Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 75
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196
WP:SINGLEEVENT Issues with Suicides
Ok i recently stumbled upon these articles looking a Cyberbullying and they bother me greatly.
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. 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. Will Beback talk 21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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? Chickenmonkey 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. Resolute 22:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- If they are excessively biographical then that can be fixed through editing. Will Beback talk 23:33, 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. Resolute 22:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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. East of Borschov (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Every suicide that results from bullying leads to calls for tougher laws. Individual cases long since stopped being notable on these grounds. Resolute 16:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Issue Why are some of these articles titled "suicide of [name]" or "[name] suicide" while others are "death of [name]"? This is not cool. Fix it, Wikipedia -- it's consensus time! :) Alex Douglas (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agree that these articles are probably not best organized as whole, stand alone articles. I am also bothered by articles made up entirely from newspaper reports. The depth of coverage is minimal, and there are original research issues. I'm sure that there exist more substantial sources about bullying and teenage suicide that would enable better organization of this content. There are plenty of good sources already included at Suicide and Teenage suicide in the United States, for example. I think these individual stories would be better considered as case studies connected to a general subject. In any case, I don't think that deletion is a solution to any problem here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Try assessing them against the notability guideline for events, WP:EVENT. Fences&Windows 16:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
New proposal for Tibetan naming conventions
I have put up a new set of proposed Tibetan naming conventions. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan)#New naming convention proposal. Your comments and feedback are requested.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
RfC on merging Words to avoid into Words to watch
- Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC. There's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a project to streamline the MoS. One part of the proposal is to merge Words to avoid, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Avoid neologisms into a new page, Words to watch (W2W). Fresh input would be appreciated at the RfC. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Fallingrain.com
Hi please join in the thread at 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. Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- If this is done, it should be a Wikipedia: article, not something in the main namespace. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling Rain Genomics (2nd nomination) already happened. Fram (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps revisit this "perennial proposal" in light of new comment by Jimbo
Due to this quote by Jimbo found here-
I think that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." is a good policy. To take the example of a popular book that receives no reviews, what kind of encyclopedia article could you write about it? You could write an original review, but that isn't an encyclopedia article. You could write a plot summary, but that isn't an encyclopedia article. You could do some kind of original research, but that wouldn't be an encyclopedia article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should revisit the old discussion about whether or not plot summaries are "encyclopedic" and should be allowed. In those previous discussion I (and several others) said just summarizing and using the book/movie as the source for a summary is not encyclopedic nor should it be allowed. We were shouted down and told that wasnt true. Jimbo seems to agree with us however... Oh, I know exactly which editors will show up here and say "Jimbo was only talking about articles with ONLY plot summaries...we have fully fleshed out articles" etc etc to explain this away, but if need be we can always go to Him and ask what his thoughts truly are on this for I dont wish to put words in his mouth. So, I'm just suggesting that we revisit this topic as last time it came up with no consensus (or actually I'd say the majority was against using books/movies themselves as sources for plot summaries, just a vocal minority blocked it by being stubborn).Camelbinky (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Good gravy..didn't you bring this up just last month? Jimbo has NEVER said you cannot use a film nor book for its own plot summary. His quote doesn't have a damn thing to do with it, and I'm sick if it being thrown around in such a horrible attempt to misuse his statement. Nor do his thoughts really matter one way or another. Consensus has long upheld that yes, you can use a book as the source for its own plot summary, and a film for its own, the same as you can use a newspaper to source information about itself, a magazine to source information about itself, etc etc etc. And it wasn't a "vocal minority" either. The only "vocal minority" are the few people who keep making these asinine arguments to get around WP:SPOILERS by making up a stupid excuse to remove all plot summaries from articles. This needs to be thrown right back in the perennial proposal pile and buried there, yet again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually no I didnt. And second watch your tone you are being uncivil (and no I dont want a big conversation here, on my talk page, or anywhere else listening to you tell me you're not being uncivil; you're wrong, so sit there in your wrongness and be wrong) and so basically my response to your rant is- I can bring up whatever topic I want, you dont want to talk about it then dont comment on the thread.Camelbinky (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever. Nothing wrong with my tone, thanks. There is absolute nothing wrong with asking if you had not just brought this up (could have sworn it was you). That was the only comment about "you" personally, and it is obviously not a personal attack of any kind so don't start throwing around the uncivil label just because you dislike the question. If you don't want honest responses, don't bring up a topic, try to make claims that are incorrect about the past discussions on that topic, blatantly attempt to misapply Jimbo's quote, and dismiss everyone who disagreed with you as some "vocal minority" or claim that anyone who disagrees shouldn't comment. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Still find your tone rude and uncivil and now you have continued in your lack of AGF against me and escalated it further. Specifically said I dont want a big fight over this. You accuse me of "blatantly attempt [sic] to misapply Jimbo's quote"; I did no such thing, I truly find his quote to be what I took it as, apparently I was wrong, my bad, but no blatant attempt to misapply it. I never claimed ownership and I havent said to anyone else here that they shouldnt respond, didnt say you shouldnt respond if you disagree with me, I said YOU shouldnt respond if you think this is a discussion that shouldnt take place, not because you disagree with it. I dont mind honest responses like from Equazcion and Peregrine Fisher both of whom I respect their views.Camelbinky (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I fail to see how you can take that quote, which does not say anything at all about not using primary sources, nor about plot summaries within an entire article and claim that he supports your view that plot summaries should presumably be removed or reduced to the teasers in reviews and the like. The quote makes no such implication, hence my feeling it is a misapplication. If you really think it somehow supports your view, please draw a clearer line because I just don't see it. Your response implied that I was not allowed to comment if I didn't think it worth discussing, which is just as valid a view as any, because it has been discussed to death and the outcome is unlikely to change, especially after so short a time. My response also clearly disagreed and noted that you were clearly misinterpreting the statement, but of course that only counts if someone else says it? And somehow you telling me to basically go away because I think bringing it up again is wrong is somehow civil, polite, and AGFing? ... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually no I didnt. And second watch your tone you are being uncivil (and no I dont want a big conversation here, on my talk page, or anywhere else listening to you tell me you're not being uncivil; you're wrong, so sit there in your wrongness and be wrong) and so basically my response to your rant is- I can bring up whatever topic I want, you dont want to talk about it then dont comment on the thread.Camelbinky (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note, notices of discussion left at the talk pages of the main media projects, WP:WAF, and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- You're saying this quote means Jimbo agrees that plot summaries based on primary sources are bad; but I think that's a bit of a stretch. He said those alone don't constitute valid articles, but not that they shouldn't be included in an otherwise valid article. I think if we have an article based on reliable third-party sources, it'd be conspicuously remiss in omitting a plot summary, even though these primary-sourced plot summaries do tend to cause quality problems. I'd be in favor of searching for a solution but I'm not sure if leaving them out altogether is the answer. Equazcion (talk) 03:50, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- The idea of excluding articles lacking any sort of reliable third-party coverage is an entirely different thing than excluding articles which incorporate first-party sources. Also, appeal to authority. Dcoetzee 04:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- (e/c) I do not see how the quote implicates plot summaries. The key word that is used is "topic", which is not a stand in for "information." The plain language of this quote regards a subject entire; there must be reliable third-party sources on the topic of the movie/book, or Wikipedia should not have an entry for that topic. I do not see how parsing this language even speaks to the segregated section of an article containing the plot. Please note that I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the idea that plot summaries should be sourced with third party sources, only that the quote cannot be used to support that proposition because it is about something entirely different that doesn't even work by analogy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't believe this quote has any bearing on this topic, to be honest. Plot summaries are first-party sources. They, inherently, do not require third-party reference, I would think. The only thing to be mindful of is original research toward interpreting what certain plot points mean, or over-detailed/long summaries: things like that, in my opinion. Chickenmonkey 04:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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. - 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. —Mike Allen 05:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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 --MASEM (t) 05:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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. --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. Reyk YO! 08:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- We already essentially have such a policy, it's called WP:Notability. No need for policy creep. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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 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. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- You are completely missed Jimbo's point while taking what he said completely out of its context. He was reply to a question by Dream Focus about whether a novel that makes the NYT's best seller list but has not received any other third-party coverage should have an article. Jimbo's reply, which you quoted, was to say "no". Jimbo goes on to voice his support for WP:NOTPLOT, which Dream Focus also opposes.
