawk|Orthohawk]] ([[User talk:Orthohawk|talk]]) 22:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
:The article's originator's opinion is in no way special. [[WP:OWN|They do not own the article]]. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
::The first step is to discuss the issue with other editors on the article Talk page. If that fails, you can go to the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|Reliable sources Noticeboard]].--<
:::If there's a source that is hard to access then you can ask for a quotation from it to verify that it's been summarized correctly. Use this tag inline: <nowiki>{{Request quotation|date=May 2010}}</nowiki> <b>[[User:Will Beback|<
::::In practice, the ultimate decision on this or any other content question is determined by numbers, persistence & cunning of those interested in participating. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 10:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::"numbers, persistence & cunning" can be influential, but all editors have to comply with [[WP:NPOV]], including [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:FRINGE]]. If the statement cites a good source, then per [[WP:UNDUE]] it's a matter of number between ''sources'', not editors:
Line 951:
::One of the key items is transparency. Don't simply put a notice on the talk pages of D, E and F notifying them of an AfD. Do that, but add a note to the Afd, indicating that you have notified D,E, and F, because they had voted before. Perhaps someone else will note that while you think C is retired, they really haven't and add a friendly notice to that editor as well.
::This doesn't change your observation that one can dream up new examples, where the conclusion is less clear, but I think the general advice given is decent.--<
== Effectively warning vandalism-only accounts ==
Line 962:
::Can I see specific examples of where this has happened? [[User:Immunize|Immunize ]] ([[User talk:Immunize|talk]]) 15:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't emphasize the permanence of a block, because it dares the vandal to re-register, use public computers, or otherwise evade the block. Threats we can't enforce are the opposite of "Speak softly and carry a big stick". [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 03:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
:::The vandal immortalized in [[User:Xenocidic/RFAQ]] went on to become a constructive contributor. They were originally an IP-vandal, though. –[[user:xeno|<
== Maps in infoboxes ==
Line 971:
:As stated in the original discussion, I feel maps are as useful for buildings/structures as they are for municipalities. I am always disappointed if I look up a municipality and it does not have a map. I feel adding maps to other features would be helpful to the reader. A map is not redundant with the coordinates for buildings just like it is not so for municipalities.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|BIO]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:FOUR]]) </small> 18:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
::I should have also mentioned, that I'm not against maps entirely. For example, I'm not against having maps for municipalities, as I believe that information is much more relevant to the subject than it is for many of the building/POI articles. --[[User:Torsodog|<font color="#000000">'''T'''</font><font color="#993300">orsodo</font><font color="#000000">'''g'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Torsodog|Talk]]</sup> 18:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Torso, all places on wikipedia have coordinates. Coordinates however do not visualize the location of a place on an encyclopedia page. Digits mean nothing to the reader unless they look at the place in satellite detail externally. By your perception of this all maps on wikipedia would be redundant because the article has coordinates. Maps are encyclopedic, and it is not as if we are going into overkill here. See [[Merle Reskin Theatre]]. I've made a pushpin locator of the [[Chicago Loop]] showing its street location and it has a window in the corner indicating where in Chicago it is. Now if people don't know where Chicago is they click the wiki globe or visit the article. The question is whether or not the article is imporved having this map or whether or not it is actually better off without it. I think a simple locator identifying its place on a set map is perfect to casually give the reader an idea of where it is. Then there are [[Template:Location map United States Chicago]] to display places further afield giving a wider view. These options are surely a good thing, once we import the French wiki technology with clikcable maps then people can have the choice to zoom in at different levels. But what Torso is seemingly saying here is that all maps on wikipedia are redundant because we have coordinates. No we are not Wiki Atlas but a limited number of maps which inform the reader where the suject is is encyclopedic in my view. Anybody diagree with my view that a map or two locating a place is perfectly acceptable and useful? In my view the current map which Tony changed to, [[McDonald's Cycle Center]] because of your concerns about it being redundant to the other map is actually less useful because the Loop map now has a side locator where in Chicago it is. [[User:Dr. Blofeld| <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;"> <
:Yes, the coordinates themselves mean very little, but those coordinates link directly to external maps that are much, much better and much, much more useful than anything we could supply. For example, look at the map in [[Merle Reskin Theatre]]. I challenge anyone that isn't already familiar with Chicago to decipher what is going on in that image. Especially in the thumbnail size in which it is presented in the article. If it is virtually unreadable in the thumbnail size, why include it at all? In short, the argument I'm making here is that readers gain virtually no knowledge from the maps as they are displayed in the article, making them useless. And no, I'm not saying maps are completely useless. For example, the map in [[Chinatown (Chicago)]] is very useful to readers. --[[User:Torsodog|<font color="#000000">'''T'''</font><font color="#993300">orsodo</font><font color="#000000">'''g'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Torsodog|Talk]]</sup> 19:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
::
Line 982:
*As a resident of Chicago (and therefore perhaps more able than most to interpret the maps in question), I concur with Torsodog that these maps have minimal informational value. (I was unfamiliar with the name "Merle Reskin Theatre", only having been there when it was still called the Blackstone, and the map in that article seems basically useless to me—especially since the enlarged view one sees when one clicks on the map to go to the file page has no indication of the theater's location.) The interactive mapping services linked through {{tl|Coord}}/GeoHack are of much greater usefulness to our readers. [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 01:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
*This discussion may be better placed at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes)]] where people who are more involved in infoboxes might be found; and if there is some consensus as to the use of maps within infoboxes, that page is where such consensus would be usefully placed. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<
:No, that is simply taking the discussion away to a tiny corner of the wikipedia-verse that would be over-populated by users interested in arcane infobox protection. This is a question for the community-at-large actually affecting our articles. It should be handled by those of us that actually edit articles. More open the better.[[User:Camelbinky|Camelbinky]] ([[User talk:Camelbinky|talk]]) 06:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 988:
