Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive E

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

Consensus Decision making

(previously named Categorization proposal with examples)

I've posted a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Categorization proposal with examples. It is partially about policy, so I thought I'd mention it here also. It is also at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. This is the first time Im trying to change something major, and the process is confusing. Is there a page that describes how changes happen and talks about what types of changes get decided, where they get decided, and by who? Is my proposal in the correct place?

(BTW, At times in my life I have had facilitator training and have facilitated meetings. There were clear rules for consensus. Wikipedia talks about consensus quite a bit without describing the process all that clearly (perhaps it is there and I haven't found it). It often seems that the formal version of concensus decision making that I learned and practiced does not really apply to Wikipedia. The process here is more of a straw poll of interested parties. Most discussions seem to peter out unresolved with people expressing strong opinions. The status quo rules. I think this all needs some thought!) -- Samuel Wantman 11:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More precisely, is there an existing page that explains Wikipedia's approach to consensus methods? And if not, let's start one. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:23, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

There certainly should be a page about it. No, there's no formal process, and people have resisted formalizing one -- partly out of apathy and partly out of an affectionate reliance on the "wiki way". To my understanding, Wikipedia consensus means talking and talking, adapting solutions to address every objection, until there are no more objections. In that way, a consensus solution does reflect everyone's opinion. For the most part it has worked very well in the past, and still does in most places, but there are a few areas where it seems to break down -- or at least, where users don't seem willing to participate in a consensus process. One is for large issues that affect the entire wiki, where not everyone participates in the discussion -- either through lack of knowledge that the issue is on the table, lack of time to participate, or simply the fact that sometimes a decision must be made quickly, without months and months and pages and pages of debate. This leads to accusations of cabals and minorities imposing their will upon the masses. Another is for those controversial issues that Will Not Die: articles on Israel and Palestine for example. In these cases, it's very hard (not impossible, but very hard) to find compromises that die-hard opponents will accept, so it's much harder to find consensus. A third problem is the ongoing nature of the WP process. There are innumerable places where long and difficult discussions have finally led to a carefully balanced compromise, only to have the fires flare up again when a new wave of contributors finds the article or policy and begins the discussion anew. Sometimes pointing them to the earlier debate will win them over to the existing consensus (much easier when someone has written a succinct description of the consensus and the points it addresses), but often the whole process must repeat itself with the new group.

One thing I think we should continue to resist is the desire to solve everything with polls. It's obviously useful in some cases (deciding on a logo, for example), but it should not be the default method for decision-making, especially for content issues and for deciding WP policy. It's easy, and therefore attractive, but I don't think the results are nearly as good as consensus-building, and it creates a confrontational "us-versus-them" environment. It's also hard to hold new contributors who disagree to the results of a vote that was made before they arrived, unless you harden the process into "it's policy, it's set in stone, we voted on it", which is the first step towards bureaucratic death.

Consensus decision-making CAN scale well as WP grows, but it requires determined effort from everyone involved -- which is why I think a page on the concept should be created (or found and more prominently linked) and promoted as one of our core principles. — Catherine\^talk 13:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great points. I've been thinking about creating a framework for decisions that would get plugged in whenever necessary. This would be the work that a facilitator would normally do, but in our case, it can be done collectively. Something like:

• Solicit opinions
• Brainstorm possible solutions
• Create a rough proposal
• Hear people's concerns
• Modify proposal to address concerns
• Call for consensus
• Ways to resolve blocked consensus
• Moving on

Each step would have links to pages to help people through the process. A template could be created whenever the process needs to be invoked. It would outline the process, and have links to more detail. That way, everyone would get familiar with the method quickly. I'd be happy to work with others on this. Any other volunteers? -- Samuel Wantman 09:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Samuel. I have argued for this before, and would certainly support any such move. At the moment, I do not believe that there is any real belief in consensus decision making here at all, inasmuch as most people seem to think that qualified majority voting equals consensus. The result can be a frustrated minority who feel ignored and who might, on the odd occasion, even be right. Filiocht 12:17, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Strongly support this. Some wiki members believe that if you cannot reach a consensus debate should be stifled, and the status quo accepted. These people make it very difficult to change things. What is consensus? A slim majority vote? Should debate be stifled when consensus is not reached? Should people be forced to source their claims? If they don't, should their views be accepted? I for one have been threatened with the arbitration committee by another member for wanting to continue a debate when there has been no consensus reached, whereas this person thought that as there is no consensus we must keep the status quo for 6 months, and not try to reach a consensus. See here. So please can we have a policy, whatever that policy may be. --SqueakBox 18:49, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

There is a page at Wikipedia:Consensus but what we've been talking about has not been fully addressed. I just wrote quite a bit on that page. Perhaps the discussion can continue over there. -- 09:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

categorizing sectional disambig pages

spent a while trying to find a policy that dealt with this, and a while longer trying to find/think of a page that would fit the problem and give me an example to work from, but failed. apologies if i wasnt thorough enough...

in the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page, three methods are suggested for dealing with naming conflicts. nothing is stated about how categories are meant to work with these types of pages, i assume because categories are a newer feature (?). for two of the solutions, the categorization process is obvious.

if we are using an equal disambiguation, no category should be applied to the disambiguation page, and categories should be applied to each of the topic specific and disambiguated pages. there are many examples of this type of setup.

if we are using primary topic disambiguation, it is acceptable to categorize this primary page, and obviously also to categorize the secondary/tertiary pages it disambiguates.

my question involves the third method. what are we to do with categorization for a page that uses sectional disambiguation? it seems very ugly to categorize that page itself, as it contains information on more than one topic. the disambig manpage does seem to imply that the sectional method should be seen as somewhat temporary, ie "But as each section grows, there comes a point where each meaning must have a page of its own." does the wish to categorize one of the meanings in a sectional page mean that it should be broken out, even if it is going to be stubbified?

more confusingly, what about pages that dont fit in the three categories? some pages call themselves disambiguation pages even while using solely sectional disambiguation (eg Crew) which is rejected by my reading of policy. a lot of disambig pages dont fit cleanly into either category 1 (sectional) or category 2 (equal). try Buffalo, which of course links to the various localities by that name, but does not link to any page about the general animal word 'buffalo' -- rather, it gives a three bullet list of types of buffalo, for which each has a page, thereby bringing in a little of sectional disambig. try Magnitude.

i would like to learn what the general consensus is about the stub/section dichotomy here, whether there is really a problem with mixing the two on one disambig page, and whether the advent of categories makes a difference in these decisions.

the specific pages that caused me to start looking into this are Deacon and Journeyman, both of which would like to be categorised as Sounding rockets, but which currently cannot be as they are sectional stubs on disambig pages. since Deacon has only two meanings, it seems an obvious candidate for splitting/stubbing. Journeyman is the difficult one: it is already thoroughly sectionalized, including some meanings which have no article referenced. breaking out the section on the rocket simply to categorize it seems yucky to this noob.

Burgher 21:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to answer your question; I've encountered it too. I think eventually people are going to push for one-subject-per-page, eliminating sectional disambiguation, just because the ambiguity throws machine-reading of various types for a loop. (I personally think that undermines one of the strengths of the wiki way -- we HAVE the flexibility to be ambiguous, inconsistent, and customizable, precisely because a human can come up with an innovative presentation that doesn't fit in tidy lists or categories -- but that's just me.)

However, I have run across a few similar problems with "partner pages" like Godley & Creme, where two people are encyclopedic because of their partnership, and telling their story on two separate pages would be redundant. It does lead to anomalies like two separate categories for birth years, and so on. I'm inclined to leave it be, but if the community has opinions on how to handle this, I'd like to hear it. — Catherine\^talk 02:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nofollow

If anyone here hasn't pitched in on the vote on whether to remove the nofollow attribute from our external links, please do so now! Voting ends in mere hours. You can find it at Wikipedia:Nofollow/Vote. Deco 18:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John Fitzgibbon, 2nd Earl of Clare

What is the copyright status of the British Dictionary of National Biography? RickK 09:25, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it's under normal copyright rules, so it depends on just how old the particular volume it was copied from is. It was published from 1884-1990, so it's completely unclear whether it's PD or not. The so-called article is awful on its face and needs a complete rewrite anyway. -- Cyrius|✎ 10:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Horizontal Scrolling

One should be able to view the main page of the Wikipedia without resorting the use of horizontal scrolling with IE at 1024x768 screensize. Malloc 16:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One can, assuming he has a large enough monitor. I'm running 1024x768 on a 19 inch monitor, and I can see the whole width of the page without scrolling. Throbblefoot 18:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the size of the monitor has anything to do with it, 1024x768 is 1024x768. I think the CSS is forcing a width wider than a user's browser is set to display, at least it is on this setup here. I'm sure it's probably font related, etc, but that's why we have CSS, to handle things like this. Malloc 18:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you and I are using the same software and resolution to view the same page and CSS, and you must scroll and I don't (as seems to be the case), what accounts for the discrepancy other than monitor size? Throbblefoot 20:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Default font size, perhaps? On most systems, physical monitor size has nothing to do with font sizes, and even on those systems where it does, a larger monitor means a larger font. --Carnildo 20:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't know the CSS relied on default font size. Thanks for the info! Throbblefoot 20:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Manual of Style