- It is quite clear that Jimbo's statement that articles that are only or largely plot summaries are not encyclopedic articles. He does not says anything about plot summaries as part of a larger encyclopedic article about a work of fiction not being encyclopedic content. Nor does he make any statement implying that all content must be based only on third-party sources. To make that stretch requires twisting Jimbo's statement.
- You claim you don't want to put words in Jimbo's mount, but that is exactly what you are doing. But also, Jimbo is just like any other editor on policy matters. While his words do carry some weight, he has left it up to the community consensus to determine what exactly the policy is. He doesn't have a veto nor can he overrule a policy unless there are clear legal problems with a policy. But that doesn't apply here. —Farix (t | c) 11:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Why do we need a new template for articles like Gaius Baltar? That's what Template:Plot is for, right? --Conti|✉ 12:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The fictional work using reliable third-party sources for analysis does not mean that the primary source cannot be used to provide a basic description of the the work. I do not see WP:PSTS mentioned, but it says about using primary sources:
Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.
If an article on a fictional work has nothing or mostly nothing but a plot summary, that is a problem. A summary can exist as part of the larger coverage. For example, the article should not have 1,000 words of a film's plot if there are only 200 words explaining the film's background. Plot summaries should be a fractional amount of any well-written article about a fictional work. Obviously, that fraction can be debatable, but the primary-source content should not swamp content from reliable third-party sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- For the simplest of trash novels the primary source may suffice, but complex allegories are different. Contemplate how Animal Farm or Atlas Shrugged might read if we had only the primary text as basis. They would be constant battlegrounds for editor interpretation of the texts. Surely we don't want that.User:LeadSongDog come howl 12:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- The key with allegorical works is to make plot summaries very high-level. I do not think it is an issue to use a primary source to write one paragraph about the basic premise of such a work, but it can be useful to rely on a third-party, reliable source that may do a better job of providing that concise of a synopsis. Then the allegories can be explored in analytical sections. I took this approach with The Fountain#Narrative because the plot summary had a lot of interpretations and did not have a conventional flow that could be conveyed. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Plot summaries are one section of an encyclopedic topic. Jimbo's quote is about the entire topic, not subsections thereof. I can't see how you can read that as requiring third-party sources for the potted plot summary, only for the topic/work as a whole. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- as someone new to all this, yet willing to learn, can I just be generic ...
I find the quote I think that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." is a good policy. utterly incomprehensible. I'm working mainly within the comics field, and despite extensive knowledge, and superb resources above and beyond the usual gods, find it frustrating that it is virtually impossible to provide sufficient citations to develop what Wkipedia as a collective entity decides is a good article. Now the argument in the narrower field of comics may miss some of the nuances of Wikipedia in general, but I can't follow that if the only sources are primary, and one is willing to work only within those without conjecture, that they're not acceptable, whilst an external source is accepatble if 'notable' even if wrong - taking it to the extreme - it's ok to do Nazi history through Neo-Nazi research because it's x-party, but not first-hand experience.
I still can't get my head around not being able to synopsise comics, while doing episode guides for tv series is ok. I don't understand how Wikipedia is full of endless pages of stuff without any citations whatsoever (or sometimes any content whatsoever) and there's no complaint, but some get blasted for the same problems. And the drive to 'good article' is often lost in the rule book - although thankfully in my little panelological corner people realise that anything can be the start of a good thing.
Personally, I'll get on with it on the basis that all knowledge should be available, think removing something because it doesn't fit with current thinking is challengeable, and add an article if I think it may add a micron to the sum of human knowledge. Someone else can argue the whys and wherefores of petty argument.
Sometimes we not only miss the forest because of the trees, we forget to make sure the tea bar is open before the crowds arrive to picnic in the woods. Apologies for the edge - I'm tired from a week of not travelling home. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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 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. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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! 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:
- Good encyclopedia articles about books, films, plays, comics, etc. include a plot summary (which editors are normally permitted to write from primary sources).
- A plot summary all by itself is not a good encyclopedia article.
Can we keep this in mind for the rest of this conversation? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is exactly why {{All plot}} exists, as contrasted with {{Plot}}. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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 - Air (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! Archiveangel (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- That view is a bit less common now than it was in the early days — see the end of WP:HS/N for a 2003 quotation from Jimbo that appears to support inclusion of articles that are supported solely by self-published primary sources — although everyone agrees that editors should use their best judgment.
- IMO the ultimate controlling factor should be whether or not independent sources exist (not: "already cited"), so that the article could be properly expanded (not: "already expanded"). If we're pretty sure that exactly zero independent book reviews/other sources have been published, then we should not have an article about the book, full stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
It's important to include plot summaries to provide context for commentary. A plot summary without commentary is pretty pointless as an encyclopedia article, but it can be labeled a stub. A book would be a verifiable source for a straightforward description of its own plot. --Susfele (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Echoing others here. Plot summaries are nessasary and whether they come from primary or secondary sources matters only when you use certain intreprative words that are not used in the actual work itself. In those cases, secondary sources are needed. One also needs to make it as condense as possible without stripping away the meaning that might confuse the reader. When a book is notable, it is nessasary for a reader to know what the plot is so that if they are unfamilar with the story, they can get an idea why others think this work is notable; in essence it provides context.