:xtra note. After looking at a few examples, I'm definitely convinced that maps are a plus for areas (neighbourhood, district, etc.) and a minus for points (buildings, venues, etc.). [[User:Pichpich|Pichpich]] ([[User talk:Pichpich|talk]]) 13:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Clickable_maps here]. Please comment. But I'd have to disagree with you about maps being useless for local buildings. I'm not from Chicago, but I think the map I added to Merle Reskin conveys encyclopedic information. I can look at it and see roughly where the building is located in relation to the coast and also what area of Chicago and Illinois it is from the corner window. This to me is much more informative than no map at all in my thought process. A lot of people do not want to leave the page and looks at google maps. I agree that the ideal would be a zoomable map locator in which the reader can zoom in to exact street level with the building and streets clearly marked and then zoom out and see where it is. This would be ideal, but it may be along time before we get that kind of technology. As it is I've made a clickable mapping proposal for different scale map viewing. Buildings are still locations and as an encyclopedia we must provide the best possbible information of its location to the viewer.[[User:Dr. Blofeld| <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;"> <
:Ah yes, the French wiki's trick is cute. Nevertheless, my own preference would be to leave out the map for buildings but keep it for areas. But I have no solid arguments beyond what I think looks best. [[User:Pichpich|Pichpich]] ([[User talk:Pichpich|talk]]) 21:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 994:
:On second thought, is there a template, more general than {{tl|location map}} or {{tl|coord}}, to which you can give a street address and get a map? I'd think one which could take a street address ''or'' a coordinate pair would be quite nice. It'd also be good if its implementation of the "scale" parameter was easier to understand. - [[User:Denimadept|Denimadept]] ([[User talk:Denimadept|talk]]) 16:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You know, I never really thought about the fact that buildings have specific addresses. Thinking it over, I think I'm against using these maps for anything that has a physical address that is already in the infobox. That is the only location information needed, in my opinion (there may be special exceptions, of course). If a reader wants to see what is close to the building or how to get there, they can either click the coord template we already provide or look it up on their own. I don't think that information is really needed in an encyclopedia. These maps are good for areas, mountains, bridges, etc though. --[[User:Torsodog|<font color="#000000">'''T'''</font><font color="#993300">orsodo</font><font color="#000000">'''g'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Torsodog|Talk]]</sup> 16:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
:I am copying this from the WikiProject:Chicago talk page as my opinion is unchanged. "I really like maps and I like the series of locator maps Dr. Blofeld has made - thanks again! At the same time, I am fairly familiar with Chicago (though I have not been there for several years, alas), so I look at those maps and they are clear to me. However, I am not sure how useful they are to the average reader. A slight digression - when I lived in Europe I kept a small map of the United States in my pocket as I found that many people (even those who were well educated and interested in the US) had only a very vague knowledge of the location of most of the states. I am guessing the average reader of Wikipedia would have a some difficulty putting a dot on the exact location of Chicago on a world or US map. If that is the case (and I could be wrong), then I am not sure how useful a map of the Metro area or Loop is. The French Wikipedia has a really cool feature where you can toggle back and forth between a map of the country and of the state - see [[:fr:Parc d'État de Black Moshannon]] for an example. If we could do something like that, I think that would be really cool." [[User:Ruhrfisch|Ruhrfisch]] '''[[User talk:Ruhrfisch|<sub
== Deleted contributions ==
Line 1,005:
::Very, very minor point of clarification: it's admins that can view deleted contributions. Bureaucrats can view deleted content simply because all bureaucrats are also administrators (due to tradition, rather than because of any technical reason). [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">☯</span>]] //</span> 22:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:The <tt>'researcher'</tt> usergroup can "Search deleted pages" and "View deleted history entries, without their associated text", but is assigned only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Catrope&page=User%3ADarTar&year=2010&month=4&tagfilter= by specific order of the Foundation]. –[[user:xeno|<
== Proposed new CSD Criterion for rapid removal of unsourced / unreferenced BLP ==
Line 1,014:
Your thoughts please? '''<font color="red" face="arial;Times New Roman">Barking</font><font color="blue" face="arial;Times New Roman">Fish</font>''' [[User_talk:BarkingFish|<sup>Talk to me</sup>]] | [[Special:Contributions/BarkingFish|<sub>My contributions</sub>]] 21:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:Can you link to the article? And did you look to see if there were possible sources to be found? [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color:silver;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color:blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::Wouldn't have A7 or G10 applied? (For future reference, you can use {{tlx|1=delete|2=1=reason}} if CSD criteria don't fit but the page [[WP:IAR|clearly needs to go]].) By the way, the page that you nominated (if it's the "murderer") had references, but they were inline. –[[user:xeno|<
:::Unfortunately no, the article has since been deleted, and off the top of my head, I can't remember the exact format of the article name. However, I did look for sources, and could not immediately spot anything, if there was stuff - I apologise. As for the CSD - Maybe A7 or G10 would have applied, but I'd consider a separate specific one for BLPs to be faster than trying to guess which Criteria an article falls under. '''<font color="red" face="arial;Times New Roman">Barking</font><font color="blue" face="arial;Times New Roman">Fish</font>''' [[User_talk:BarkingFish|<sup>Talk to me</sup>]] | [[Special:Contributions/BarkingFish|<sub>My contributions</sub>]] 21:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Was it the murderer, though? [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1420602.stm This] was linked inline. –[[user:xeno|<
::::As I recall, yes it was. I didn't see the ref links for it, and no links at the bottom. I tagged it using twinkle, so I didn't even see the editable version of the page. '''I boobed, ok? :) ''' Either way, let's move off the article, and onto the purpose of my putting this here, the proposal for the new CSD. '''<font color="red" face="arial;Times New Roman">Barking</font><font color="blue" face="arial;Times New Roman">Fish</font>''' [[User_talk:BarkingFish|<sup>Talk to me</sup>]] | [[Special:Contributions/BarkingFish|<sub>My contributions</sub>]] 21:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::'''Sure, I'm not trying to get you in trouble; just wanted to be sure we were on the same page. As for your proposal, isn't it adequately covered by G10 "negative unsourced BLP" '''? –[[user:xeno|<
:::::::'''That could be the problem then. I need to talk to Amalthea and get them to change the script for Twinkle, in which under CSD G10 - all you see is "Attack page" and the description mentions '''nothing''' to do with unsourced BLP. I'll speak to them about it and get that rectified if poss.''' '''<font color="red" face="arial;Times New Roman">Barking</font><font color="blue" face="arial;Times New Roman">Fish</font>''' [[User_talk:BarkingFish|<sup>Talk to me</sup>]] | [[Special:Contributions/BarkingFish|<sub>My contributions</sub>]] 22:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC) (this and previous message from Xeno bolded for clarity)
::::::::Sounds like a plan =) –[[user:xeno|<
:::::::Outdented: Done. Plan in place :) [[Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#CSD_Listing_Update_request| See here]]. '''<font color="red" face="arial;Times New Roman">Barking</font><font color="blue" face="arial;Times New Roman">Fish</font>''' [[User_talk:BarkingFish|<sup>Talk to me</sup>]] | [[Special:Contributions/BarkingFish|<sub>My contributions</sub>]] 22:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::If it had references, then an admin shouldn't have deleted it. It should have gone to AfD. What's up here? [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color:silver;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color:blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 21:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::I've pointed the deleting admin here. –[[user:xeno|<