Does anyone know whether the Manual of Style is policy or a guideline, and if it's policy, what the procedure for changing it is? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 12:43, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

You can bring up your proposed change on the Talk page. The MoS is referenced in several templates as a policy, so I would think so. RickK 00:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rick, sorry I just saw your reply. Apparently, it's not policy, but a guideline according to the policy and guideline page. SlimVirgin 01:56, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Permission to use and translate in Arabic a Wikipedia article

Hello, My name is Caroline Hatem, I'm an Editor at SEED (www.seed.slb.com), a non-profit organization that provides scientific articles on the web in 7 languages, and focuses particularly on developing countries by providing computers and internet connections. We have a new system which allows students from all over the world to ask questions to the SEED "experts". A Saudi young man asked about the bi-dimensional magnetic resonance spectrum and before sending the question to the experts I checked out the web to see what was available. Your website gave a long and thorough answer which I thought I could edit and translate into Arabic, while quoting the source, of course. The point is that Arabic speakers do not have access to non-Arabic articles, and are thus limited in their access to knowledge. Can I have the permission to use and translate your article to the strict attention of the Arabic speakers? If it is ever translated to other languages as FAQ, Wikipedia would be quoted as source as well. Thank you for your attention, Respectfully, Caroline Hatem SEED editor.

Dear Caroline - All text on Wikipedia, as well as many of the pictures, is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation license. You may copy anything so licensed, provided that you give attribution to the author (we consider a hyperlink back to the wikipedia article suffecient) and if you modify it (such as translating/transliterating it), you agree to license your modified version under the same license (eg, you must allow people to copy your translation freely). →Raul654 08:31, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Caroline - also, have you seen the arabic-language wikipedia? (http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/) --Nectarflowed 09:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please see my slightly more comprehensive answer where you asked the same question at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). -- Jmabel | Talk 19:25, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Not offending religious sensibilities

Should we avoid offending religious sensibilities? especially in an article about a particular religion. Rastafarians consider Rastafarianism to be an offensive word. There were a series of non-user name attempts to change the use of this word within the article but they were reverted. Now the article is at Wikipedia:Requested moves to try to move it to Rastafari in order to avoid offending the religious sensibility of Rastas, and to turn them away from using wikipedia. I strongly feel we should respect the religious sensibilities of the Rastas by changing the title, but there is a dispute. I wonder what Christianity and Islam do about this issue. And how people think about this as a wider issue.Squiquifox 02:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use most common name. People know it as Rastafarianism. RickK 07:36, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Compare Mormonism: Mormons tend to prefer Latter Day Saint theology for their religion (and Latter Day Saints instead of Mormons), but since Mormon is the better known term the article is there. User:Anárion/sig 07:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hope that "Morons" in the previous sentence is a typo. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Oops... it is. I have some very good LDS friends, and certainly do not think they're in any way intellectually challenged. User:Anárion/sig 09:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that rastafarianism is the term people use, but that is a separate debate. Sure the Mormons don't call themselves mormonist but they (presumably?) don't object to the word whereas Rastas (and some of those generally supportive of and open to Rastafari) strongly object to the word rastafarianism which creates problems on the site and will likely continue to do so if the name is not changed. Rick seems to be saying we should not worry about offending religious sensibilities, something I cannot agree with for an encyclopedia. Will see if I can find anything on Islam, which I imagine may also face this religious sensibilities problem. I personally bitterly oppose freedom of speech being lost in the name of religion e.g. in the case of Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti but i think this is not about freedom of speech it is about having a wikipedia open to as wide a range of people as possible. I am not even suggesting all references to rastafarianism be removed from the article or wikipedia, merely from the title. There is also a wider debate on this issue than just at Wikipedia. If we decide to keep rastafarianism we are making a statement within that debate whether we like it or not. I am surprised people are supporting an excluding policy? It could be argued this exclusiveness has rascist overtones if it is actively and knowingly done. Or do we just want rationalist white middle class educated people (like me) to contribute to and read wikipedia. --Squiquifox 15:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Squiquifox has slapped a NPOV tag on the article in question and is now lobbying for the move on WP:RM. (I think. It's hard to tell, at this point.) A.D.H. (t&m) 15:34, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the idea (as I said on the RM page). I realise that "Rastafarianism" is a widely used term, but it's an outside observer's term, not their term for themselves. If this term is indeed offensive (although I have never discussed that issue with a member of the religion, I have interacted with enough rastas that this sounded very likely), I think it is a disingenuous title for the article. Who wants to be called by the name the anthropologists made up for you? I grew up very middle class and "high colour" (bonus points if you know what that means), but even I would not use the word "Rastafarianism". And Trinidad isn't Jamaica. We don't use offensive terms to describe people. Maybe there are people who feel that's part of the problem with Wikipedia (not implying that of the current discussion), but frankly, I wouldn't be here if policy was to do so. While in the grand scheme of things there are far more objectionable words, that doesn't mean that people should be so dismissive of the idea.

More importantly, I don't see this as a free speech issue, or "endorsement of religion". We wouldn't put the main article at Mohammedan - it hasn't been in common usage for a while, but you are comparing a (relatively) empowered group (Muslims) with a highly disempowered group (Rastas). Guettarda 16:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have written this paragraph and put it in the doctrine section.

Rastafarians claim to reject isms and schisms. They see a wide range of isms and schisms in Babylon society, and want no part of them. They strongly reject the word Rastafarianism, because they see themselves as having transcended isms and schisms. This has created some conflict between Rastas and some members of the academic community studying the Rastafarian phenomenon, who insist on calling this religious belief Rastafarianism, in spite of the disapproval this generates within the Rastafarian movement. The reason the academics call it Rastafarianism is to do with the structure of the English languge, which tends to demand the use of the word Rasstafarianism (and at the very least the writer or speaker has to make an effort in order to avoid using the word) when talking or writing about the Rastas in an academic way. Rastas see no need to talk about their religion in an an analytical and objective way. (See Vocabulary section below). The use their minds to figure out life through a rastafarian perspective. --Squiquifox 16:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure why Austin Hair thinks I am lobbying at WP:RM when the only reason I went there was after his suggestion to do so if I wanted to change the article name, and in respect of his strong objection to changing the title. I am not lobbying, I am trying to generate a debate within the community about the subject. The democratic way to try to build consensus where there is conflict. The history of this article is clear evidence that some people who read the site have felt offended, but those who have changed things to counteract this trend have been inexperienced users, and haven't done it skillfully. Indeed I removed a paragraph to this effect from the article at the start of this debate that was not wiki style or appropriate for an encyclopedia. I strongly disagree that the common word is Rastafarianism. It is not a word used either in rastafarian communities or the many popular third world places where rastafari is popular. It is a label given to the rastas by a small, educated, elite.

Speaking of protecting religious sensibilities, i'm glad we now include a photo of Baha'u'llah. We aren't in the practice of practicing religion here :) --Alterego 18:51, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• I note that there is still no picture of Muhammad. But if we're going to talk about people's sensitivities, aren't we going to have to move all of the Native American tribe names, since most of them are some variation of "the enemy" or "sh*t eaters" or whatever, given to them by other people?" RickK 20:03, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• • While many of them are, in most cases the tribes have accepted/embraced the names that they are known by...and Sioux redirects to Lakota. Quite frankly, if a names was raised as being offensive by a tribe, I feel that we should move the article - after all, redirects don't work too badly. Of course, I don't really know know offensive Rastafarianism actually is, but it is an ism, and I have no reason to doubt what Squiquifox is saying - it fits with what I know. Guettarda 20:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • The thing I really don't want to have happen is for us to set a precedent for a certain kind of thing that evangelical (xian) groups are starting to do now. Those groups are deciding to define Christianity not as a religion, but instead as a "personal relationship with lord-and-savior-blah-blah-blah". They thus play word games to shield themselves from all the other religions and attempt to set themselves as apart and different. Of course, as other religions catch on, and if we respect their term redefinitions, then there won't be any religions left, just "personal relationships with ..", "belief of the forefathers", "obedience to god", and other terms designed to make it hard to talk about religion. There need to be limits to how much definitional weight we give to perspectives. Fortunately, in this case, I don't think it applies (or if it does, only weakly), so I don't care so much what name the article takes. --Improv 21:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Those groups are deciding to define Christianity not as a religion, but instead as a "personal relationship with lord-and-savior-blah-blah-blah" - does this mean they would give up their tax exempt status and all the other rights that go with it? Might not be a bad trade off - might fix the US budget deficit. :) Guettarda 22:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • But doesn't providing tax exempt status to churches violate "Congress Shall Make no Law ..."? Ben.
        • We may be straying a bit off-topic, but as I understand, no it does not. The reason is that religious organizations arn't the only type of legal organization to have tax-exempt status. In fact, they typically fit well into the categories for nonprofits, as they don't have a profit motive, and meet certain other criteria that I'm not deeply familiar with. --Improv 13:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mecca has similar title problems, because to some Muslims the word spelt this way in English in refernce to the Muslim holy city is considered offensive. They write Makkah. The argument to use the spelling Mecca is that most English speaking people know the city as Mecca. There has been lots of argument at Talk:Mecca. So obviously the religious sensibilities are not taken into account here. I still think rastafarianism is not the word most english speakers would use to search for the article. --Squiquifox 00:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I fear that the religious angle is clouding this a bit. I certainly wouldn't endorse the view that we should 'avoid offending religious sensibilities' in some general, abstract way. No-one ever goes out of their way to avoid causing offence to my deeply held political convictions, do they? No. And we'd be a pretty poor encyclopedia if we never said anything that might offend someone's beliefs and convictions. I can certainly see why some editors above have reacted to this as though it offered a license for religous POV warriors to stamp their prejudices all over wikipedia, without any opposing criticism. That's a definite danger to avoid.