- Thus a reasonable sized plot summary using only factual statements from the work "[...] is good editing."陣内Jinnai 02:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Original research in an image
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? 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. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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. 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！ Scapler (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- If the other user's sole contributions to Commons is to add the image, how to I find out which language Wikipedia they contribute on? Woogee (talk) 21:55, 26 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！ Scapler (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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. Woogee (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you do realize that a fantasy like Ratte could be said to be 45 or 55 meters long ... as practical as 25. NVO (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Let's cut to the heart of the matter shall we? What is your actual objection to this image? Do you believe they copied it from another source, or is the concern in the area of accuracy? Hitler loved huge guns, I'm sure a psychiatrist could go on for hours explaining why but the point is he never tired of proposals for bigger and more ridiculous pieces of destructive hardware. So if there is no reason to believe the image was copied from a copyrighted source then the only remaining concern is accuracy. That should be easy to determine by comparing the proposed dimensions of this monstrosity to the real-world tanks pictured next to it. The article itself seems well sourced so if the image jives with the article there should not be a problem. It's too bad there isn't at least a prototype of this somewhere, I'd love to see such a ridiculously overblown piece of machinery... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- My objection is that the image was created by a User with no source as to whether or not the scale is correct. I don't know. I'm asking for a source, as would be required if the image were put into text into the article. I don't understand your hostility. Comparing the scale of the tank in the image with the other tanks in the picture would be original research and violate WP:SYNTH. Woogee (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, comparing the scale of two things standing together in an image isn't OR, it's plain sight. The OR policy is clear that the type of calc that anyone can do without any special training or equipment is not OR. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, I'm not seeing the OR here. As long as the scale in the image agrees with sourced dimensions in the tanks' articles (and that agreement is something we can determine for ourselves without need for sources), it's fine. We've got lots of images used like this in other articles to show scale, and I'd go out on a limb and say, without checking, that a good percentage of them are "unsourced" this same way. Equazcion (talk) 23:04, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte gives sources as to the size of the thing (35m long 11m high) and Tiger 1 gives the length of a Tiger I as 8.45m gun forward, and the height as 3m. I would say on that basis that the drawing is a little inaccurate. Which is more of a problem than it being unsourced really. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I t looks more or less okay to me. The P.1000 looks about four times the height of the Tiger, for example. What specifically do you think is inaccurate? Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- On a closer look, I think you're probably right. It must be an optical illusion that it looks bigger because its got the detailing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I t looks more or less okay to me. The P.1000 looks about four times the height of the Tiger, for example. What specifically do you think is inaccurate? Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte gives sources as to the size of the thing (35m long 11m high) and Tiger 1 gives the length of a Tiger I as 8.45m gun forward, and the height as 3m. I would say on that basis that the drawing is a little inaccurate. Which is more of a problem than it being unsourced really. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, I'm not seeing the OR here. As long as the scale in the image agrees with sourced dimensions in the tanks' articles (and that agreement is something we can determine for ourselves without need for sources), it's fine. We've got lots of images used like this in other articles to show scale, and I'd go out on a limb and say, without checking, that a good percentage of them are "unsourced" this same way. Equazcion (talk) 23:04, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- No, comparing the scale of two things standing together in an image isn't OR, it's plain sight. The OR policy is clear that the type of calc that anyone can do without any special training or equipment is not OR. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Whatever. I get it now. You have to source text, but you can make whatever images you want. If I were to make an image of Barack Obama that's ten feet tall, that would be okay, because it's an image. Thanks for letting me know. I'm done with this. Woogee (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly -- As long as there's a source in the article that says Obama is 10 feet tall. Equazcion (talk) 00:02, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- Based on the size of the Maus in the illustration, which seems to be in approximately correct proportion to the Tiger, and the dimensions given in its article of 10.1m long and 3.6m high, the Ratte appears to be 38m long by 12m high. Based on the dimensions shown in its infobox (35m by 11m), that means the Ratte's two-dimensional image is almost 20% too large. Converting the image to 3-D in my head, the Ratte looks more than 50 times larger than the Maus, while the dimensions given in text should make it only 40 times bigger. Of course, the source for the dimensions in the text is not clear to me either. Neither is it clear how it could come in at 1000 tonnes, or even 2000, which is only about 5–11 times the weight of the Maus. Even with the high clearance and a fairly roomy cabin, it seems like it should weigh at least 20 times as much as a Maus, if not more. BTW, I don't know anything about tanks, but I think that I'm pretty familiar with bad attitudes. Perhaps somebody could put on their WP:CIVIL face and suggest to the original artist (Alebo) that he/she check the scale, adjust it if appropriate, and add a note that the drawing is based on the dimensions provided in the article as of the date of upload (or any other source). The current request for sourcing is on the Commons talk page of the editor who simply added the human figure (the original artist has not posted at Commons for more than two years). OTOH, it might be sufficient to add a note to the image file's talk page, which I just did.--Hjal (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Days of the year has been marked as a guideline
Wikipedia:Days of the year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Merge templates and other templates
This proposal is motivated by the merge message which has been at the top of the Extrasolar planet article for some time. I think these boxes are unsightly and detract from readers appeciation of an article. They are aimed at editors, not readers. They also act as an undue weight advertisement for the topic that is to be merged into a main article. I propose that any templates which are aimed at editors rather than readers should only be visible if you log in, or even better appear on the talk page instead. They make Wikipedia look very messy. Qurq (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Even people who are logged out/don't have an account are able to WP:MERGE pages, or to contribute to the discussion about merging pages. If the announcements are hidden, then fewer people will be able to participate in the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to see most templates moved to either the talk page or the bottom of the article. I agree that they clutter the appearance. Maurreen (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
A discussion at ANI prompted a proposal to codify our de-facto policy on admitted or suspected pedophiles on Wikipedia. As that isn't really the correct venue for that sort of thing, I'm moving it here. Buddy431 (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Discussion has since been re-centralized to Wikipedia talk:Pedophilia
Extended content
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Everything above was at ANI. Further discussion can take place below this point. Buddy431 (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Clarifying WP:RNPOV
This policy subsection consists of three paragraphs. The third reads as follows:
Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and note worthy sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about some particular terms can be found at words to avoid.
There has been an ongoing debate at Genesis creation myth as to the proper title of the article. Here is a rough timeline of this debate:
- [1]User:PiCo suggested replacing the word "myth" in the first sentence of the article with "sacred narrative".
- [2]User:Ben Tillman objected strenuously, and we were off.
- [3] For the next 9 days (from January 12 to January 20), this topic was argued back and forth, and if you go to the bottom of this diff, you'll see that User:King Öomie cited this policy as a reason why "myth" had to be used.
- [4] On January 20, User:Afaprof01 started an RfC on the subject.
- [5] On January 25 and 26, there was a subtopic entitled "This article is about a creation myth and also about a myth that is untrue".
- [6] On January 27, User:Ben Tillman requested that the page be moved to Genesis creation myth.
- [7] On February 5, User:Ucucha declared that a consensus had been reached on this move request. This "consensus" consisted of two Support votes, one Oppose vote, and one Question, which seemed to be a Support vote. Considering the number of people who have worked on this article, four votes hardly seems like a representative consensus.
- [8] On February 14, and for the next few days, there was a "move war", spurred by the perception of some editors that the move had been executed without proper consensus. And much debate took place on the subject on the talk page.
- [9] Eventually, after it seemed that there was a consensus for the title Genesis creation narrative, the same few users who had pushed through the change to Genesis creation myth came back and started contesting it, and one of the chief arguments is this policy.
