Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 75: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
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<span style="font-size:x-small;">ASEM</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 05:54, 23 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>
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)
Line 289:
::::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. --<span style="font-family:serif;">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]][[User:Candlewicke/List of signatories|<span style="color:black">dle</span>]][[WP:ITN/C|•]][[User talk:Candlewicke|<span style="color:green">wicke</span>]]</span> 14:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::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 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 style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b><span style="color:#FFB521;">cobra</span>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 03:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
::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)
Line 438:
::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 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 ==
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 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 905:
[[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 style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b><span style="color:#FFB521;">cobra</span>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 22:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
::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|<span style="color:#595454;">Will Beback</span>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<span style="color:#C0C0C0;">talk</span>]] </b> 23:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
::::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)
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 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 1,040:
:::[[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]. <span style="font-family:Century Gothic;">[[User:J04n|J04n]]([[User talk:J04n|talk page]])</span> 00:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
*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 1,051:
::#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|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:black;">talk</sup>]] 15:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
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 1,293:
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)
Line 1,299:
*'''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 style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b><span style="color:#FFB521;">cobra</span>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
*: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 style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b><span style="color:#FFB521;">cobra</span>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 23:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''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)
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 1,354:
***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 style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b>]][[User_talk:Shereth|<b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b>]] 16:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
::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 style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b>]][[User_talk:Shereth|<b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b>]] 16:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Line 1,361:
:::::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|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">'''Meowy'''</span>]] 21:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
::::::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|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">'''Meowy'''</span>]] 19:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
| |||