But I'm not sure that's what this issue is about. It seems to me more akin to Red Indian or Aborigine, which you'll note redirect to Native American and Indigenous peoples respectively. The problem with calling this article Rastafarianism is that it just isn't used by the people to whom it applies. Our choice of term runs the risk of saying "Wikipedia is run by a bunch of educated white guys in North America and Britain. You call it Rastafari? How quaint. But tough. We're calling it by the tern WE choose."

Now, I'm not suggesting that the original creator of the article meant to convey this impression - but I do think it's likely to give that impression. It's an impression that would be reinforced by some of the reactions to the proposed move. We don't want to seem exclusive, arrogant, ignorant and Western-centred when we could so easily avoid it, do we? Mattley 14:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please look at this excellent article in the Jamaican Observewr about Rastafari. {http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20010820t210000-0500_12939_obs_rastafari_and_politics.asp] Nowhere does it talk about rastafarianism, yet this is very knowledgeable, good quality article from a balanced, academic point of view. So the name is not common, another bit of evidence.--SqueakBox 21:24, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

User:Aloan has unilaterally decided to close this debate at requeasted moves, claiming there is no consensus to move the article in face of a 4-1 vote in favour of doing so. Can a sysop ignore consensus and make their own decisions, even going against consensus. If so, why. --SqueakBox 16:23, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

My bad. Please see Talk:Rastafarianism for further discussion. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see a secular society,and a secular reference work,as to some extent having the obligation to offend religious sensibilities.Religions tend to define themselves in an exclusivist fashion that one must take exception to unless one is a believer of that religion.Allowing the various religions to define how they are referred to is a path that one must take any step of reluctantly.Equally right is equally wrong,too.--L.E./[email protected]/12.144.5.2 02:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. (I refer to the first sentence of the original post.) Wikipedia's task is provide information. According to the Naming conventions (common names) article, the article title should be the most commonly used. Therefore I'd say stick with "Rastafarianism". Rastafari can certainly be a redirect, I'm sure. And most importantly, remember that anyone can be offended by anything... My apologies to Rastas but this seems to me to be the best course of action. — flamingspinach | (talk) 16:39, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Overweight articles

What is the policy on overweight articles (like this one). Should they all be compulsorily split? Or not? Apparently it is Macs using Internet Explorer that cannot handle texts of greater than 32KB: Is this true? Does wikipedia have a policy about this issue or not? Sites like cannabis,George W. Bush and Yasser Arafat take splitting very seriously whereas sites such as Tony Blair and Adolf Hitler have a strong resistance to being split. Should a split be imposed. Squiquifox 00:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Articles ought not to get terribly long. But 33K (like Margaret Thatcher, which created the issue) is fine. A further note: if an article is long, tangential matters ought to be split off into their own article, particularly if they are taking up disproportionate space. All kinds of ephemeral scandals involving Bush get split off, because discussing them in the detail that the people writing that shit want to discuss them would heavily imabalance the whole article. Beyond that, I'm not sure. But, essentially, I think these things should be dealt with on a case by case basis. If the article can be made better by trimming it or splitting off material, that should be done. If an article is perfectly good, but slightly longer than 32K, absolutely nothing should be done. So, no to "compulsory splits," whatever that means. Consensus should be arrived at on the talk page. Bringing up the length there is obviously a valid thing to do, but something being a few words too long shouldn't compel drastic changes to a perfectly good article. john k 05:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, they may "take splitting very seriously", but the George W. Bush article I am look at right now is still 72 KB. Also, featured articles are frequently way over 32 KB. I propose that people use common sense and understand the 32 KB warning as a hint that they should consider splitting the article if they can agree on a good way to do that. Sometimes something emerges only after the article has grown further. It should certainly not be understood as a hard limit, or a requirement to take action immediately. Rl 07:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note that this is not a issue at the technical level. The concept of section editing allow uses of old browsers to edit longer articles. It is purely an editorial decision, where the historical consensus has been to judge things on on a case-by-case basis. Pcb21| Pete 11:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Agree. If I understand correctly, the issue is that Macs cannot handle large amounts of text in the editing window. (?) If so, sectional editing should solve that problem. Sometimes there is just a lot to say about a specific topic. — flamingspinach | (talk) 16:28, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Summary style. --mav 10:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More important than some arbitrary numerical size limit is to organize the article so that, even if it's long, the reader can get what he or she wants. The lead section should be short, so that the reader quickly reaches the Table of Contents, which has informative headings and subheadings. Some articles can reasonably go beyond the 32kb line. JamesMLane 14:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Template:Chub is needed for these. User:Anárion/sig 14:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Boston

I am having an argument with User:Mel Etitis at my talk page about whether Boston should re-direct to Boston, Massachusetts or to Boston (disambiguation). I think the former and Mel thinks the latter.

It seems clear to me that Boston Mass is the primary meaning of the word, and as nearly all of the links to "Boston" go to the city, it should re-direct there, that would make it consistant with other major American cities such as Chicago, San Francisco etc.

What does everyone else think. G-Man 23:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely Boston, Massachusetts. I'm sure that is at least 98% of uses. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:52, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Boston, Massachusetts. Which has a line at the top directing to the disambiguation page. I am now going to the disambiguation page to see what the other meanings are. I'll bet very few people could name ONE off the top of their heads. I think there's a small town in England named Boston, or is it St. Botolph's? (click, click) Ah. Yes to both. But there are also a buncha little miniBostons in other states, like the buncha miniPortlands and miniSpringfields and so forth. Assume 90% of the people who type Boston want the hub of the universe. If it redirects to Boston, Massachusetts then 90% of users have to click once; 10% have to click once, read first line, then click again, then pick a meaning and click a third time. If it redirects to dab page, then 90% of users have to click once, scan down to the fifth item on a list and click again, while 10% have to click once, pick and meaning and click a second time. You do the math. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Boston in Lincolnshire is, as Boston (disambiguation) says, the town to which other Bostons owe their name. Admittedly, most Americans will think of Boston, Massachusetts, but not so on this side of the pond. Is this a case for primary meaning disambiguation? Do Americans actually call Boston, Massachusetts "Boston" or only "Boston, Massachusetts"? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is just called "Boston." Banned in Boston, Boston baked beans, Boston Tea Party, Boston Red Sox, Boston Brahmin. But it's extremely rare to use the state name with a city name in any context these days. In the fifties, speaking formally, one might actually have said "I'm taking the train to Chicago, Illinois" and some will recall a 1952 Guy Mitchell hit about "A pawnshop on the corner in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania." I think the song "New York, New York, a wonderful town/The Bronx is up and the Battery's down" is a reference to a custom of actually saying "New York, New York" to indicate the city rather than the state. And I can remember people talking about "Paris, France" and "Rome, Italy." Even then it may have just been Boston. Yeah... try this search on Project Gutenberg to pick up innumerable literary references to Boston, one word. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"I suppose there is no question but our literary centre was then in Boston, wherever it is, or is not, at present."—William Dean Howells, "Literary Friends and acquaintances."