So I'm requesting that this policy be modified to make it clear that when it comes to article titles (as opposed to article bodies), the name used should be one that does not carry loaded connotations to the average reader, which "myth" certainly does. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is more a question for WP:Article titles than WP:RNPOV since Genesis creation myth clearly is a formal usage. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and no. Here we find that "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint." I think "viewpoint" relates to WP:NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think this request/reasoning is a bit premature in light of the fact that the RM is still open and it is not at all clear that consensus supports your claim that the use of "creation myth" carries loaded connotations. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think RNPOV (the religion section of WP:NPOV) has just been deleted anyway (presumably because of consensus on the talk page - I haven't been following the details).--Kotniski (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- It improves our reputation if we stick to the technical and scholarly-accepted meaning of "myth", much like we do with all other words. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think RNPOV (the religion section of WP:NPOV) has just been deleted anyway (presumably because of consensus on the talk page - I haven't been following the details).--Kotniski (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not gratuitously. Not when there's a perfectly useful term that doesn't carry a biased connotation. The only "reputation" it gives us is being as biased in one direction as something like Conservapedia is in the other direction. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a believer, and I don't see such use of myth as gratuitous or biased. It's the ordinary, neutral, scholarly term. Other connotations arise out of ignorance. Ntsimp (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing gratuitous about the use of the term "myth", and when applicable it should be used with abandon (e.g. in the body and introduction of the article being discussed here). However, the discussion regarding the title is not that simple for a variety of reasons. Regarding scholarly or technical use -- as a way of referring to these passages "Genesis creation myth" is one of the least common scholarly alternatives (believe it or not this has been tested repeatedly and various results appear on the talk page in question). "Genesis creation story," and "Biblical creation story" are each many times more common for instance, and they are so in a wide array of literature and sub-disciplines. Regarding NPOV, there is a difference between using words in context and outside of context. In the body of an article context is clear, and internal linking to entries like creation myth make it even clearer. In a title on its own such context is not possible. If the question is about avoiding myth in the article itself then that's ridiculous. But the logic that implies that one necessarily follows the other isn't remotely sophisticated enough and I think the empirical evidence from scholarship backs that up as well.Griswaldo (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, I wasn't first to point out RNPOV (or at least I don't think I was), and thank you for your entirely one-sided account of events. The eggregious section title you point out was disowned by the pro-myth side with the exception of User:Cush (who I have personally spoken with and requested he cease input along those lines) and ScienceApologist (if I recall correctly). I was very specific in that section- we are not going down this particular line of argumentation. The term "Creation myth" doesn't address the issue of truth. At all. And neither do most of us. More than anything, this sounds like you being unable to refute or discredit WP:RNPOV, so you are requesting permission to neuter it. --King Öomie 15:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Editors may wish to comment at WP:VPM#Add "myth" to WP:LABEL. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Main page gender bias
I know that women were largely ignored in historical writings however I feel sure that there are as many interesting women in the world , both past & present as there are men. For some time now I have noticed the almost complete absence of anyone of the female gender on the main page. I would think that items relating to women feature less than 1 in 10 or even 1 in 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.61.92 (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- This might not be the most PC thing to say, but my feeling is that it's actually possible that there are fewer "interesting" women in history than there are men, due to women's position in most of society up until recent times. There are many exceptions, but overall I think this might be the harsh reality of the situation -- there just aren't an equal number of women of historical significance. Again, this is just a possibility. I don't know for sure as I'm no historian. Equazcion (talk) 12:19, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- Virginia Woolf wrote an essay about this; trying the remember the name of it (read it years ago), but the upshot was that it isn't just that history failed to record many interesting women, and certainly not that women are inherently less anything, but that women were relegated to certain tasks for much of history which simply kept them from having historically interesting lives that would be recorded. I'm not saying it quite right but that's the gist.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- You are probably thinking of A Room of One's Own. See chapter 3, for example. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Virginia Woolf wrote an essay about this; trying the remember the name of it (read it years ago), but the upshot was that it isn't just that history failed to record many interesting women, and certainly not that women are inherently less anything, but that women were relegated to certain tasks for much of history which simply kept them from having historically interesting lives that would be recorded. I'm not saying it quite right but that's the gist.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- True. But articles make it to the front page not based on what's in the encyclopedia in general that we can pick or choose from to balance systemic biases, but based on what the volunteers who are writing excellent (featured) articles happen to choose to write about. I don't think there is much we can do to influence people's choice of subjects. People write on topics they happen to be interested in. The only thing I can think of is to ask Raul654 (the featured article director) to add articles on females as part of the point system for choosing today's featured article, but all that would do, I think, is make a few featured articles on women, not yet displayed on the front page, closer to the front of the queue, with the total number of FAs still containing the same percentages of male to female subjects. It so happens I currently have an article on a woman at WP:FAC. Anyway, there's is one thing you can do: register for an account and become a prolific featured article writer who chooses to write on female subjects.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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. 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.--SPhilbrickT 13:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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. 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. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Events involving at least two women were recently 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. --candle•wicke 14:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ochoa is a big deal - I don't follow golf and I knew about it.--SPhilbrickT 13:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
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.' Jackiespeel (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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. - 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 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.--SPhilbrickT 13:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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. Woogee (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The content on the main page is not the byproduct of some nefarious gender-bias program - it's simply derived from the available featured articles, new articles suitable for WP:DYK entries, etc. Working on bringing more articles on women to featured status would increase their presence on the main page. Emily Jensen (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Emily Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I was arguing for people improving categories of articles so that they were suitable for FA status. As Karl Marx might have said in a variant on his remark on Feuerbach - The point is not just to describe a weakness on WP but to find ways of improving WP (g). Jackiespeel (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Citing a male discussing another male ... both boasting fancy beards ... in this thread ... charming! Now, why is it still on WP:CENT ? NVO (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, I think we're done here, we can't blame Wikipedia for society's failings. While we should endeavor to avoid systemic bias I certainly don't think we should institute some sort of affirmative action plan for groups of people that are under-represented in the historical record. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think it says in policy (or guidelines) somewhere that it's not WP's job to correct systemic bias in reliable sources themselves. Peter jackson (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Spam no longer marked as a guideline
Wikipedia:Spam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User pages no longer marked as a guideline
Wikipedia:User pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Public domain no longer marked as a guideline
Wikipedia:Public domain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
These have apparently been recategorized as "Wikipedia project content guidelines" as opposed to regular "content guidelines". --Cybercobra (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Athlete/Entertainer notability guidelines are wildly at odds
I think there is a serious problem with a level of disparity between what constitutes a notable athlete vs a notable entertainer. The problem is highlighted by two recent RfD discussions (note these are only examples used to illustrate the fundamental problem).
First, consider George Blackmore, a cricketer who once appeared in a single first-class match. He was nominated for deletion, but he was deemed notable according to WP:ATH and WP:CRIN, both of which state that everyone who has ever appeared for any length of time in any top-level professional sporting event is prima facie notable. During the deletion discussion, even the principal author of WP:CRIN lamented that the standard was in need of revision, saying for example:
"I was the main (probably only) author of WP:CRIN and I am uncomfortable with it. I think the author of WP:ATH should be be feeling similar discomfort. I am coming around to the idea of lists that mention those people who were the "extras"... that I don't think can warrant a standalone article."
"But, really, shouldn't the cricket project be taking a step back and reconsidering which cricketers are actually notable? At the end of the day, what exactly is "notable" about someone who played in an odd match somewhere?"
Compare and contrast an entertainer, Claudia Lynx, who once appeared in a guest speaking role on The West Wing. In her nomination for deletion, she is going down in flames because she does not meet WP:ENT, which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions".
Now to me, George Blackmore and Claudia Lynx are exactly comparable. He made a single appearance in a notable match, she made a single appearance on a notable tv show. The two standards must be made to treat them equally.
Personally, my own opinion is, I feel that WP:ENT has it right, and that Wikipedia is not the place for all the extras, walk-ons, or minor supporting figures whatever their field. In this case, WP:ATH, WP:CRIN, and all the other sport-specific guidelines should be tightened up to include only players who are actually notable in the ordinary sense. (Perhaps those who at least played an entire season?)
If the various sports projects are unwilling to take their scrubs off the table, then the only other way to ensure consistancy is for the entertainment field to put its scrubs on. WP:ENT could be reworded in a way almost exactly parallel to WP:ATH, including anyone who:
- Has had a speaking role, singing part, or dance role in a notable movie, tv show or stage performance.
- Is a member of Actors' Equity, the Screen Actors' Guild, or other applicable fully professional performers' union.