{{outdent}} Sorry, back on topic. I don't think there should be a CSD for BLP's. My opinion on this is partially influenced by the fact that I do not agree with the automatic deletion of unreferenced BLPs as it is. I think they should be taken to AfD or PRODed if nothing can be found for them. PRODing is probably the best bet in these situations. A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carrite#The_Stolfi_Manifesto perfect example] of how I feel, written by someone else. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color:silver;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color:blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 21:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Let me add that if it has libelous information, that's different, but isn't that covered by some other CSD protocol? [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color:silver;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color:blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 21:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:(ec x2) :Should an Unsourced BLP really be speedily deletable? We have templates to urge people to source the articles and a bot to notify projects, so I would expect at least a prod unless the page is patent nonsense or blatant slander. —[[User:Ost316|Ost]] ([[User talk:Ost316|talk]]) 21:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:Generally agree. An unsourced negative BLP is covered by G10, an unsourced positive/neutral BLP should be [[WP:BLPPROD|sticky prod'd]]. –[[user:xeno|<
*(edit conflict times 4) Unsourced negative BLP articles are already covered by the "attack page" criterion, for other unsourced BLPs there is the new [[WP:BLPPROD]]. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:Of course, I also dislike that there is great misuse of the new PROD, with people tagging unreferenced BLPs without even looking for sources. We've lost some good articles here and there. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color:silver;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color:blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 21:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,038:
:Given that some patrollers tag articles within seconds of their initial creation—and that new editors frequently "save page" a couple of times before adding references—I am opposed to any effort that makes it more likely that a page will be deleted while a new editor is still adding sourceable content and/or sources to support it. I think that the current system is adequate. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::[[Help:Edit conflict|ec]] Agree with WereSpielChequers and Pointillist, the [[WP:STICKY|sticky prods]] seem to be working out fine and the number of unreferenced BLPs has been [http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/unref_blp_count.log dropping steadily]. <
*Speedy deletion of unsourced BLPs was '''overwhelmingly rejected''' by the community. We just spent a lot of time and effort developing the sticky PROD alternative, and it will suffice perfectly fine. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 02:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
:Possible alternative? What if we had a rule that unsourced BLP’s could be userfied on sight (adding a no-index template). This avoids biting of new contributors who don’t know the rules; their contribution isn’t zapped into the ether, but moved to an appropriate location. Adding the no-index means it is darn hard to stumble over, reducing the exposure created by an unsourced BLP in article-space. A new editor can’t move it back into article space without help, and the help presumably will ensure that sourcing exists.<
::Although that sounds like a good idea, I would be concerned that some users would move there articles into the articlespace without adding refs, in which case I suppose we could use a BLP sticky PROD. Overall, however, the best idea still sounds to me like a CSD criterion to eliminate these articles. [[User:Immunize|Immunize ]] ([[User talk:Immunize|talk]]) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Userfying is still a rejection of someone's work, and in my view rather more bitey than someone prodded it for deletion, but then someone else referenced and rescued it. But more seriously userfying still leaves it on the internet, and though we can no index it that doesn't stop stuff being used for cyberbullying etc. Speedy deletion would make sense if both:
Line 1,046:
:::#There was a greater risk involved in having these articles sit around for a few days until referencing or deletion than much of our other material.
:::As neither seems to be the case, I suggest we leave the sticky prod process as one that gives several days to reference an article, and keep speedy deletion for uncontentious and obvious deletions. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 13:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' This proposal was initiated by someone who didn't realized that G10 could also apply to 'negative unsourced BLP'. Now that they do, they've withdrawn the proposal. There is no need to tweak it, modify it, oppose it, etc. If there wasn't a long-standing convention not to use archiving templates on pump threads, I'd be wrapping this one up. –[[user:xeno|<
::I don’t see the issue as being fully resolved. I see two cases:
::#Unsourced BLP with negative information
::#Unsourced BLP without negative information
::This discussion has clarified that Case 1 is covered in CSD as a G10. However, I don’t think we have clarity on what happens in Case 2. I think userfication is the best approach, but poking around, I see that I need to read more background on sticky prods and other related discussions, so I’ll try to do that before making a formal proposal.<
:::Yes, sticky prod. There is no specific speedy criteria for unsourced BLP without negative information (other criteria may apply); and as Resolute notes above, such a criteria was already handily rejected. In any case, new speedy criteria should be discussed at [[WT:CSD]], not here (a note here pointing to the discussion is fine). –[[user:xeno|<
== Use of RevisionDelete ==
Line 1,060:
:The policy that exists for use of this tool is at [[WP:REVDELETE]], that has all the information on appropriateness. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Communicate]]</sup> 02:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
::If you see, I linked to that page, which I've read. I'm asking for clarification of it. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 02:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Not really. RevisionDelete makes that procedure somewhat deprecated. RevisionDelete does the same thing, but with increased accountability, and a wider range of options (three, instead of the traditional "delete everything about the edit"). The delete/restore thing continues to be useful for history merges, however. I hope that clarifies it a little. Best, <
*Questions like this are probably best asked at [[WT:REVDEL]]. –[[user:xeno|<
== RfC: Which version of "assert facts" do people prefer? ==
Line 1,109:
* what was the conclusion / impact?
Can somebody help me with some information? best regards, [[User:poco_a_poco|Poco a poco]]...[[ User talk:poco_a_poco|¡adelante!]] 08:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
:(1) [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/033880.html Since December 2005] (2) [[Seigenthaler incident]]; it was done unilaterally by [[Jimmy Wales|Jimbo]] (3) We can only speculate; I don't know of any analysis of the effect. Presumably, less articles are created, but then some of those would have been complete crap/libel, and it also slows down the flow of new articles, possibly making it more manageable, but we don't really know; this is just a naive "orthodox" speculative analysis. FWIW, no one's seen fit to turn it back on, though I think it's been discussed a couple times. Perhaps someone will point out those discussions. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
:: Thanks for your prompt answer, --[[User:poco_a_poco|Poco a poco]]...[[ User talk:poco_a_poco|¡adelante!]] 08:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
::: I was one of the editors who did some [[User:sj/Newpages|quick before/after comparisons]] of the rates of new article creation and deletion, which is one of the side effects of this change. Overall: this cuts back on the # of good new articles created -- it drives people away. It also cuts back on the total # of new pages created, and lowers the # of speedy deletions more than it lowers the # of good new articles.