"'But wait,' said Perrot, with a slow, tantalising smile; "it is not wise to hurry. I have a mind to know; so while I am at New York I go to Boston. It makes a man's mind great to travel."—Gilbert Parker, The Trail of the Sword

• Most Americans will think of the American Boston, probably because of the sports teams and having the Boston Tea Party drilled into their heads during history classes. I have no idea what Britons, on average, think. Probably a sensible test would be to try to imagine what third parties would think, e.g. someone in Germany, Russia, or Japan, when they think of Boston. The reason I suggest this is that you're almost always going to have locals prefer the city that's closest to them, but the page redirection should reflect a global perspective. For example, where I am there's a town called Versailles nearby, but of course outside of the western Pennsylvania area, it would seem very odd to insist that the Pennsylvania town be placed on anything at all like equal footing with the city in France (As an aside, the locals pronounce the name Vur-sails, which is both hilarious and sad. Correcting them results in much hilarity). There are also little towns called Berlin and Washington sprinkled all over the United States that shouldn't distract from the main ones. If we do have some non-American, non-Brits who show substantial disagreement over if there is a THE Boston, then we should redirect to disambig. --Improv 13:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like "Des Moines"! - As a person who lives just down the road from Boston in Lincolnshire, and someone who has visited it many times, I'd have to say that even though the English Boston was the first, the big city in Massacheusetts, home of Cheers and an International airport has long surpassed the importance of the original small market town in England, of only regional importance. I reckon having "Boston" redirect to the large American city is the best choice. PaulHammond 13:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, there are also small villages in England called "California", "New York" and other such examples... PaulHammond 13:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

As a non-American (albeit one who grew up in the Caribbean, where we are bombarded by American tv & culture) I would think of Boston, Massachusetts if I were to say "Boston". I may not be a good candidate, since I have lived in the US a long time (7 of the last 10 years), but I ever really thought about there being other Bostons until I read this. Wasn't surprised that there were, it just wasn't something I had thought about. Guettarda 15:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I do not endorse U.S.-centrism. But there has been too many things such as the Boston Strangler, Boston cream pie, Boston Market, Boston terrier, Boston Tea Party, Boston lettuce that are named after Boston, Mass. It is simply not economical not to provide a direct redirect from Boston to Boston, Mass. -- Toytoy 00:06, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

There are more than 500 articles that has at least one Boston link (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Boston). I don't want to waste my time counting how many links are going to a place other than Boston, Mass. I can safely bet more than 95% of them shall point at Boston, Mass. By the way, there's a small Chinese city called "de zhou" (德州; 德: moral; 州: (obsolete) county) that's the same as the State of Texas written in Chinese (literally "De State" in Chinese language). I will not request you to point Texas to that small but older-than-Christopher-Columbus city. -- Toytoy 00:29, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well this UK based editor think it should definetly point at Boston, MassachusettsGeni 02:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I find myself having to battle against US-centrism in Wikipedia all the time, but in this case I'm in no doubt that Boston, Mass deserves primary status. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As an English guy I definitely think of Boston as the American city, and not the English town, having been to neither. I have done so since I became aware (first) that Boston, Massachussetts exists. Too much tv? Poor geography teaching? I suspect the majority of English people outside East Anglia feel the same. I am not in favour of US centred Wikipedia, like Trilobite, but in this case I, like him , think Boston, Massachussetts should get primary status. --SqueakBox 23:48, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I live in East Anglia and I'd still associate Boston with Boston, Massachussetts. nsh 23:38, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

This is hardly unique - I presume Baltimore, Maryland is named for Baltimore, County Cork but the most notable place is scarcely in doubt. Primacy should be on current status not historical. PS If you get a chance to go to the Irish version, do: What a stunning place! Richard Barlow 16:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Section headings asking questions

I just noticed on Bombing of Dresden in World War II that one of the sections is titled "Was the Dresden bombing justified?". Personally I don't think that as an encyclopaedia we should be posing questions in articles in this way. I've seen this use of a question as a section heading in other articles and I was wondering whether anybody else thinks as I do that it is inappropriate. Jooler 02:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Maurreen 05:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Would the alternative here be something along the lines of 'Debate over the military validity of the bombing'? That makes more sense to me in this case. I think phrasing it as "Was the Dresden bombing justified?" pushes the POV toward the view that it was not justified. In another instance of this issue, at the stem cell article we have a section titled 'what is a blastocyst?' which I think works better than if it were titled something along the lines of 'blastocysts defined.'--Nectarflowed 06:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why not simply 'Blastocyst'. Jooler 12:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The section in question is a subsection of the section "Embryonic stem cell ethical debate." I think to title the subsection simply 'Blastocyst' as opposed to 'blastocyst defined' or 'what is a blastocyst?' would tell the reader less how it fits into the larger section.

Also, in this instance, since the topic is a controversial one in which people generally have preconceived notions, I think inviting the reader to regard new definitions (e.g. with the title of a controversial section phrased as a question) is preferable to telling the reader what their definitions should be. --Nectarflowed 11:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No section titles should be posed as a question in my opinion - there is always a better way. violet/riga (t) 11:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can we try to make this a policy then? Jooler 16:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not taking a side on this, but I'd like to point out that we've long had even article titles such as "Who is a Jew?" that are posed as questions. This would be a change of policy. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:21, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the policy should be changed. Sometimes a section heading or even article title is perfectly appropriate in the form of a question. You couldn't change ""Was the Dresden bombing justified?" to "Debate over the military validity of the bombing" because there are issues beyond the military validity. The current form indicates what question is being addressed, which is what's useful to the reader. By contrast, "blastocysts defined" is just as informative as "What is a blastocyst?", so that one could well be changed. JamesMLane 14:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree. It seems unprofessional to me. — flamingspinach | (talk) 06:02, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

High/middle school IP vandalism proposal

Would it be completely against the wiki spirit to create a special status for high and middle school IP ranges which consistently vandalize/test Wikipedia articles? My proposal would be to make it so that the entire IP range could not edit articles anonymously (IP only). This would cut down considerably on certain recurrent vandalism problems (which are more "hey look I can edit this" problems than they are persistent vandalism attempts), while not reducing Wikipedia's functionality at all for students doing research, nor would it severely hinder their ability to edit pages (they'd just have to create an account). It would just cut down on the "opportunity" vandalism, and it would get rid of the problem we currently have in sending messages to users (user A uses a computer to vandalize, user B uses the same computer later, gets the message for user A). Thoughts? --Fastfission 18:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would support "logged in editing only" ranges, but I don't know if the problem would go away. the kids will just create throw-away accounts... dab (ᛏ) 21:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They can, but there's a tremendous amount of good which can be done by even the mildest of deterrents. The main goal of this would be to solve the "we can't leave these people messages because they're doing this from a public computer." If they created throw-away accounts, at least one could have some confidence in that aspect of things, whether it really cut down much on vandalism in the long run. --Fastfission 23:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is a possible solution that MIGHT help mentioned in the village pump's "proposals" section. It's in the archive now, under the subtittle "Power Users". Here a link there, if it's not deleted yet.... --SunTzu2 03:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Considering that an overwhelming majority of Wikipedia vandalism comes from school IPs (check out the Vandalism in Progress page some time), I would support any proposal that limits the ability of these IPs to edit. If it was me, I would ban them entirely, but preventing anonymous editing seems like a decent solution. Kaldari 18:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kaldari: You do realize that banning these ranges from editing altogether is akin to saying "Teachers, students and visitors at high-schools are unable to contribute with information". The contrary would be more true, as a student doing research on a subject, discovering a nasty factual error, can correct this. But I'm all for banning anonymous edits from certain, if not all, IP ranges. --TVPR 18:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:69.107.96.61 01 March 2005 - I propose that people who have set up an account and have contributed money to Wikipedia (via PayPal) be allowed to post--and everybody else is not allowed to post. Simple solution to "spam", "vandelism" and ignoramusus posting to boot. For true scholars, what I propose is that once they verify they are real people, (for example by showing they have a credit card, such as with adult website access), then they can also post for free, but only if they show they are in university. This will work. The high-school kid in a public library terminal who has something important to say is a myth. Those kids do not exist. Wikipedia is inherently unstable and this will cut down on the needless editing that is going on, from largely ignorant liberal art wannabes with no credentials, IMHO. User:69.107.96.61 01 March 2005

• If a policy anything lik this is adopted, I for one will resign. And your edit would have been blocked under your own proposal. The anonymity of the remark is utterly gutless. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:13, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Likewise. The "suggestion" is rubbish all the way through, and I will not bother arguing against it on any point - as for "Those kids do not exist" bit: Boy, you do have some nerve.--TVPR 08:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Disagree. I for one am somewhat offended that you consider me to be not a real person because I don't have a credit card. Aside from the fact that Wikimedia's goal of a compendium of human knowledge would hardly be feasible were "humans" restricted to adult humans with surplus money to donate to Wikipedia, even some adults choose not to use credit cards due to the perceived increase in debt levels since the credit card's more universal adoption following the first World War. If Wikipedia is inherently unstable, why has it flourished thus far? For the record, I am a high-school student, posting this from a school computer lab. I have never vandalized an article, nor do I intend to. — flamingspinach | (talk) 23:35, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

• Disagree with your disagree User:69.107.96.61 01 Mar 2, 2004. Wikimedia is far from a success--the jury is still out IMO--like the first encyclopedia by Diderot, which was successfully supressed by the French Ancient Regime. Question (Google this): which is better, Google (capitalism, a closed, fee-based, for profit system), or Wikipedia (communism, open, free, not for profit)? Re Flamingspinach, I admire this kid's chutzpah, and I predict, if he/she doesn't get beat up by the rest of the kids, great things in the future, but he/she is in the utter minority and has a lot to learn about how the world works. Actually, to be honest, I envision that if Wikipedia becomes really popular, the insiders will sell out and make it ad-based (like Google) or maybe float an IPO with the help of Wall/Broad street. All for a good cause of course; can't fault a non-profit, can you? Of course you will resign, won't you? LOL.