Please note that I DO NOT support this; I am just trying to show what a comparable standard would look like. Hopefully everyone can agree that this is not the world we want to live in, and that consequently the athletic standards must be revised. —Rnickel (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is some debate over WP:ATHLETE at present as being discussed at WT:Notability (people). FWIW, I don't see any reason why one occupational notability guideline has to mimic that of another occupation. Resolute 17:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- They don't have to mimic, but there should be a similar threshold of notability. If neither of these two did anything else, would someone 10 years (5? 2? 1?) recall their name? Syrthiss (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Rnickel that the sports guideline is ridiculously lax. And I think the parallel with entertainers is a good one. I often see deletion discussions about musicians, actors, etc., where the conclusion is "delete" even though the person is fully professional, earning a living at what they do, and appearing in notable productions. Entertainers are held to a standard where it is not enough to have performed for years, or to have a string of records out, or to have a long listing at IMDB (which doesn't count as a reliable source) - there has to be independent coverage about them specifically or out they go. And yet for a sports figure with far less professional qualification and zero independent coverage, the decision is "Snow Keep," because they played in the majors once and that seems to exempt them from GNG. I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist by philosophy, but I don't like to see Wikipedia cluttered with worthless articles, and I would like to see GNG applied to sports figures. BTW there seems to be a current vote on the issue, going on at the link Resolute provided. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- They don't have to mimic, but there should be a similar threshold of notability. If neither of these two did anything else, would someone 10 years (5? 2? 1?) recall their name? Syrthiss (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- In the modern age especially, anyone who plays at the major league level is virtually certain to have enough reliable coverage to pass GNG. These disputes, I think, come down to either a fundamental misunderstanding of what the notability guidelines are, or more likely, the purpose of them has been lost. Generally, they should reflect the point at which a topic can be presumed notable. History shows that athletes at the top level of their sport, even if just one game, typically have that independent coverage. That society places what some may consider too high a value on athletes is not an issue with Wikipedia. Likewise, that these guidelines have become de facto policy at AfD discussions is not a fault of the guidelines themselves. The real issue is a lack of common sense, imo. Resolute 17:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Let's take American baseball, a subject which truly does receive a lot of coverage. At any given moment there are, what, 800 baseball players active in the majors? And we've had professional baseball for, what, 100 years? Do we really need 80,000 articles about American baseball players? That's a very conservative estimate, and it doesn't count the people who are called up briefly from the minors but never become full fledged major leaguers. I think there needs to be some kind of threshold, such as playing for a full season or half a season or appearing in a certain number of games or something, to keep out what Rnickel called the scrubs. And of course, GNG would trump that guideline, so if you had a player who didn't meet the standard but had significant independent coverage anyhow (such as a rookie phenom or even a highly touted draft choice), he would still get a page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- WP:NOTPAPER. 99% of the entertainers in Wikipedia wouldn't have an article in a traditional encyclopedia either. Your numbers are also wildly inaccurate. Resolute 19:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Let's take American baseball, a subject which truly does receive a lot of coverage. At any given moment there are, what, 800 baseball players active in the majors? And we've had professional baseball for, what, 100 years? Do we really need 80,000 articles about American baseball players? That's a very conservative estimate, and it doesn't count the people who are called up briefly from the minors but never become full fledged major leaguers. I think there needs to be some kind of threshold, such as playing for a full season or half a season or appearing in a certain number of games or something, to keep out what Rnickel called the scrubs. And of course, GNG would trump that guideline, so if you had a player who didn't meet the standard but had significant independent coverage anyhow (such as a rookie phenom or even a highly touted draft choice), he would still get a page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- In the modern age especially, anyone who plays at the major league level is virtually certain to have enough reliable coverage to pass GNG. These disputes, I think, come down to either a fundamental misunderstanding of what the notability guidelines are, or more likely, the purpose of them has been lost. Generally, they should reflect the point at which a topic can be presumed notable. History shows that athletes at the top level of their sport, even if just one game, typically have that independent coverage. That society places what some may consider too high a value on athletes is not an issue with Wikipedia. Likewise, that these guidelines have become de facto policy at AfD discussions is not a fault of the guidelines themselves. The real issue is a lack of common sense, imo. Resolute 17:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- ATH may be "ridiculously lax" -- but this common application of it actually violates the guideline as currently written. If you scroll up to the top of the section that contains ATH, you'll find this important text: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."
- "Generally" does not mean "always and without exception" or "even if no decent sources exist because the athlete played only a single game". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
What if a source has a lock on it?
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.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 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. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism trickles to Google
Quick: If you search for "Truth in Lending" you'll see in the first result the article Truth in Lending Act and the summary that Google puts under it includes vandalism that was inserted to it yesterday.
The vandalism was reverted and the IP blocked, but is there anything else we can do? Flagged Revisions? Anything else?..
If this was already discussed, please point me to it. Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing can be done about it - Google's loading a cached version of the page for the summary; the only thing that can be done is wait for their cache to clear or for you to clear your cache. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 21:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- You can request that Google rescan the page here. Mr.Z-man 21:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
NAVHEAD
As far as I can tell, WP:NAVHEAD is an essay, and not part of the MOS? But yet, a "related information" section is being added to hundreds of articles to create a section for the navigation boxes. However, if you click on the "printable" version, the navigation boxes are not there, since they are excluded from print, and what remains is a blank section. See World War I for example. Is there something that can be done about this? It would seem as though if this practice is accepted, then this section heading should be excluded from print as well. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am disappointed that this editor is opening a multi-front attack on this idea. Posting (in response to my inquiry) on his own talk page, posting on my talk page, and (without a courtesy note to me) posting here. I have responded to the concern above at his talk page. (And, when I get more time, will respond to his most recent postings there.). Interested editors may want to follow that conversation. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't an attack. It was a question and a concern. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- This idea was proposed and rejected at WP:LAYOUT last year. I don't think anyone realized that it would cause problems with print versions. I'll leave a note for the editors at the essay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, "rejected" may not be the proper description of what took place. Here is a report about what happened according to the editor who brought the idea to Layout. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- I mean only that the inclusion of this then-new idea in WP:LAYOUT (at that time) was rejected, not that all editors believed it to be a universally bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, "rejected" may not be the proper description of what took place. Here is a report about what happened according to the editor who brought the idea to Layout. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
I don't understand why sockpuppetry is such a crime. As long as none of the accounts vandalize, and they aren't being used as 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? --The High Fin Sperm 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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. Fences&Windows 07:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ has been marked as a policy
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Why do we have this guideline/policy?