Line 1,144:
== Proposal to revisit wording of Deletion Policy and XFD ==
It's my belief we need to discuss wordsmithing [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|Deletion policy]] and various XFD guidelines, to ensure consistent wording. I'm not proposing policy changes at this time, simply clarification, but I assume policy wonks will be interested. I've written up the issue [[Wikipedia_talk:DELPOL#Deletion_Policy_observations|here]].--<
== Subject_style_guide RFC ==
Line 1,179:
::::What does 2257 means? [[User:MBelgrano|MBelgrano]] ([[User talk:MBelgrano|talk]]) 12:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::See [[2257]] (seriously). --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
::::::More specifically, see [[Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act]], a provision of US law that "places stringent record-keeping requirements on the producers of actual, sexually explicit materials". I'm not sure if the law specifically requires the comma splice or not. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]] ([[User talk:Gavia immer|talk]])</span> 12:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Wether or not the Foundation is subject to that law, is in doubt, but US producers of material with sexual content definitely are. Those requirements will now be used to exercise self censorship. —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 12:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,283:
My suggestion is that there should be a section on [[WP:NOTABILITY]] which clearly defines that '''settlements or geographical locations are not inherently notable''' - i.e. that articles concerning settlements and geographical locations which do not meet [[WP:NOTABILITY]] should be deleted. All information concerning small settlements which do not meet [[WP:NOTABILITY]] should be placed in tables on suitably named pages: for example, if [[Acebedo]] was deemed to be non-notable, all information concerning it would be placed on the page [[List of municipalities in León]]. Currently, there is no official policy on geographical places. I endorse option two of the dormant policy [[Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations)]]. [[User:Claritas|Claritas]] ([[User talk:Claritas|talk]]) 16:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
:You've said ''What'' you propose but I'm not seing ''Why''.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 16:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
::See [[WT:N#Notability of small settlements]] for more discussion. --[[User:Masem|M<
:::In a way that's helpful, but not completely. I read the first third of that and still haven't seen a clear statement as to why this proposed way would be better than current practice. I'll try to finish reading, but if you can zero me an specific post.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 17:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
:::: Thanks for providing the discussion, I should have added a link to that myself. To answer [[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]], my major concern is that these articles are on subjects which have no notability and there is so little verifiable information about them that it's impossible to expand them out of stub form. They produce technical problems : it makes assessing articles much slower, for example. Also, people are spending a lot of time and effort creating them, which could be used to improve existing articles (I personally subscribe to [[WP:100K]]). It's basic Wikipedia policy that articles on non-notable subjects should be deleted. [[User:Claritas|Claritas]] ([[User talk:Claritas|talk]]) 17:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,293:
Consensus and practice has always been that settlements can have their own articles, however small they are. Deletion proposals are routinely speedy closed on that basis. It's ''that'' that should be noted in the guidelines so that everyone is aware of it, regardless of the fact that a few deletion-mongers don't like it.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 17:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as [[WP:NRVE|verifiable evidence of notability]] cannot be infered, nor can it be seen through a crystal ball, nor is it inherited in the absence of significant coverage. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins#top|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Gavin.collins|contribs)]] 17:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Since the concern of [[User:Claritas]] about [[Kodhiyar]] seems to be that it was unverifiable, isn't [[WP:V]] sufficient to have it deleted? Why attempt to change the longstanding consensus on the inclusion of all populated places under the gazetteer function of Wikipedia? Why not endorse [[WP:Notability (Geographic locations)#OPTION THREE|Option Three]] of the dormant Notability (Geographic locations) proposal? <
:: My real concern is that all these articles fail [[WP:NRVE]]. [[User:Claritas|Claritas]] ([[User talk:Claritas|talk]]) 18:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:CREEP]] and [[WP:OUTCOMES|custom]]. What we need more urgently is some enforcement of [[WP:BURO]] and [[WP:NOTLAW]] to stifle the continual efforts by numerous editors to create rules which [[WP:DISRUPTION|obstruct]] our work upon the encyclopedia. As in this case, these rules are typically [[WP:OR|original research]], do not represent a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] and lack [[WP:V|independent evidence]]. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 18:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Additionally, almost all previous discussion in this area is linked from [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (populated places) (failed)]]. [[User:OrangeDog|OrangeDog]] <small>([[User talk:OrangeDog|τ]] • [[Special:Contributions/OrangeDog|ε]])</small> 18:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Geography_and_astronomy|precedent]] and as [[WP:CREEP|instruction creep]]. Also, remember that [[WP:5P|Wikipedia is in part]] a [[Gazetteer]]. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
*:Wikipedia is not a gazetteer; 5P only says that it "incorporates elements of" a gazetteer. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
*::Invariably in these discussions people take "gazetteer" to mean that all named populated places deserve an article. That means that whatever the wording in [[WP:5P]], the consensus is that Wikipedia's gazetteer should contain an article on every verifiable named populated place or formerly populated place in the world. That would only be about 4-6 million articles. I strongly urge that people who feel differently concentrate on unverified places. <
*::Yes, hence the "in part". Also, didn't intend to imply that this is the only/canonical interpretation of that part of the Pillars. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
*'''Oppose''' as instruction creep, because settlements aren't unique in this respect. ''Nothing'' is inherently notable. However, it is ''extremely'' likely that reliable sources (meeting every single requirement of the [[WP:GNG]], including significant coverage) ''do'' exist for practically every geographic location that is, or has ever been, within the service area of any newspaper. "My [[FWSE|Favorite Web Search Engine]] doesn't give me any hits (in English) (with this spelling)" is not the same thing as "No reliable source has ever published significant information about this location." WP:N is about the second issue, not the first; notability is not controlled by what your FWSE indexes. To jump from "I didn't find it online" to "Therefore, I conclude that no reliable source has ever written about this" is a leap of logic that that enshrines [[WP:BIAS]] against developing countries. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Human settlements are one of those few topics where the notability equation (non-notable unless proved otherwise) can be safely turned the other way around. The idea of a settlement never being mentioned in any sources seems so strange and fantastic that I think it's right to put it on the deleter user to prove that there are no such sources, and to assume that there are in the lack of either evidence. [[User:MBelgrano|MBelgrano]] ([[User talk:MBelgrano|talk]]) 22:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I oppose the idea because I don't think it's necessary - WP:N technically already calls for that , but it is merely an unwritten exception to the process that these are kept. The problem with these articles is that while it can be argued there will be sources for them, outright inclusion is simply not keeping with the spirit of WP being an discriminate summary of human knowledge. It's also the case that most sources will be highly localized, something that doesn't work for notability of any other topic (I can argue that pretty much any person in first-world countries could be called notable if we used the same standard presently in place for settlements) That's not to say we shouldn't have appropriate lists of these villages and other settlements, broken down with coords, population, etc., with redirects in place - that meets the standards for the gazetteer element and satisfies our discrimination policy. But when we include all these as their own individual articles, their existence is commonly used as a compliant about our notability guidelines being back-asswards and inconsistent. This presents a major major problem. Unless we can get consensus to flip to make WP more inclusive of fundamental topics we should cover and use notability as a last resort for all other topics, the inclusion of every human settlement remains in stark contrast to every other inclusion guideline we have.