Do not feed the trolls. RickK 06:28, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks RickK, you're right. I shouldn't have replied. How do you do the cool UTC thing?

User:69.107.96.61 01 Mar 2, 2005!

Sorry, Rick, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to. This anon is in desperate need of enlightenment, and I assume ignorance rather than trolling is the case, as per newcomer policies. Anonymous user, you are unable to get the time and date signed because you have not read the Editing guide, and do not sign with four ~'s. These then add a signature, with timestamp. Also, you are not registered - that is, unlike the high-school kid you dismissed in a most disrespectful manner (flamingspinach), you have not set up an account - one of the "to-be" requirements for editing, according to your initial suggestion. As for your question, which is better - Google is a porn-riddled search engine, which does not provide any solid information on a subject. It is not governed by any form of consensus. Its results are completely unreliable, from an academic point of view, whereas any article on Wikipedia can be thoroughly tracked back to its very beginning, and discussion regarding its accuracy can be reviewed in its talk page. The fact that you have not considered this (combined with your rather horrible spelling) leads me to believe you are not much of an academic - yet another reason to, should your suggestion be taken with any degree of seriousity, exclude you permanently from editing. As for Wikipedias popularity, and the likelihood of it to "go Google" - at what time was Google ever a non-profit, community-based search engine? I'll answer that; it never was. Also, since it is a GNU-FDL based system, with everything submitted released automatically into the public domain, it's hardly legal for the Wikimedia foundation to claim ownership of the articles, and thus begin profiting from it. To continue demolishing your "argument", Wikipedia is today one of the most popular reference sites on the web. I think that qualifies as "really popular". Its growth in page hits and particularly article count is rather impressive, as can be seen on the curve displayed on this page.--TVPR 09:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS: When did Google become "fee-based"? In closure, ahem, "LOL."--TVPR 09:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Material submitted to Wikipedia is not "released automatically into the public domain". Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights, helpfully linked at the bottom of every page. —Korath (Talk) 14:49, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

If you read more carefully, you'd note my already linking to said page. And okay, so strictly speaking it's not, but that's the gist of it anyway. Point still stands, WP's articles is not likely to be grabbed up and commercialised.--TVPR 16:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dealing with controversial sections

I have the impression that there is a policy that says something along these lines:

Controversial sections of articles (e.g. ==Criticism of X== in the article X) should not usually be moved out into separate articles (e.g. Criticism of X) as an attempt to avoid POV wars, since, although it may bring peace to the main article X, the new article Criticism of X is likely to have even graver POV problems. Such sections are best dealt with in the main article in most cases.

I seem to remember people saying that this sort of thing is policy, but I can't actually find any policy page saying this sort of thing. Do we have one or not? Chamaeleon 16:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are people who would do anything to discredit you or defame you if you're not following their order. There are people on the Internet who would do nothing except for guarding their own special interests 24 hours a day. I feel equally helpless but c'est la vie. In case of a possible conflict, I'll quitely leave and work on another safe harbor article where no one is goinig to paint me black. Hate to say so, but there are some very focused and self-righteous special interest groups that the silent majority cannot say anything with. I am a coward. -- Toytoy 17:09, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I absolutely cannot decipher the relevance of Toytoy's remark to Chamaeleon's question. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:21, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was vaguely relevant in that I was looking for a policy to quote at certain POV warriors. Now, does anyone know of such a policy? I seem to remember that it was decided to delete Criticism of FOX News on this basis. Am I imagining this? If so, then who thinks that we should start such a policy? Chamaeleon 19:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In this case, the issue is twofold; both the controversial nature of the material, and the fact that it would inevitably be too long and have to be hived-off anyway, as have been many other parts of that main article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lack of identification of page-posters

As an educator we teach our students (graduate level) that on the web you need to know the source of data. You need to know who is posting to check for accuracy. I think Wikipedia is great but am concerned that I have no idea how to vet for accuracy. I wish some form of author ID was available.

MarianneHandler

Marianne, if you click on the 'history' link on each article, you can see who has edited the article and what their revision is. From there you can also reach the user page of any registered user. All users have a talk page, which will notify them if a question is asked on that page.

Furthermore, if an article is inaccurate or if the accuracy is questioned, anyone, including unregistered users, can edit it, or raise objections on the talk page (through the 'discussion' link). User:Anárion/sig 14:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wonder about this too, because on the history pages, one does not (generally) find the actual name of the person, just some pseudonym. Why is that? I know it is customary on web logs and the like, but one would never pay attention to a journal article by an anonymous author. Paper encyclopedias have the real names of their contributors, why is wikipedia different? Morris 17:54, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Mostauthors choose to use a pseudonym, but it's neither here no there. A person's username or ip address can in fact be traced back to that person unless they are using an anonymous proxy. I feel there is a bigger point to be made here, though: it's not about the author, it's about the content. What does a person's name have to do with the validity of the information? We find errancys in Britannica all the time. What it comes down to is that we need to cite sources in all cases. A cite comes with an author's name, but its principle concern is that you are able to locate the information with the data provided in the citation. At that point you can choose to trust that information based on the name given, or based on how well they in turn cited their sources. --Alterego 18:08, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:researching with Wikipedia; and you may have some comments to add to that or to its talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:10, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

"No original research" means the identity of the editor is irrelevant. To check accuracy, refer to references and external links on the article page and perhaps on the internal linked article pages. The history page and the discussion page are useful as well, and will often tell you all you need to know about the value of a contributor. Read the discussion page on "Republic" to see an example.

Policy re: day-of-the-year articles?

is there somewhere in wikipedia a written set of guidelines about what and not what to include on the individual day-of-the-year articles? or are we just using gut instinct to discern what should and shouldn't be there?

please respond on my talk page, thanks! Kingturtle 22:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Birth and death listings should be limited to people with articles in Wikipedia (or likely to get an article some day).

As for event listings, this is different. --05 22:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unless the dates are wrong as such, I suggest we restore the mass deletions of birth and death listings by Kingturtle, e.g. on January 9. --05 06:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I reverted them. Somebody considered them notable, or they would not have added them. It's no more inappropriate than having red links on List pages. RickK 06:46, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

in regards to articles on individual dates, editors should be discriminating in their choices of historic events, births and deaths. This idea is to list the more siginficant events and names - not all possible names. The Recent deaths list is a more appropriate place to chronicle the less significant names. reserve for the individual-date-articles the more historically important names.

an article about a particular day is not meant to be a complete compendium or complete list. It is a summary of the most and more important events of that day. Kingturtle 12:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

THat is, of course, your opinion. RickK 22:33, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Is that all you have to say? how about helping us figure out what to do here? :) Kingturtle 02:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As the actual date of birth or death is rarely a historic event, the criteria that may work well for events don't help that much for birth and death listings on day pages.

Besides, it's a bit complicated to consult different year pages for specific dates.--05 02:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the day-articles are almanac-like, and are more of a quick reference than a complete listing. Kingturtle 02:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This conversation/thread has been restarted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the Year. please take your thoughts there. Kingturtle 06:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith

I have moved Wikipedia:Assume good faith for official voting, to be concluded on March 1, 2005 at 23:59 UTC. This is to make the policy official. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories

I am proposing a new policy to be implemented, regarding stub templates and stub categories. I have placed it for voting, and whether it will be official will be determined by March 1, 2005 at 23:59 UTC. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki templates

I just found:

Template:Move to Wikisource

Template:Move to Wiktionary

What are they used for and when are they used? RJFJR 17:22, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

I believe they only should be used to indicate the upshot of a WP:VFD discussion, before the actual transwiki has been accomplished. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:58, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Costs of vandalism

Having just read the post here where it was explained that each edit is a completely new text file, isn't the current method of combating vandalism pretty costly in terms of storage space and all the associated overhead? I know I should search for this, but what are people's thought on this? It seems to me to threaten the future of Wikipedia when a good part of what is stored is vandalism junk. But I see the quandary of not wanting to threaten free expression. Spalding 14:44, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

How many edits are vandalism? How does the amount of vandalism, and reversion of vandalism, compare to ordinary editing? Despite all the flap about it, it's really not all that common. Try this: Examine the edit histories of 100 random articles. Count up the number of vandal edits and reverts of those edits, and compare that number to the number of useful edits. I think you'll find that the latter far outnumber the former. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 19:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would still like an answer to the question... what are the costs of vandalism storage wise? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, read above. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What constitutes a revert - violations of stated 3RR policy and possible abuse

A two days ago I made some edits in the dresden bombing article, and was imediately attacked by ananimous user 151.... and accused of being a vandal. My edits were clearly not the case of vandalism, and I have made further edits using some of the older stuff from the page (which was stable for 2 years, until an edit war apparently enused this october). This was reverted 4 times with insulting and misleading comments that it was vandalism, by the same user. I have clearly stated in my edits that I was reverting this thing for 3 times, like the rules say, and each time 151 has reverted, breaking his revert limit. Then I have stopped and complained on the 3RR page (as I have indicated in my last edit, which clearly said "3rd and last revert to a version of 16:09 Feb 9 ").