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 Kafkaesque reputation, and it would help outsiders understand why we have the policies we do. ThemFromSpace 00:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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. Brambleclawx 00:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think I do remember coming across something like this. Maybe in the Help: namespace? If i'm mistaken, I would gladly volunteer to help write it. It is a good idea to help newbies get used to the steep learning curve here. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Don't most policies already have a {{nutshell}} description on top? Links to discussions are probably going to be less useful to non-Wikipedians than the policy itself. Mr.Z-man 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. ThemFromSpace 01:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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. --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.--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. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I admire your optimism. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:32, 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. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:41, 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.--Kotniski (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- "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. Peter jackson (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- If the {{nutshell}} is insufficient, an expansion could be placed in a FAQ template or non-archived section at the top of the talk page. Placement there would help keep the explanation in sync with the actual page. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Non-admins renaming images
Why is it that non-admins can't move images? I've been told that it's because of some interaction of the CC-BY license, but I'm not entirely clear on why that would be a problem. Can anyone clarify? Gigs (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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. — Coren (talk) 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 {{media rename}} or ask any admin on his talkpage. —TheDJ (talk • 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. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:49, 3 May 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 {{media rename}} or ask any admin on his talkpage. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Except that we are; see WP:OFFICE. This policy needs to be eliminated, because as long as one small group has complete control over Wikipedia's content and uses this power to suppress information, this policy is a lie. --J4\/4 <talk> 12:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ridiculous! The point of Office Actions and Oversight is to make sure people aren't posting things that are illegal (like uploading images of child pornography) or libelous. "But... we're not censored!" is not an excuse to, say, call Pierce Brosnan a 'douche nozzle' and reference that statement to a shock site. "Uncensored" doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. We don't remove content that offends a particular group's sensibilities (like taking down images of Mohammad), and we have graphic depictions of ejaculation, including a video. But when content violates real-world laws, it will be removed. The small, tyrannical, independent, secretive group you're talking about is the same group that runs this entire site, and they're free to do whatever they want with it. --King Öomie 13:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Blocking illegal actions is not the same as censor. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's censorship if the laws which the content violates are unjust (such as the DMCA). If hosting the server in another country would enable this same content to be hosted legally, it should be done. Material which is false or unsourced should be removed, but that's it. --J4\/4 <talk> 15:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is idealism taken to an unrealistic extreme, and I assure you the notion won't be entertained. Hosting content illegal for any reason is a poor choice of action for an operation that survives on donations and its own tax-free status. --King Öomie 15:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Whether you think it is unjust is irrelevant for our purposes. Go get the laws changed. Until then, Wikipedia must comply with the Florida ones. Moving it to another country is not really an option any of us have control over. Wikipedia Foundation moved to California, but kept the servers in Florida so clearly they have some reason for preferring the location (I presume being one of the few commercial hosting centers that can handle the servers and traffic). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- What should happen if Wikipedia relocates to Sweden, and posts content that violates SWEDEN'S laws? Are those laws unjust as well? Why is the DMCA unjust? This is ridiculous. --King Öomie 16:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- On a more fundamental level, the two things the original poster is claiming we have "censored" are not information that is particularly appropriate for an encyclopedia. Then again, WP:NOTNEWS appears to be routinely thrown out the window. Mostly, though, I agree with Kingo that Wikipedia is in is in the real world. I as an editor routinely suppress advertisements, vandalism, and fringe theories, because I believe they are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. While on a theoretical level I believe the kidnapping information is appropriate encyclopedic content, I value human life over my desire to get "the real dirt" and I trust the Wikimedia foundation to at least have some sense in the matter. The TI thing is silly: it's outright theft of intellectual property, and it has no place in an encyclopedia. SDY (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- The Digital Millenium Copyright Act is unjust for several reasons. First, there's no penalty for filing an invalid DMCA takedown notice, though there is a penalty for filing a false counter-notice. This enables companies to force fair-use materials to be taken down, despite those materials not being illegal. Furthermore, the DMCA prohibits copying works for your own use, even if you own the original. For example, it's illegal to copy a movie from a DVD which you legally bought onto an iPod. In addition, the DMCA has a significant chilling effect on legitimage cryptographic research.
- As for the TI keys, how is it stealing intellectual property? You are using a calculator which you legally purchased for your own personal use. TI experiences no loss of anything in any form as a result of using the keys.
- Finally, the very concepts of intellectual property, copyright, trademarks, and patents are flawed and outdated. In fact, I would argue that they are the greatest barrier to human progress. --J4\/4 <talk> 16:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, but none of this matters, at all. I mean not one tiny, minuscule little bit. Wikipedia will not be used to rail against a system because you don't like it. I say again, what should happen if Wikipedia relocates to Sweden, and posts content that violates SWEDEN'S laws? Are those laws unjust as well? Where do we move then? Shall we gather 250,000 miles of CAT-6 cable and host Wikipedia from the sovereignty of the Moon? You said yourself that you have no problem with Wikipedia removing incorrect/unsourced content- why isn't that censorship? Sounds to me like you're just looking for something to stick in the DMCA's eye. Look elsewhere. --King Öomie 16:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps there is no practical way around the law of at least one country. Clearly, almost every country has some ridiculous laws, forbidding completely innocuous things. So WP should not boast "no censorship". −Woodstone (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Abiding by the law is inherently "censorship"? I think you need to move your standard of what qualifies for that term. If you don't like a law, contact your congressman, but Wikipedia isn't in the business of decreeing individual laws "unjust". If Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 is redirected to Peaceful day of studies 1989 due to an office action, we can talk. But presently, nothing going on here can reasonably described as "censorship". --King Öomie 17:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to think that "the law" is a human universal. Many countries (including the U.S.A) have laws that forbid things that are considered completely normal in other countries. So, yes there is a degree of censorship. And yes, that is probably unavoidable. −Woodstone (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Then you must know that WP:CENSOR refers to the fact that Wikipedia removes only the content it must to avoid copyright/libel lawsuits. Again, I really don't think it's reason to call either of those things "censorship", but my point stands. Wikipedia, while uncensored, is not an experiment in anarchy. --King Öomie 17:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to think that "the law" is a human universal. Many countries (including the U.S.A) have laws that forbid things that are considered completely normal in other countries. So, yes there is a degree of censorship. And yes, that is probably unavoidable. −Woodstone (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Abiding by the law is inherently "censorship"? I think you need to move your standard of what qualifies for that term. If you don't like a law, contact your congressman, but Wikipedia isn't in the business of decreeing individual laws "unjust". If Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 is redirected to Peaceful day of studies 1989 due to an office action, we can talk. But presently, nothing going on here can reasonably described as "censorship". --King Öomie 17:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps there is no practical way around the law of at least one country. Clearly, almost every country has some ridiculous laws, forbidding completely innocuous things. So WP should not boast "no censorship". −Woodstone (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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. Mr.Z-man 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. 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. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- 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:NOTs, 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. 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. 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. 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. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- 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. Pohick2 (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- We minimize fair use for several reasons. 