*One of the things that I think we really should consider is a Wikiteer/Wikialtas sister project for the Foundation, where every geographical feature and human settlement can be laid out with maps and the like; that would leave WP's articles on such to be encyclopedic coverage of notable settlements. --[[User:Masem|M<
::I agree with Masem's suggestion, if it can be implemented with some added value from our contributors (and without COPYVIO problems from map-makers etc). - [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 23:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - there is nothing wrong with stubs, you won't get people who have been creating these to go and do whatever else it is you think needs doing (people edit what interests ''them'', not what you think ''should be done''. Splitting off into a seperate gazetteer would reduce the usability of the Wikipedia - remember, Wikipedia isn't a bound paper book making your bookshelves creak. Would just give more opportunities to piss off newbies without giving anything of value in exchange. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 23:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
**We're not paper, but we're also not indiscriminate. Furthermore, we're talking the major problem with articles like small settlements that newer editors would never touch, or smaller towns that editors that have vested interest in them (such as by living there or been raised there) may lead to COI issues. --[[User:Masem|M<
***Living in a place is not like being the member of a music band or owning a commercial brand. The settlement, even if small, is still something "bigger" than the individual. Far from having a conflict of interest, someone who lives or knows a small settlement is precisely the kind of user that may be better qualified to provide the information and sources that would expand the stub into a good article that may stand on it's own right. [[User:MBelgrano|MBelgrano]] ([[User talk:MBelgrano|talk]]) 03:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
****But that type of information likely will not come from a reliable and/or independent source; it's one step removed from being the equivalent of self-publishing. Nor is necessarily living in a place anything special; again, the same arguments as to why small settlements can be presumed notable can apply to a lot of other topic areas that we require a lot stringent sourcing requirements.
****Plus, done correctly, where we keep the articles but as redirects to larger lists, we still allow the ability for expansion should the notability of that settlement actually be established. --[[User:Masem|M<
*****Whenever a source is reliable or not is unrelated from whenever anyone can access to it anywhere in the world just by making some clicks in his web browser. See [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost]]. It may be naive to think that anyone can write articles about anything, simply because the wiki software allows so. We can write stubs or translations with relative ease, but for really working in an article up to good or featured level, someone must have at least some level of previous expertise in the topic. [[User:MBelgrano|MBelgrano]] ([[User talk:MBelgrano|talk]]) 17:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', per WhatamIdoing. While in many cases the stubby content about settlements might be more effectively presented in the context of an article about an encompassing area, whether to do so or not is best done on a case by case basis. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 00:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,317:
:*Isn't that circular reasoning?. People !vote "keep" in AFDs for small towns and settlements because "policy" doesn't prohibit them. However, propose to change the "policy" and that's opposed because people !vote "keep" in the AFDs. --[[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman|talk]]) 12:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
::*Perhaps, but if you want to break the circle, this is not the point for doing so. Convince people to vote for "delete" at AFD, and if this approach becomes a common outcome that replaces the current one, we may consider writing it somewhere [[User:MBelgrano|MBelgrano]] ([[User talk:MBelgrano|talk]]) 17:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
::*It's not circular; in AfDs people are pointing to previous outcomes in order to educate the nominators, who are usually unaware of the longstanding consensus. <
*''Support'' per my reasoning during the proposal I linked above. Given the number of times this comes up, there really is no consensus, so lets independently form one, instead of just agreeing with the previous perceived consensus. [[User:OrangeDog|OrangeDog]] <small>([[User talk:OrangeDog|τ]] • [[Special:Contributions/OrangeDog|ε]])</small> 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Consensus shows that human settlements are inherently notable; witness how pretty much every AfD about a settlement is closed as keep. Sources generally exist ''somewhere'' for these sorts of articles, and deleting 10,000+ verified articles (it would easily be that many if you included every stub or one-source article in every country) en masse is not a constructive way to improve the encyclopedia. There's nothing wrong with assuming notability for human settlements; we already do so for species, top-level athletes, train stations, licensed radio and television stations, etc., and none of the one-source stubs in these categories get deleted. Settlements don't need to be different when those which verifiably exist never get deleted anyway. [[User:TheCatalyst31|TheCatalyst31]] <sup>[[User talk:TheCatalyst31|Reaction]]•[[Special:Contributions/TheCatalyst31|Creation]]</sup> 00:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,328:
*'''Oppose'''. I see no reason to change current policy and there has been no good reasons stated for why it should be changed either. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color:silver;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color:blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 20:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose'''. Wikipedia incorporates elements of [[gazetteer]]s, according to the [[WP:5P|first pillar]] of Wikipedia. It's one of our bedrock principles. Among those elements we incorporate is a dedication to cataloging geographic information with as much completeness as is possible. We would be shirking out gazetteering duty if we were to decide that some human settlements are non-notable. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 20:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
** We are not dismissing the Gazetteer function of WP, since we can still do what a gazetteer does and provide lists of these settlements and population and location and other factual data in tables under various "Lists of settlements in X"-type articles. Gazetteers do not have separate pages about each of these, however; when we create a separate page, now we're functioning as an encyclopedia and need to treat the article as such, and if it can't be built out beyond those tabular facts, there's no point in the article. But having a page on each is difficult to continue to assert as acceptable as long as our notability guidelines are aimed at exclusive-unless-proven-otherwise. --[[User:Masem|M<
***I don't agree with that assessment. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 21:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose.''' All places are "notable" per se and should be notable per se. We don't need deletionist micromanaging and rules creep — it it is a place, it is notable, period, be it a tiny village in Pakistan, a ghost town in Colorado, or a named section of the Antarctic ice. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 21:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,353:
***You might also want to review the proposals at [[Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations)]]. If you look at the discussion, there is unlikely to be any consensus for deleting any real settlement. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 16:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
***By the way, even a very tiny geographic feature is hard to delete, although the truly insignificant are sometimes merged. I once tried [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danmark (island)|nominating for deletion]] an article on [http://www.gulesider.no/kart/;jsessionid=fUw8GnjIOvq6lZsdKt#lat%3D1260%26lon%3D1640.8537%26zoom%3D1%26layers%3D0000B%26imageName%3Doslo%252FNOOSLO040020NeighObliq26N_060807%26centerPixelsX%3D1751.853699379913%26centerPixelsY%3D1303%26originalLon%3D10.533692120238747%26originalLat%3D59.89071850694383%26orientation%3D0%26imageExtent%3D10.527302%252C59.887994%252C10.542158%252C59.894779%26tab%3Daddress this island], and it wound up merged, not deleted. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 16:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
:I hate hate '''hate''' the idea that "every place is notable". It is patently false, and I hate seeing it parroted ''ad nauseum'' that X village in Y country is ''notable'' just because it is/was a village. However, part of this problem is because of the way in which the word "notable" is used on Wikipedia - it is neither consistent with the dictionary definition of the word, nor is it consistent in its use across the project. That said, I have largely reconciled myself with the existence of sub-stub articles on obviously non-notable settlements by taking to heart the statement in one of the [[WP:5|five pillars of Wikipedia]] : "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and '''gazetteers'''" (emphasis added). I no longer think of articles of the type in question as being encyclopedia entries, but rather consider them "gazetteer entries" in compliance with that particular role that Wikipedia serves. Granted, this may be a lot of mental gymnastics on my part, but it's what allows me to reconcile the fact that an article on some obscure hamlet need not be ''notable'' to exist :) [[User:Shereth|<b