What happened was that I was banned for 24 hours, while user 151 was banned for 20 hours. The explanation given was that 151 has made 4 reverts while I have made 6 insertions of a "war crime" claim. First thing is that this count was wrong: out of 6 edits only 5 had words "war crime" added, and not all in the same version (nothing to say that the substantional difference was only in the edit of 16:09 Feb 9 to which I was referring, and to which I have been counting the reverts). Also, 151 has made 5 reverts, not 4 (which the person who put the ban clearly should have realised, since 151 was reverting everything that I did). Also, the first edit can hardly count as a "revert", so it seems that even with the interpretation of entering the "war crime" I had 4 reverts and 151 had 5, yet he received 20 hours ban and I have received 24 hours. This is clearly not treating people equally in such a dispute. I was the one who clearly stated the count and said that I will follow the rules, after which I have complained. Yet, despite this I was treated more harshly. I believe that moderator wanted to intimidate me in this way for complaining. Is this how you encourage your own policies? If a situation like this should happen, shouldn't the course of action be like mine: respect the limit, and point out when it is broken?

There are several issues to be rised here

• How are reverts counted? If A makes an edit, B reverts, A reverts, B reverts, A reverts, B reverts, A reverts, B reverts, A refrains and complains, what do you do? did A make 3 reverts or 4 (which would be strange, since the first edit is hardly a revert). And if he did make 3 reverts while B made 4, overriding him, then should they both be punished?

• What does treating equally mean? If two engage in consecutive reverts, and someone third intervenes, than clearly both should be punished if they both broke the rule. But if one refrained in the end and complained, should he be punished? Should he be punished if he made more than 3 reverts in interpretation of moderator, yet had thought that he had respected the rule, and let the B had last revert, choosing to complain instead? Should he be punished more for doing this??

• How do you count different versions. If someone changes the versions, or has substantially different edits, do you count those as reverts? How does that encourage the succesive attempts of coming with the better version (more NPOV, removing wording which my offend the other side). If one side does this, and the other just reverts back shouting "vandal", do you count his reverts the same as all the different edits of the firts user?

• What happens if both users act in good faith? For instance, one user really believes edits are simple vandalism and breaks the 3RR rule, while the other thinks that only his reverts to a substantially different edit count and does not try to do more than 3 reverts in this way (while that is what happened in my case, I doubt that 151 really thought my edits were simple vandalism, as I belive his intent was to abuse this label to intimidate someone whose views he dissaproves of, yet I do not know for sure). Does the user have more responsibility if policy is more clear in his case. For instance, if there is an explanation what simple vandalism means, and any person of average (or even modest) intelligence can figure out that it is not the case, and there is no explanation what counts as a revert, do these people have the same responsibility?

• Should a moderator punish people as he pleases, giving his arbitrary interpretation and in fact punishing the person who complains more harshly? Does moderator have responsibility to determine the facts or can he just make a sloppy count and make a decision based on first impression? What is the consequence for the moderator who makes a mistake due to sloppiness? Does "treating equally" mean giving even punisments when both persons are somehow breaking the rules, or should moderator step in to interpret who did more break the rules, and act arbitrarily, when the situation is not clear cut?

• What happens if moderator deliberately abuses his powers, choosing to act on his personal views, preferences or taste, rather than by applying the rules? Is there in fact any procedure of making moderators accountable for what they do?

• If a moderator makes a mistake, which is later proved and pointed to him, does he have the responsibility to appologize to the abused side?

-MarkSOp, Feb 12

Why should anyone care? This strikes me as like being ticketed for for going 71 mph in a 55 mph zone and complaining

• "The cops are supposed to give you 15 miles over the limit"
• "71 mph is really only 15 miles over 55 mph"
• "Lots of people going just as fast didn't get stopped"

Just stop reverting more than once. Then you'll never need to know that the 3RR even exists, let alone what the precise borders of its enforcement are. You are not entitled to three reverts. Three reverts is extreme behavior that is way over any reasonable line. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does a new edit store only the changes?

If I make an edit to a 50k page, does the wiki software only store the changes, as we see in a history comparison, or does it save a new 50k file? (I assume the former but wanted to make sure)--Nectarflowed 02:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It saves a new file; the diff is generated by comparing the two files. This is one reason why we have the show preview button. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 03:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For older articles, a compression scheme has been implemented that combines the old revisions, allowing for the similar bits to be compressed out easily. The only users who actually see the effects of this are admins, as it causes the "cannot delete due to block compressed revisions" error. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, this is a technical question, why is it being asked in the policy section? -- Cyrius|✎ 04:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Mirv and Cyrius. Then, if a user edits just a section does it still generate a new 50k file instead of just a new file for the smaller section? Regarding policy then, is editing a large page just to correct a trivial typo seen as a burden on storage?--Nectarflowed 06:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, editing sections creates a new revision of the whole page. No, this is generally not seen as a problem: the database servers have enough storage space. Nobody will yell at you for copyediting and proofreading. Let common sense rule; if a large page has numerous small errors, fixing them all in one edit is better than making a dozen minor edits: it's easier on the servers, it uses less bandwidth, and it keeps the edit history clearer. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 06:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eventually planned Neonazi-Attack

Dear english Wikipedians, hope this is the right website for this:

On http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=173563&page=4&pp=10 Neonazis plan to "invade" Wikipedia and manipulate articles in their purposes.

Heaving read and analysed the whole thread, I think this has to be taken serious. Please distribute this warning in the right channels and manners, I´m not experienced in this. Greetings from Germany, and tell us how we can help if necessary! Benutzer:Jesusfreund on German Wikipedia, --217.95.54.218 21:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

scary. put some holocaust/nazism related articles on your watchlists, everybody! Some of them seem to be realistic about their chances for success, though:

I'm curious to hear about succesful editing attempts, but I wouldn't be surprised if any attempt is futile. It might be a better idea to create our own wiki.

(yes, do that, please!) :oP dab (ᛏ) 21:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This post is already known to much of the English Wikipedia, including Jimbo. Even so, the sentiment behind it is appreciated. Brotherhood and comradarie and stuff like that. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Their little plan has sparked a quite large discussion on WikiEN-l. Jimbo reminded everyone that we're writing an encyclopedia here. If they try to subvert that, then our response isn't going to be very nice. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Silsor has also set up a Neo-nazi watchlist which is a list of possible targets for neo-nazi activists. If you visit that page and click "related changes" in the toolbox, it will show you all recent changes to those articles. It's a good way to see if they're hitting anything. Rhobite 00:28, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

To quote a couple of prominent politicians: "Bring it on!" Those of us who've been keeping an eye on the articles on Holocaust denial and other warm and fuzzy topics are ready, willing, and maple to keep the peace. :) --Modemac 12:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, click here to find recent changes to articles on that list. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Any suggestions as to what to do if you see someone new with a suspicious (but not quite Nazi) edit history? Is anyone monitoring them specifically?

Let 'em be, like everyone else. If they cause trouble or engage in edit wars, we'll use the regular policy for handling edit wars and/or troublemakers. --Modemac 16:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What Modemac says. They're trying to manipulate Wikipedia? Just what is said about "liberals," "conservatives," "atheists," "homosexuals," "fundamentalists" and every other person who is recognized as being with a group, and, further, what is said about just about everyone who is recognized as having, to use a popular Wikipedia Talk Page term, "an agenda". It's a shame that there's people that don't care to contribute in an encyclopedic way, but the addition of neo-nazis to this group of people hardly lowers the signal to noise ratio, at least when you look at what the entire Wikipedia community calls "noise"(i.e., everything at one point or another). The Wikipedia must be constructed in a way that it can acheive its goal from a mixing and remixing of noise, or it has no hope whatsoever. You either have faith that it does have these proper constructs, or have faith in your efforts to create them, or have a pretty crumby Wikipedia existence because you won't be getting what you want. --Whoabot 20:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Style guide proposed revision

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/proposal would be a major revision. See Differences with the current style guide, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/proposal, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.
• Proposed changes include:
  • Changing the style regarding quotation marks.
  • Removal of references.
  • Removal of the style:
    • For serial commas.
    • Against contractions.
    • Against i.e., e.g., or n.b.
    • About Possessives of singular nouns ending in s.
    • About "alternate" and "alternative".
    • For "U.S."
  • Removal of: "If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect."
  • Weakening of the "Identity" section, including the style to "use terminology which subjects use for themselves".
• Reducing the section on "National varieties of English",. This would include changing "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country" to "Where an article is on a topic closely-related to one part of the English-speaking world, that article should be written in a form of standard English used in that part of the English-speaking world."

Maurreen 07:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no real impetus for making these changes--certainly not in a monolithic chunk as jguk would have it. It appears that each individual change has been discussed ad nauseum on the talk page with no consensus to make the change, so I don't understand the function of this proposal.

The discussion on the talk page is so lengthy I can't really fit my contributions in, so I'll briefly cover them here. If the discussion continues on the talk page it really needs to be archived/summarized or just killed with an axe.