1) We want to focus on free content, to maximize the re-usability of our content 2) What qualifies as fair use depends on the user. What might be fair use on a non-profit encyclopedia website may not be fair use for someone using a portion of a Wikipedia article in their own publication. Some countries don't even have fair use laws. Its not a legalistic view (though it has the side effect of reducing the likelihood of infringement complaints), its more of a idealistic one – Ideally, we could make an encyclopedia using only freely-licensed content (and some Wikipedias don't allow fair use, mainly ones where the majority of users live in a country with no fair use law). The reason we didn't fight the TI keys issue is because its not our fight. The content of the keys themselves is barely related to our mission. As I noted above, even if we could use them, there's no consensus that we should. Mr.Z-man 00:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- i appreciate the response. when i say legalistic, i mean that the Foundation appears to be very sensitive to letters sent by lawyers, (on DCMA, copyright, or defamation) and rule bound, rather than ethically or idealistically bound, on issues such as "censorship", or "fair use". clearly they chose to buckle to legal threats over the value of no censorship in this case. the lawyer by sending the letter makes it a wikipedia fight. the poster has a point that DCMA is fraught with dubious ethics. ultimately, the users will, by their conduct both on and off wikipedia, determine the fate of DCMA as seen in the Digg AACS encryption key controversy: i.e. ethics trump law. the question for the foundation is: at what point is wikipedia going to draw the line to the importuning lawyers? the warning letter here seems a stretch, at what point will the foundation reject an incoming legal theory? btw, why the use of "Office" rather than a normal lock? it seems disproportionate, it shines a light on the article, and seems to suggest the "Office" is concerned with legal liability alone (or doesn't trust the admins). Pohick2 (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- The article is not actually protected, the only "office" action was to remove the keys from the page. What I mean by "its not out fight" is that we lose little by not being able to publish they keys themselves. Wikipedia is not a calculator hobbyist site. The article can still stand without the keys (and if TI didn't send any DMCA letters, we wouldn't even have an article on it). The DMCA may be flawed, but we're an educational publisher, not the EFF; we're not explicitly an advocacy or political organization. As for defamation, we're highly ethics-bound. We typically respond to defamation complaints before it escalates to needing lawyers to step in. If you want the foundation's official stance or opinion, you can always ask. Mr.Z-man 18:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- the "office" is watching, on only this one article indefinitely, seems odd, why not the normal procedure? and deleting the edit history? taking things down is defense enough, purging the memory hole is extreme, wouldn't you agree? i agree, have no keys, as too techno-geeky, but the other article has the keys in the lead!? [10] don't tell the open source people about the no advocacy, it's all they talk about at meet-ups. (one of the biases of wikipedia) but address the bias in the normal manner: by pulling special procedures, it just makes it worse. i would actually prefer a lock: it is a consensus procedure. "censorship", and "fair use" are nebulous concepts or legal theories used by judges to interpret law. bending over backwards to address complaints is fine, but the position of TI is egregious, and they need to be told that by the recipients of their letters. wikipedia is quite happy to speedy delete vanity articles by people, but it won't speedy delete a nonsense legal warning? i hear a lot of talk about defamation, but havn't seen any, except in AfD: i take it that is a roaring success.Pohick2 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is the normal procedure for a DMCA notice. It just seems like a special procedure since it happens so infrequently. Most page protections are done unilaterally by a single admin, typically after a request by a single non-admin user, so I'm not sure I understand how "consensual" it really is. The WP:OFFICE policy has just as much community support as the protection policy. For every discussion like this about "censorship", there's probably another about how protection is overused and/or evil. If you're seriously going to try to suggest that a vanity article is similar in any substantial way to a takedown notice in how they should be handled, I really don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion. But as for defamation, we get a fairly constant stream of complaints (several per day) by email. Mr.Z-man 21:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- the "office" is watching, on only this one article indefinitely, seems odd, why not the normal procedure? and deleting the edit history? taking things down is defense enough, purging the memory hole is extreme, wouldn't you agree? i agree, have no keys, as too techno-geeky, but the other article has the keys in the lead!? [10] don't tell the open source people about the no advocacy, it's all they talk about at meet-ups. (one of the biases of wikipedia) but address the bias in the normal manner: by pulling special procedures, it just makes it worse. i would actually prefer a lock: it is a consensus procedure. "censorship", and "fair use" are nebulous concepts or legal theories used by judges to interpret law. bending over backwards to address complaints is fine, but the position of TI is egregious, and they need to be told that by the recipients of their letters. wikipedia is quite happy to speedy delete vanity articles by people, but it won't speedy delete a nonsense legal warning? i hear a lot of talk about defamation, but havn't seen any, except in AfD: i take it that is a roaring success.Pohick2 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- The article is not actually protected, the only "office" action was to remove the keys from the page. What I mean by "its not out fight" is that we lose little by not being able to publish they keys themselves. Wikipedia is not a calculator hobbyist site. The article can still stand without the keys (and if TI didn't send any DMCA letters, we wouldn't even have an article on it). The DMCA may be flawed, but we're an educational publisher, not the EFF; we're not explicitly an advocacy or political organization. As for defamation, we're highly ethics-bound. We typically respond to defamation complaints before it escalates to needing lawyers to step in. If you want the foundation's official stance or opinion, you can always ask. Mr.Z-man 18:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- i appreciate the response. when i say legalistic, i mean that the Foundation appears to be very sensitive to letters sent by lawyers, (on DCMA, copyright, or defamation) and rule bound, rather than ethically or idealistically bound, on issues such as "censorship", or "fair use". clearly they chose to buckle to legal threats over the value of no censorship in this case. the lawyer by sending the letter makes it a wikipedia fight. the poster has a point that DCMA is fraught with dubious ethics. ultimately, the users will, by their conduct both on and off wikipedia, determine the fate of DCMA as seen in the Digg AACS encryption key controversy: i.e. ethics trump law. the question for the foundation is: at what point is wikipedia going to draw the line to the importuning lawyers? the warning letter here seems a stretch, at what point will the foundation reject an incoming legal theory? btw, why the use of "Office" rather than a normal lock? it seems disproportionate, it shines a light on the article, and seems to suggest the "Office" is concerned with legal liability alone (or doesn't trust the admins). Pohick2 (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- We minimize fair use for several reasons. 1) We want to focus on free content, to maximize the re-usability of our content 2) What qualifies as fair use depends on the user. What might be fair use on a non-profit encyclopedia website may not be fair use for someone using a portion of a Wikipedia article in their own publication. Some countries don't even have fair use laws. Its not a legalistic view (though it has the side effect of reducing the likelihood of infringement complaints), its more of a idealistic one – Ideally, we could make an encyclopedia using only freely-licensed content (and some Wikipedias don't allow fair use, mainly ones where the majority of users live in a country with no fair use law). The reason we didn't fight the TI keys issue is because its not our fight. The content of the keys themselves is barely related to our mission. As I noted above, even if we could use them, there's no consensus that we should. Mr.Z-man 00:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- The way I see it, if we were to remove "Wikipedia is not censored" (which I don't think we should, as the 'censorship' here is for legal reasons), then we'd also have to remove "Wikipedia - the encyclopedia which anyone can edit", as there are thousands of accounts and IPs which have been blocked/banned, and so not everyone can edit it. I'm sorry, J4V4, but I have to disagree with your basic premise for the reasons given by many others here - just because you don't like the laws that govern the state in which the servers are physically located does not mean that we can ignore them. Unless, of course, you are going to pay the costs for a new server farm in a state/country of your choice and take over from the Foundation... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
RfC: Should the NPOV policy contain two sections devoted to pseudoscience and religion?
Please see this section of Wikipedia talk:NPOV. The NPOV policy currently contains two sections on specific topics: a 534-word section on pseudoscience and a 267-word section on religion. These sections were removed last month as being too specific after an RfC was posted on April 3. [11] The pseudoscience section was moved to WP:FRINGE, [12] and the religion section removed entirely. The sections have now been restored by others on the grounds that consensus was not established, or has changed. Fresh eyes would therefore be appreciated here on talk to decide whether to restore or remove the sections. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Since the previous Rfc was not labeled "should the Pseudoscience and Religion portions of NPOV be removed" but rather "Should NPOV have topic-specific sections" thus ensuring no one would understand what was being proposed unless they followed the link, participation was lower than it would otherwise have been - and surely fell far short of the "higher standard of participation and consensus" required by WP:CONLIMITED for significant changes to policy pages. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh for crying out loud, the Rfc you're claiming had consensus has three views and a comment - two supports, one oppose. This is not enough input to gut a policy, SV, and you darn well have been around here long enough to know that. If it were an Afd on a third rate pop singer you'd relist for more input. I cannot believe you've been claiming consensus on that basis. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- The purpose of this RfC needs to be clarified: it aims to demote WP:PSCI from policy to an ignorable guideline. Currently, WP:NPOV requires a neutral point of view, but makes an important exception allowing pseudoscience to be labeled as such. PSCI also ensures that articles can assert that science and pseudoscience are not simply two equal viewpoints. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Surely the place for a discussion of the merits of the RfC is the RfC itself. It makes no sense to repeat one's arguments at each of the neutral pointers that direct to the RfC. Hans Adler 08:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- And if SV had not edit warred to keep a misleading title and description, it wouldn't be here at all. This is about how the Rfc has been described, not about the Rfc. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- 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. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Stop being dishonest, and I'll stop calling you on it. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a productive or civil line of discussion. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Stop being dishonest, and I'll stop calling you on it. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- 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. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Overturn WP:POINT guideline so that instruction creep can be better exposed
See Wikipedia_talk:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point#This_guideline_keeps_instruction_creep_in_place. 18.246.2.83 (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- For something set as a guideline, I do believe that an RfC is a minimum to overturn/remove. There seems to be support on no change on the talk page as a whole, and I'm going to cheat and use common sense to say that any policy or guideline that's cited as frequently as this is needs a good talking through. *shrugs* I agree there's merit in digging into things to see just how much overlapping there is within incivility as a whole, but to balance that I can appreciate a need to really pound different angles of incivility on editors; New(er) in particular that honestly might not know what is making some of their edits disruptive. ArbCom rulings citing WP:POINT have directly called it a form of bad faith editing, so might like to see a review to assure that AGF is always heavily pushed in remaining guidelines to avoid future confusions and possible loopholes that you always risk a tiny bit when our !rules get cut away in any manner.