::Could also fall under almanac. I believe every geographical feature should be included. While the particular person who started the article may only know that it is a village in a country, every settlement has hundreds if not thousands of years of history prior to the present, and that certainly is notable. Wikipedia should be the place to find out about villages in who-the-hell-knows-where that you can't find out about elsewhere on the internet. Geographical features are also verifiable by their very nature: they physically exist in the world for anyone to go and check. - '''[[User:Floydian|<
:::Why is every village ever built more notable than any person ever born? (see [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory|Genealogical entries]]). [[User:Chesdovi|Chesdovi]] ([[User talk:Chesdovi|talk]]) 16:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
::::They aren't; hence my point that ''notability'' should not even be discussed at this point. Wikipedia has a capacity as a [[gazetteer]] as stated in the five pillars, and thus geographic entries are appropriate so long as they are [[WP:V|verifiable]]. But since Wikipedia is ''not'' a geneological database as your link points out, people therefore must be [[WP:N|notable]] as well as being verifiable. [[User:Shereth|<b
:::A little research (such as on NewsBank or NewpaperArchive) can turn articles on hamlets with seven residents into nice articles. See [[Donnan, Iowa]] and [[Monti, Iowa]] for examples. [[User:Firsfron|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Firsfron of Ronchester</span>]] 16:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
::::I suspect that the vast majority of settlements that have ever existed will not reach wikipedia simply because they are long abandoned and have left no trace on the archaeological record. That said we could at some point see an explosion of creation of articles on Masaii bomas as mobile phone editing takes off. However many settlements that are being written up here existed for many centuries and the total population of people who have ever lived in them will in that case be many times their average population ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 17:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::They will all reach Wikipedia eventually! Perhaps you are unaware of it, but there is an editor that is going around creating hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles that are just empty stubs for place-names. The last time I raised the issue (back last year) he (or rather the bot he uses) had finished creating articles for every settlement in all countries starting with "A" and most of those starting with "B". [[User:Meowy|<
::::::Hundreds of thousands? Only 50 editors have more than 100,000 total edits. What do these stubs look like? [[User:Firsfron|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Firsfron of Ronchester</span>]] 21:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::::[[User:Himalayan Explorer]], formerly [[User:Dr. Blofeld]], has created 63,375 articles. The location stubs look like this; [[Babaj Boks]]. <
::::::::There are other editors who use the same article-creation bot, such as Carlossuarez46, so to be correct I should have said that it is the bot which has created hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles that are just empty stubs for place-names. [[User:Meowy|<
It may be worth noting here that 4 of the 6 [[French villages destroyed in the First World War]] which have not been rebuilt and were used by [[User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] to back up inclusion of destroyed Syrian villages were indeed created by [[User:Dr. Blofeld]]. [[User:Chesdovi|Chesdovi]] ([[User talk:Chesdovi|talk]]) 23:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I feel the same way about small communities as I do about high schools -- it is possible to do a reasonable article on them if you take time to research what's unique about them. I've read quite interesting histories of small settlements in local-history books and genealogical sources. But an article that simply says, "Understone is an unincorporated community in Hadleigh County, Maryland at the intersection of routes 18 and 234, 4 miles east of Hadleigh City" is of little use to anyone. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] ([[User talk:Mwalcoff|talk]]) 02:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Line 1,370:
:There also seems to be a contingent who, while they never actually state any performance concerns, seems to feel that more articles are somehow hard on the system. Aside from [[Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance]], you should all keep in mind that for enterprise level SQL servers running on a server fer, 3 million + items of text (10 million+, including talk pages and templates, etc...) is really a pittance for SQL. There are databases out there that handle ''trillions'' of entries. WMF doesn't have to pay money for each article or anything either, so... chill.
:I don't want to sound like a total ideologue here. Wikipedia shouldn't include garage bands, or host my resume, or anything like that. There's a distinct difference between attempting to start pages for what potentially could be a legitimate article and starting a bunch of garage band articles, though. If someone has created 600,000+ stub articles about locations, that's something to celebrate to me, not something which should be panned.<br/>— [[User:Ohms law|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><i>V</i> = <i>I</i> * <i>R</i></span>]] ([[User talk:Ohms law|talk to Ω]]) 03:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
::Wikipedia should be about readers, not editors. A reader comes to an article '''expecting content''', not expecting an empty article. A reader searching for information about the town of Zig in Zagland is not exactly going to be happy to find an article telling him nothing more than "Zig is a town in Zagland" - he will know that already! It diminishes the credibility of Wikipedia as a source of information. However, I know that there are strong vested interests in maximising the number of articles on Wikipedia, and maxmising the number and the rate of creation of newly-created articles, so criticism of the practice of mass place-name stub creation is not going to be successful. [[User:Meowy|<
::These stubby place names are often better treated as redirects to entries within the context of an article about a larger geographic unit or as an entry in a list article. When and/or if more verifiable information is found to support a stand-alone article, they can be split out at that time. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 20:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
:::A couple of points in reply here. Personally I feel that it is more of a service to our readers to present ''something'' other then "Wikipedia doesn't have an article on...". I also think that it's an awfully large assumption to make that people already know that "Zig is a town in Zagland", which if you give any credence at all to the studies showing the lack of knowledge about geography is almost certainly not true. As for redirecting... what would the targets be? I see redirecting as a decent solution to fill out stub articles personally, but I don't see an easy way to redirect a location article to anything else.<br/>— [[User:Ohms law|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><i>V</i> = <i>I</i> * <i>R</i></span>]] ([[User talk:Ohms law|talk to Ω]]) 01:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
::::Do you actually use Wikipedia? (Editing Wikipedia is not ''using'' Wikipedia!) I first became aware of the vast number of useless place-name stubs when I was searching for information about certain places, and all I found were dozens of article stubs. Every site I found on using Google was worthless - either worthless Wikipedia stubs, or worthless pages from the many sites that use Wikipedia content and so contained no more content that the original Wikipedia stub. It is often said that "if you have nothing to say then best say nothing" - it should be the same for a Wikipedia article. [[User:Meowy|<
:::::Actually, I'd say that I ''use'' Wikipedia more then I edit it. Recently I've been more outspoken and participatory here, but I've relied on Wikipedia since... well, for a long time. I do sympathize with the point that you're making, but I think that it's slightly misplaced here. Consider what you would see in the absence of Wikipedia, in the examples that you are brought up, after all. Would you feel better if Google gave you 100,000 ''pure garbage'' links, or 1.5 million links, but the first dozen were Wikipedia and all of its mirrors with (admittedly) sub-par content? I'm not really defending our sub-stub or stub level articles on their own merits, but I think that their better then absolutely nothing.<br/>— [[User:Ohms law|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><i>V</i> = <i>I</i> * <i>R</i></span>]] ([[User talk:Ohms law|talk to Ω]]) 17:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
::::To the question about targets for location articles, the answer is fairly simple. If all that can be said about the town of Zig is that it is a town in Zagland, redirecting it to a [[List of cities and towns in Zagland]]. If Zagland is a large country and such a list would be unmaintainably large, then create individual lists for the provinces/states/whatevers : [[List of cities and towns in Zug]]. It's a fairly simple solution to the problem. If and when someone comes along with more information about Zig, then an actual article can go in its place. I have no real issue with sub-stub articles on real locations, but in situations where there is genuinely nothing to say about a place other than that it exists, list articles may well be a good solution. [[User:Shereth|<b
::::::...Is it always that obvious when the content of an article should be "bumped up" (so to speak) to the next highest category level? I mean, it's fairly easy to look at 10's or 100's of sub-stubs after they are created and say "maybe these should be a single list", but... well, for one thing, that takes extra work, and seeing that fact is often part of the work involved. Probably more important though is the fact that the article's current state says nothing about it's ''potential'' state. Just because all that the article creator added is the absolute bare minimum doesn't mean that the article couldn't be (often, greatly) expanded. Even the tiniest populated places tend to have ''lengthy'' histories, simply because of human nature, after all (not that those histories are always important outside of the context of the settlement, but still...).