I would support:

• Deleting the prescription to put quotes before terminating punctuation, as favoring one form of English over another.
• Deleting the prescription about the serial comma. Despite all the discussion insisting U.S. English uses the Oxford comma, I never have; I have never met any literate person who has and most English I read doesn't use it.
• Deleting the prescription to avoid i.e., e.g. and n.b. (unnecessarily niggling).
• Deleting the discussion about "alternate" and "alternative" and "generally regarded as corrrect" (rule is too hard to remember, too hard to apply).

I object to:

• Deleting references.
• Deleting examples, especially with regard to national varieties of English.
• Deleting the recommendations regarding referring to people (we'd prefer "blacks" to "black people?").
• Deleting the prescription to use "U.S." It most certainly is easier to search for U.S., as you will find when you open your browser's find dialog to locate it in the article.
• Deleting the advice about forming possessives with nouns having a terminal s. This is a common source of confusion, and the poor apostrophe so abused, let's give it all the help we can.

I have no strong opinion about:

• The use of the serial comma within the manual.
• The use of "full stop (period)."

Demi ^T/_C 10:44, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Disagree. -- You have made a number of stylistic changes and shortened the page, all of which is to the good. But you have also made a number of changes to the style espoused, none of which I can endorse. Sorry. I do appreciate that you have made your proposal clearly and transparently. — Xiong (talk) 10:50, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

I agree with Demi in opposing this "chunk" approach. I don't agree with Demi about the serial comma; I'm a literate American who uses it in my non-Wikipedia writing. The trouble is that that comment by me is now buried here in a VP discussion that touches on all the differences between the current MoS and the proposal. Considering arguments pro and con on the serial comma, as with each other specific issue, is best done on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, in a thread devoted to that issue. JamesMLane 12:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The proposal has much merit. It much better reflects what Wikipedians actually do and cuts down considerably on instruction creep. Every article that currently complies with the Manual of Style will comply with the proposed revised Manual of Style - but the proposal, by permitting usage of all standard styles of English, should cut down on future style edit wars. It is also supplemented by the non-binding Wikipedia:Guidance on applying the Manual of Style. No doubt Wikipedians will use that page to argue for their preferred styles. In short, the proposal is good. We need to stop all the arguments about - why does Wikipedia prefer American style over British for this, and British style over American for other things. It's a shame that some reactionaries are opposing positive change, rather than developing the Wikipedia:Guidance on applying the Manual of Style page to express their thoughts on the more contentious issues, jguk 13:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: This is not my proposal. I just think it deserves to be publicized widely. Maurreen 16:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that the "removal" is actually a liberalising removal. All articles complying with the current MoS will comply with the proposal. All the proposal does is to remove the requirements in the MoS that one style is preferred over another as it is these that have given rise to so many, indeed, very many, non-productive disputes. The proposal is to relegate discussions on whether one usage style or another is preferred to a non-binding page, Wikipedia:Guidance on applying the Manual of Style, jguk 17:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The universe does not revolve around you

This is a proposed new policy. Please take a look at it. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is very nicely written, but it is not policy or a candidate for such. It is a reminder of polite behavior and group consenus regarding the community's direction. I'm all in favor of this sort of thing; I've edited a few myself, such as {{01}}: It's all just zeros and ones! Sometimes I read something someone has written and I feel the urge to respond harshly; I rather like having available a selection of bon mots written by cooler heads. (I fear your chosen title may be somewhat abrasive, but that can be fixed. The sentiment is correct.)

There is a level of behavioral control below (or perhaps above) that of policy; custom stands on another level from the law. Some rules are best enforced via hierarchy, formal procedure, and defined sanctions; others through public repetition, peer pressure, and upstanding example. — Xiong (talk) 10:36, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Policies regarding commercial exploitation of Wikipedia?

Sorry, I'm a relative newbie (n00B?) here, but I very much like the Wikipedia idea. Of course, there's always someone trying to figure out how to exploit someone else's good idea. Today's case in point involves someone using Wikipedia's growing credibility to promote their online gambling business. The feature article is "online poker", which is apparently being aggressively Google-bombed so Wikipedia will help them find more suckers.

Anyway, my first reaction was to recommend the "online poker" page be deleted, but I couldn't figure out that mechanism (and it's already been tried, too). My second reaction was to try to add tighter links to the better-written "gambling" entry. My third reaction was to look for someone to ask, and that didn't work. This is my fourth or fifth reaction, I guess... So far failing to find the policy statement, so I wound up starting this topic.

First comment is that the policies should be organized more clearly and searchably. Second is a request for someone to give me a pointer to the right place to look. Third request is for advice. My basic reaction is to ignore it, but that can also lead to the situation where everyone winds up ignoring an actual problem.

I think it would be helpful if you were more explicit about what you see as a problem. The article itself, or the choice of external links in it? Pcb21| Pete 12:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What's happening is that bloggers are googlebombing "online poker" to point to our article on the subject, in retaliation for online poker sites comment-spamming blogs. As a result, our article is the #3 search result, and it seems to be attracting a great deal of linkspamming and other negative attention. --Carnildo 18:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've just been reading about that on the talk page but couldn't really reconcile that with the original poster's comment that the article be deleted. All we need to do really is be a bit more obsessive than usual in selecting extlinks for that page. Pcb21| Pete 21:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Or at the very most, protect it for a while. Vandalism of an article should never be a grounds for deletion. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:44, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. The reason I initially reacted by thinking in terms of "deletion" may have been related to the transient state of the article. It was certainly changing rapidly enough, and I can't be sure what it said at *any* particular time. Nevertheless, I don't equate "encylopedia" with "free advertising", which is all the article seemed to be. I'm still in the dark about the general policies regarding commercial exploitation, but that article seemed like an excellent example. (Not now, however, which suggests the policies exist, are in accord with my intuitions, and are being enforced. To wit, the commercial links have been removed and the article is frozen.) IMNSHO, still no major contribution to human knowledge there. Shanen 04:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Woahhh, if _any_ article makes a major contribution to human knowledge then it has to be deleted. No original research n'all ;-). Pcb21| Pete 08:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, you should always feel free to delete a link that seems to be mainly commercial in nature. The tough calls are the ones that provide useful, on-topic texts or pictures, but also contain ads or have something to sell. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:41, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Does seem a bit odd that an article about online poker does not point out the major online poker providers. By comparison, search engine has a picture of the Google homepage on it. Pcb21| Pete 08:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Soliciting Donations

File:DonateTN.png

There doesn't seem to be an obvious way for this mere sockpuppet to link an image directly to the WM Foundation fundraising page -- or I surely would. If I weren't wearing holes in my socks, I'd donate more.

I've noticed in various places Around WP little brushfire debates on the issue of raising money so Wikipedia can continue its mission. One poster is outraged that a link to Cafe Press appears at the bottom of The Page. Another assures me that WP has plenty of money. Then, I look here (why there?) to learn that we have plenty of servers; it's a labor problem.

I don't know. And I don't care. One thing only is clear to me: More money will help. It can't possibly hurt. WP is not going to get into a bizarre corner where an excess of money destroys it -- not at this rate.

I applaud the ad-free model. We don't need a banner at the top of every page, or yet another tentacle of the googlething poking its way into this space. But we can, should, and already do solicit donations on each and every page. Right now, this is done with a shy, retiring text link that doesn't even show up "above the fold" on some browsers.

Love makes the world go around, but money greases the axle on which it turns. The link to the place where people can roll money IN is as important as all the other links put together. Why? Because if no money comes in, everything else stops. — Xiong (talk) 03:21, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

The last fund drive generated 26% more than we asked for in about half the time we thought we'd need. See Wikimedia:Fund drives/2005/Q1. The shy link is contrasted by the top of every page sitewide notice that goes up during fund drives. Having something flashy every day of the year will tend to make people numb to that and start to ignore it. Special events like fund drives generate excitement and interest - two things that come together to make for successful fundraising. Nice image, btw. I'll see if I can somehow use it on the fundraising page. Better yet, it'd make for a good image to replace the redundant 'A Wikimedia project' button on the bottom of each foundation wiki page. --mav 03:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That image is way too flashy lol --Alterego 06:32, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship

I'd like to ask for any feedback on the process I've outlined on this page. I understand that this is a controversial issue, but I also see that we have no consensus-based way of removing sysop status. Indeed, it seems that the only method that has been done in the past is via the dispute resolution process. Certainly, gaining adminship should be "no big deal", and removing it should be, but it should not be impossible.

I am concerned that as certain admins come to understand that there is no easy way of removing their access, those which have a disposition toward conflict and policy violation do not have a "compensating control". The process I've outlined mirrors very closely the process for gaining adminship, requiring a consensus for support of the request. I've also proposed a petition system (requiring at least ten signers) to prevent gross abuse of the de-adminship process. I welcome comments and suggestions on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 19:00, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. I feel it would become a forum for personal attacks. Myself, I would feel far happier relying on the ArbComm to do their job. I think it would be a far better proposal to make the ArbComm more ready to remove admin status. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c) 19:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, I also disagree with the proposal. The "hint" is the idea of using any fixed number of petitioners. Complaining about the rules of the game, but proposing a new rule that would be extremely easy to game? Nope. Shanen 11:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --mav 03:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposed amendment revote

As the old ratification vote has degenerated into a fiasco, I am working on initiating a revote. Please visit there and add any significant comments you might have to make. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:47, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a reference on fictional works?