- Being stubborn and trying to continue a discussion with wikilawyer and gaming efforts (in the "see also") to drag things on is a massive frustration at worst. Contrast to WP:POINT-type events proper; they're premeditation in the execution of that same lawyer-gaming. That's clear-cut disruptive editing. The prior can legitimately be AGF edits done in confusion or misunderstanding of certain things, but the later is always done in bad faith. However you want to word the guidelines staying under main policy, it's that premeditation line that is impossible to excuse. RfC is where this gets bitten into and everyone can throw cards on the table. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Reliable Sources being Unreliable
It's been a while since I've seen something like this. What is our current best practice for when a highly respected source appears to make a glaring factual error? In current case, the NYTimes appears to have misstated the amount of oil spilled into the Persian Gulf during Gulf War I by two orders of magnitude too high compared to other sources. (If the NYTimes were correct then the amount of oil dumped would be roughly the same as the total global petroleum consumption in a year.) Dragons flight (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- If the mistake itself is so obvious that a multitude of other reliable sources confirm it to be erroneous, then I'd just use those ones... ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 21:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- The best answer is: write a letter or email to the corrections department at the New York Times. If they're in error, they'll correct themselves. Reliable sources are reliable not because they're always right, but because they include mechanisms by which their errors can be corrected. MastCell Talk 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- While the first part of that comment ("write […] to the corrections department") is good, the second part ("Reliable sources are reliable […] because they include [correction] mechanisms") not so much. I mean, by that measure, Wikipedia ought to be the most reliable source ever. :P {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 22:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- The best answer is: write a letter or email to the corrections department at the New York Times. If they're in error, they'll correct themselves. Reliable sources are reliable not because they're always right, but because they include mechanisms by which their errors can be corrected. MastCell Talk 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- VERACITY trumps so-called "reliability." If something in the New York Times or any other organ of the mainstream media is clearly wrong, ditch it without a second thought. The cynical mantra that Wikipedia editors don't care if something is true, only that it is "verifiable" as published by a "reliable source" is a load of crap and a corrupting influence on the Wikipedia product. If there's a political gridlock in the Wikipedia governance system that causes veracity to continue to go unrecognized while cynical platitudes remain unretracted IGNORE THE RULES. If it's factually wrong, out it goes without a second thought — that should be the official policy. Carrite (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- VERACITY trumps so-called "reliability." If something in the New York Times or any other organ of the mainstream media is clearly wrong, ditch it without a second thought. The cynical mantra that Wikipedia editors don't care if something is true, only that it is "verifiable" as published by a "reliable source" is a load of crap and a corrupting influence on the Wikipedia product. If there's a political gridlock in the Wikipedia governance system that causes veracity to continue to go unrecognized while cynical platitudes remain unretracted IGNORE THE RULES. If it's factually wrong, out it goes without a second thought — that should be the official policy. Carrite (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- @Nihiltres: Well, that's the whole point of providing references. So now people can't claim that WP is unreliable anymore. It still has that reputation, but it was never really true, and now less than ever. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Providing a reference is no guarantee that there aren't lots of RSs contradicting it, omitted because WP editors either are unaware of them or disagree with them. Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- NYTimes make mistakes. Nothing new, handle it like any other situation of sources being different to each other. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- They do make errors daily. Just send them an email, and the article will corrected within a day or 2.Smallman12q (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- i have seen this as an excuse to delete a nytimes reference, and then delete an article since all the references were "unreliable". if you really feel this way: caveat it, don't delete it. while i'm sympathetic to Veracity, by our editing of the verifiable sources, we will get to the veracity. ain't cynical: don't confuse means and ends. in fact i would be inclined to add a section about the nytimes (and others) misreporting of the incident. Pohick2 (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- 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. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- i have seen this as an excuse to delete a nytimes reference, and then delete an article since all the references were "unreliable". if you really feel this way: caveat it, don't delete it. while i'm sympathetic to Veracity, by our editing of the verifiable sources, we will get to the veracity. ain't cynical: don't confuse means and ends. in fact i would be inclined to add a section about the nytimes (and others) misreporting of the incident. Pohick2 (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- They do make errors daily. Just send them an email, and the article will corrected within a day or 2.Smallman12q (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Reliable is not equivalent to infallible. 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.--SPhilbrickT 17:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
On the unwritten rule regarding a limit to number of unblock requests
I would appreciate any thoughts on this here. –xenotalk 19:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- 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 Am I unblocked yet ?, Am I unblocked yet ?, huh ? huh ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Appreciate the comments, but they should be placed at the linked discussion to keep it all together. Thanks, –xenotalk 15:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Additional CSD criteria
Extended content
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
It has come to the attention of some users that Speedy Deletion is missing some rules that would allow for quick elimination of some pages that obviously have no encyclopedic value. Many of us are wasting time on AFDs when a page should be eliminated immediately. Here are some examples: Example 1:
Example 2:
Further, both of these pages have the following in common:
I can't see how with any regard to a maintaining a reasonable encyclopedia that these pages could fail a CSD. Why gather 10 or so users to say "yeah, this sucks" when it is obvious that these pages will never contain encyclopedic value? Example 2 takes some research (a google test) to show that the term is essentially made-up, but Example 1 is a slam dunk. Isn't it? I say this with no hint of irony... if I create a page called Reading Books is Fun, and give a list of the best ways to read books (curl up with some tea, perhaps your favorite candles or iPad), would it be speedily deleted? Clearly it should be. But if Writing Stories isn't CSD'd, then I don't know. I really want more CSD methods to eliminate this nonsense immediately. In addition, articles with one editor who have no other edits... these should easily be deleted, especially when the topic is pure WP:OR like these. I look forward to this discussion. — Timneu22 · talk 20:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
section breakLet me try this again: Keeping in mind the requirements listed here, could we see an actual, written criterion that specifically defines what is and what is not to be deleted on the basis of said criterion? Looking at the current criteria can give you some clues on how to phrase it and so forth. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
|
Proposals offered at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal for CSDs: essay and how-to. — Timneu22 · talk 20:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Rewrite of the lead of No original research
Could someone please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Lead and try to determine if consensus exists and how to proceed? The discussion has stopped and it should be closed.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Comma seems misplaced, hatnote possibly needed in a policy page or whatever you call it
In this hatnore,
It looks like the comma is in the wrong place. When I went back and looked at how another hatnote was done, I realized the intention may have been to put the comma before see.
I was going to use this template because I was looking for a Wikipedia policy and stumbled across the one I needed going from the above hatnote. It's better to have a specific hatnote for what I was using this for because WP:COPY doesn't do what I thought it would.
As a matter of fact, this brings up a possibility for the actual WP:COPY page.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I fixed the comma in Split. It doesn't appear to have been a template problem- the description is a write-in. ALI nom nom 21:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks; I didn't want to monkey with what someone had supposedly done on that level. What about a hatnote for WP:COPY? is that sort of thing done?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of policies has been marked as a policy
Wikipedia:List of policies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hasn't exactly been marked as a policy; it's just been added to Category:Wikipedia policy. Seems reasonable to me. Equazcion (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)