::::::I think that this is a somewhat philosophical issue, in that I probably personally tend to see and desire the potential from articles, whereas many other people (perhaps yourself included) only see the here and now. That's not intended as a knock on you in any way, as either perspective has it's advantages... but, neither of us should be so iconoclastic in our views as to make the other perspective "foreign".<br/>— [[User:Ohms law|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><i>V</i> = <i>I</i> * <i>R</i></span>]] ([[User talk:Ohms law|talk to Ω]]) 17:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I'm sorry if I was unclear, but I am in no way advocating a reductionist methodology with regards to settlement articles. In fact, when any history on a settlement can be found (verifiable) I fully agree that the preferred outcome would be the creation of a full-fledged article, even if it is still a stubby article. Primarily I was referring to the numerous articles whose content is of the "X is a city in Y" format and contains nothing more than statistical data (geographical coordinates, population figures, etc). ''These'' types of articles are well suited to being merged into a tabular list that can present the data in a concise fashion. This should be in no way viewed as discouragement to the creation of full-fledged articles when more information is available. [[User:Shereth|<b
}}
Line 1,408:
::::::Question: Should we delete a '''fully GNG-compliant''' subject because of your ignorance?
::::::Given that most of us believe that editors are not omniscient — that is, that it is possible for editors to be ignorant of excellent sources — I don't think that we want a policy of blindly equating "I can't find any good sources (online) (in the two minutes I spent looking) (in English)" with "No sources exist, anywhere in the world, in any language, in any media format". I think we should encourage editors to rely on their best judgment, not their FWSE. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::We don't use "probably do exist" as a foundation for sources. Now, on the other hand, we do take the word that "Hey, there's these books here, I can't get it for another month" as sufficient verification that there's actual sources that have been identified, but just different to reach. But if you think there's sources but can't actually identify what they are beyond generalities, that's not evidence, that's presumptions and not appropriate. --[[User:Masem|M<
:::::::I agree with Masem, there does need to be at least some evidence that a specific source exists. I can assume that sources exist somewhere about anything that I want and then complain that people just aren't trying hard enough to find them, that doesn't mean that they actually exist. The whole point of notability is to establish a threshold where articles that pass it can have a decent (i.e. passing [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]] and being more than a substub) article written about them. One cannot reference an article with the possibility of a source. <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 23:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::And when sources are produced in the future, do we say, "Oops, we made an honest mistake out of appalling ignorance/lazy reliance on online sources/an unwarranted assumption that sources not in an editor's face don't exist"? Or do we say, "Well, actually, Wikipedia didn't want information that turned out to be accurate, on a subject that turned out to be notable anyway, because there was a 1% chance that it wouldn't have been notable"?
Line 1,415:
:::::::::An article being deleted doesn't mean that we can ''never'' have an article on that topic. If an article was deleted due to notability, and you find a source later, you don't even need a DRV to recreate it. Asking for a shred of evidence is hardly "appalling ignorance." I didn't say people need to provide the source itself (nor did Masem), they just need to provide evidence, not assumptions, that a source exists. <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 00:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::But shred of evidence is already available, its an official name in state records, its locatable on a map so there no assumption required sources already exists. The assumption occurs that occurs that further sources exists for a place that a reasonable assupmtion to make, even for places in non-english speaking countries [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 01:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::That's not a secondary source. That's a data fact that can go into the types of tables and lists that make up gazetteers. We also need notice beyond local interests, so while there may be local bits of info we can put in place, that's still not worthy of notice. And with the same logic, every person in most countries would be notable because of having an official name and recorded by the government. We can still fulfill the duty of the gazetteer without having an article on every tiny settlement. --[[User:Masem|M<
::::::::::::GNG does not require non-local sources. AFAIK, only ORG requires non-local sources. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Local sources lose independence that is required by the GNG, as well as being assured as being reliable sources. They can supplement wider coverage sources but should not be used alone for notability. --[[User:Masem|M<
(Undent) If communities with fewer than 10 residents each, such as [[Donnan, Iowa]] and [[Monti, Iowa]], are notable, ''any'' city, town, or village is notable: it just takes a little research and effort by interested editors to extract that data and reference it. [[User:Firsfron|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Firsfron of Ronchester</span>]] 03:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
@Masem ''Local sources lose independence'' How? Independence is about a person/company writing about themselves or paying someone to do it how does a place do that? [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 03:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
* As your sources become more and more local, they are only going to focus on elements of the local community, having a vested interest in that area, they cannot be assured of being a reliable independent source. Notability is about being worthy of note to the world at large, and using highly-focused sources do not assure this. --[[User:Masem|M<
::so by your reasoning Botanists who write about plants arent independent either. Only people who have an interest in the subject are going to write about it. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 03:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Not to be a smart ass, but local reporters ARE paid to write about their city. It is their job. Independence is not limited to people and companies. If the only one talking about a locality is the locality itself, it is not notable. -- [[User:AnmaFinotera|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342FF'>AnmaFinotera</span>]] ([[User talk:AnmaFinotera|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/AnmaFinotera|contribs]]) 03:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
::::It has to do not just with focus but what the function of the work is for. Botanists that are writing about plants are not trying to promote plants but instead document scientific studies; they have an interest in the work but they are writing their work in a detacted manner that makes them independent. Journalists for small town newspapers are trying to promote the town, thus are attached to the topic, and thus are less likely to be independent. --[[User:Masem|M<
:::::That a big presumption about [[journalist]]s do you have evidence to support your claims because our article says the opposite. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 12:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::Notice how [[Journalist]] only states that "some" follow [[Journalism ethics]]. Plus, have you never seen [[Fox News]] or [[The Daily Express]]? And they're big national news organisations. [[User:OrangeDog|OrangeDog]] <small>([[User talk:OrangeDog|τ]] • [[Special:Contributions/OrangeDog|ε]])</small> 14:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,431:
Furthermore, there are also editorial reasons to up-merge tiny geo articles. A nicely filled-out article on a parish is going to be a lot better than 15 one-line articles reading "Stive Pissleton is a community in Oetleshire". [[User:OrangeDog|OrangeDog]] <small>([[User talk:OrangeDog|τ]] • [[Special:Contributions/OrangeDog|ε]])</small> 14:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
:I'm saying that if I can find enough references to show [[Donnan, Iowa]], or [[Monti, Iowa]] notable, with their populations in single digits, there's absolutely no excuse for claiming that small towns in general are non-notable. These towns are small enough that they do not ''have'' local newspapers; yet these towns received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It just takes some research and interested editors. I agree that a one-line article is not ideal, but every article on Wikipedia starts off as a stub. [[User:Firsfron|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Firsfron of Ronchester</span>]] 15:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
::I would say very small towns in first world countries are skewed evidence here; they are drawn attention due to the single/double digit population for the same reason we are fascinated by other "World's records". This is not to say those two aren't notable, but there's a plethera of villages and towns between the extremes of a major city and these two examples where there is no notability that is immediately inferred. And this certainly is not a case when you go to second-/third-world countries were only the basics of such settlements are recorded. --[[User:Masem|M<
:::Having done the research, I can state that the smaller a U.S. or Canadian town is, the fewer references one can find... but an interested editor ''can'' find them. Always, always, always. Although hamlets with single digit populations attract attention due to their single digit populations, the number of references one can find grows pretty much exponentially for larger communities. Regarding villages in Third World countries, I agree that there ''likely'' will be less electronic information available, but small communities like [[Atil, Sonora]], Mexico, and [[Oke-Onigbin]], Kwara, Nigeria, can certainly be referenced to reliable sources independent of the subject. [[User:Firsfron|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Firsfron of Ronchester</span>]] 15:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
::::If they can always be found, then find them and add them. Then the whole problem will go away. Also remember that there are places other than those in America. [[User:OrangeDog|OrangeDog]] <small>([[User talk:OrangeDog|τ]] • [[Special:Contributions/OrangeDog|ε]])</small> 16:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::"Also remember that there are places other than those in America." What a strange non sequitur. You either didn't read what I've written above, or you don't know where Nigeria is. The fact is, editor ''are'' adding in references for small communities. It happens every day. I have yet to find a community which has no reference; in fact, the very idea of there being a community that has never been mentioned anywhere is somewhat absurd. [[User:Firsfron|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Firsfron of Ronchester</span>]] 16:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::But are these references sufficient secondary sources for notability? I am positive there are references for pretty much every settlement but these are usually going to be primary and not independent (eg annuals of the town or the like). And of course we can also point to gov't data and census figures, but that's not a secondary source, that's just data.
::::::I am confident there are a ''lot'' of small towns that can be shown to be notable, but this is far different from the assertion that every small settlement will be notable. As elements of gazetteers, our first step should be ''list'' geographic features and towns and villages and the like (what a gazetteer is supposed to do), and only split off when notability is affirmed to be able to build out an encyclopedic article that can go beyond just the flat out datum for that. --[[User:Masem|M<
:::::::@Firsfron: Those few Nigerian settlements may be, but there are millions that aren't. Obviously I can't give examples, as I would only know the notable ones, and don't see the point in researching small African villages to find ones about which there is no information. And even in England there are loads of hamlets and clusters of 5-10 buildings that are named on maps but have no non-trivial secondary coverage. [[User:OrangeDog|OrangeDog]] <small>([[User talk:OrangeDog|τ]] • [[Special:Contributions/OrangeDog|ε]])</small> 17:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::If some am positive there are references for pretty much every settlement, then why aren't all articles about settlements the subject of significant coverage? Such claims seem to me to be special pleading, and are not based on [[WP:NRVE|verifiable evidence of notability]]. It seems to me that some editors claim to have access to a [[WP:ATA#Crystal|crystal ball]], but since none of these are available at any market near me (not even for ready money), I don't believe in such claims. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins#top|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Gavin.collins|contribs)]] 20:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,451:
::Is this the same Astley Cross which is discussed on page 318 of [http://books.google.com/books?id=OrsHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA318&dq=%22Astley+Cross%22&hl=en&ei=6of6S-LGH5LCMvyq-ZQF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Astley%20Cross%22&f=false John Noake's 1854 book]? There's also an Astley Cross near Stourport, whose church was noted on pages 5 and 6 in a November 21st, 1900, newspaper article. It looks like there are 10 or 11 other newspaper articles on the village (''The Commercial Gazette'', ''Guardian'', ''Church Weekly'', ''Courier''), mostly on the church. I'd need to do some research, but it looks like there's info here.[http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=%22Astley%20Cross%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=sp] Too bad I'm on the wrong side of the Atlantic. I feel somewhat handicapped: I can't go there and snap some photos, or visit the area library to find out more. [[User:Firsfron|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Firsfron of Ronchester</span>]] 14:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Also, can you point out the discussion where you were beaten back by a single editor? The only discussions I could find on Astley Cross are the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astley Cross|Astley Cross deletion discussion]] and [[Talk:Astley_Cross]], neither of which involved a single editor. I ''am'' sorry you felt beaten back. [[User:Firsfron|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Firsfron of Ronchester</span>]] 15:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
::::I'd immediately discount the book, because even if that is the right place, those are mentions in passing and do nothing to substantiate the topic. --[[User:Masem|M<
:::::Then add them to the article and it's one fewer problem to worry about. Although I would say they demonstrate the notability of the church, rather than the settlement. [[User:OrangeDog|OrangeDog]] <small>([[User talk:OrangeDog|τ]] • [[Special:Contributions/OrangeDog|ε]])</small> 19:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::The places in the settlement are a part of it. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color:silver;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color:blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 21:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
| |||