Obviously, information about works of fiction belong in any encyclopedia, including (depending on the work and its note, I guess) plot synopses, descriptions of main characters and so forth, as well as information about the work, such as where it figures in the history of art, etc. Usually these would be covered with the coverage of the work itself.

However, what about constructing encyclopedia articles that are references, not to the work, but to the fictional milieu it describes? In other words, the Harry Potter books deserve much coverage, as books, but are we a reference to the world of Harry Potter as well? Do we need a history of Hogwart's and instructions on how to open the Chamber of Secrets (I don't know if such articles exist)?

I'm making a distinction here between a work of fiction and the fiction itself. If particular events, phenomena, technologies, places, people and organizations appearing in a work of fiction are notable, but do not (in themselves) have note outside the work and its fans, are they notable? And if so, what are the qualifications? Where is the line drawn? Various items of Pokecruft and video-game powerups are voted for deletion all the time, while there are well-established articles for such things as Qwghlm and the Eugenics Wars. What makes Qwghlm more notable than Shelmerston (from Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin novels)? Or do we need an article on that too?

I don't necessarily have a stand on this, I'd like some discussion to elaborate on the issues involved. So please don't take this as an attack on your favorite fictional universe or a desire to purge it from Wikipedia--I'm just asking for guidance.

Demi ^T/_C 19:17, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

For those interested: a lot of ground on this is covered in Wikipedia:Fancruft and especially its talk page, though no conlusions are drawn there. However, it's nice if you don't want to be repeating things that have already been said. :-) JRM 19:30, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

The short answer to the question is obviously "yes". Wikipedia obviously has a great deal of information about the fictional universes created by J. K. Rowlings and Gene Roddenberry. In some areas, the fictional events have better coverage than real events. It certainly doesn't bother me. I rarely look at articles about the beasts that are studied at Hogwarts, or the devices used by the crew of the Enterprise. I think of them as a huge extrapolation of literary criticism. I have found useful and interesting many articles about current popular TV shows. I found wikipedia's articles very useful to get the back story and understand what is going on in Family Guy or Futurama. In short, wikipedia contains information on what the editors are interested in. Naturally since I (or anyone) am only one editor amoung many, there is far more information on what other editors are interested in than on my interests. Morris 21:06, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, Mpearl. The issue of the examination of literary criticism is brought up on Wikipedia_talk:Fancruft as well. However, I'd like to point out that literary criticism has to do with analysis and comment on a piece of literature as literature, not on imaginary tanks as imaginary tanks. It's very easy to tell the difference between the two. Secondly, literary criticism is original research--it involves drawing parallels, taking conclusions and expanding on insights and so forth. Even if there were a good piece of literary criticsm here on Star Wars, it wouldn't belong. Demi ^T/_C 21:48, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many strong points. Consistency is not among them. A command-and-control encyclopedia can dictate the amount of effort and space to be allocated to various topic areas. One that relies exclusively on the donated work of volunteers cannot. This is known as systemic bias. People have tried to deal with it by "jawboning" and creating mechanisms to encourage attention to less-well-covered topics, with limited success. Wikipedia is supposed to be recognizably an encyclopedia and there are policy documents that record consensus on what "encyclopedic" means. But there's really no way to avoid the channeling of more energy into topics on which contributors are enthusiastic.

• There is consensus on what "encyclopedic" means in other areas, but I can find none for this topic, thus the question. Demi ^T/_C 21:48, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

It is silly to ask "what makes Qwghlm more notable than Shelmerston?" When people contribute an article, they don't measure the worthiness of their topic against what's already in Wikipedia. They write about what they feeling like writing about. Other people come through and nominate the most problematic articles for deletion. This, too, is done inconsistently.

• I didn't mean it as a silly question. Yes, if I took the exclusion of a Shelmerston article and the inclusion of a Qwghlm one as a policy statement of an already-consistent encyclopedia (which I wasn't) it would be silly. My point was to provide a concrete statement of the issue, which is "are we a reference to fiction" as well as a reference about it. Demi ^T/_C 21:48, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

And for the most part the imbalance doesn't matter, because people judge Wikipedia on the basis of the topics they seek, not random topics. There's no way to get a visual overview of all of Wikipedia in which the imbalance is obvious. It's not like glancing at the spine of a set of encyclopedia volumes and seeing PAY to REE, REE to SIM, SIMPSON-1, SIMPSON-2, SIMPSON-3, SIM-TAU or anything like that.

Cruft is just one manifestation of the same phenomena that gives computer-related topics better coverage than biological-related topics.

IMHO the biggest problem with cruft is that it creates a race to the bottom, in which the inclusion of a crufty article is cited as if it were a valid precedent for the inclusion of other crufty articles. It is frequently suggested that it is somehow unfair to delete a bad article as long as you can point to worse articles that have not yet been deleted. IMHO the function of VfD is to nibble away, inconsistently, at the most problematic articles in hopes of providing some damping on what might otherwise become a positive feedback situation like thermal runaway. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought of a more succinct way of saying this: Fans of Sherlock Holmes engage in what they call the Game. Describing the Game makes sense, but covering fictional events, details, phenomena, &c. is tantamount to using Wikipedia to engage in it. (I don't necessarily agree with that, I'm just recasting the question I proposed). Demi ^T/_C 21:48, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

Amendment to arbitration policy

The November 2004 proposed amendment to arbitration policy has been implemented. Pursuant to the new amendment section of the policy I have created a subpage to house further proposed changes to the policy. I ask for your comments and discussion on the above. Thanks. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:14, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

How Do I Suggest a New Boilerplate?

Anyone know what formal process I'd go to offer up a suggestion for a new boilerplate? I'd like to suggest that people have the ability to offer something along the lines of the following:

'Wikipedia has a large community of contributors that encompasses many occupations. Regardless of the issue of accuracy, we recommend that articles on Wikipedia be used to supplement, and not replace, advice from a trained professional on legal, medical, or other matters where such advice may be critical to your welfare."

I was looking up medical information the other day, and then I realized, "You know, Wikipedia has a pretty good accuracy record — but what if someone had just recently gone in and changed one important, yet not immediately noticeable, fact? I could be counting on wrong medical information here."

The problem then seemed to be possibly systemic enough that it might need wider attention.

WCityMike 04:51, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• You mean like Wikipedia:General disclaimer that is linked to right at the bottom of every page, including this one? Uncle G 17:02, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
  • The WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY in large bold letters is a very nice touch. --Deathphoenix 17:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That's because we're open about such things, unlike certain other encyclopedias who hide theirs away in large terms of use documents. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • You mean the "Disclaimers" link that I must have missed because it's hyperlinked, not present, and in tiny, easily missed type? WCityMike 14:25, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • How do you make a hyperlink that is but isn't present? As for tiny, it's no smaller than the text in the various navboxes on the left side of the screen. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • But placement inside a 'Disclaimers' link amidst the material at the bottom of the screen is entirely unnoticeable. It's the equivalent of the FDA saying, "Go ahead, put the warning on the inside of the cap -- it's still on the bottle." 24.148.19.210 19:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • The point being that the disclaimer does not appear on the page, but linked to instead. It's only available to a reader who says "I am going to go looking for disclaimers," not a reader who is reading a page for information. It's far less obvious because of its position than the navigation links at the side of the page, and far less obvious than, say, the MediaWiki and WikiMedia branding. When a link is in the same place as the "Powered by" cruft and much smaller, it pretty much screams "You don't need to bother with me!" I'm not saying I support the idea of a medical disclaimer on every medical page, but it's glib to say "Ha ha, there's already a disclaimer" when it's buried in the fine print. Demi ^T/_C 18:47, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
          • Thank you, Demi, that's exactly what I meant to say. 24.148.19.210 19:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about instead of "Disclaimers" the link text at the bottom of the page is Wikipedia Makes No Guarantee of Validity? That way, the thrust of the disclaimer actually appears on the page, yet no special attention is needed for articles of a particular type? The link is there, so complete information is just as available now, but the unchecked nature of the information is more obvious to a reader. Demi ^T/_C 18:51, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

• • • • • • • Any idea where we could formally promote or tender this idea on Wikipedia? Somehow I'm guessing the Village Pump is the wrong place.
              • Isn't this disclaimer clearly implicit in the words "Edit this page," which appears at the top of every page? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about disclaimers to be fixed on the walls of labor rooms in hospitals everywhere? "WELCOME TO LIFE. NO GUARANTEES WHATSOEVER. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS." Really, the disclaimer mania nowadays is way out of control. --Plek 18:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is the first wise line I've read in this thread. Pages are already overcrowded with templates, boilerplates, the logo, sidebars, categories, lists -- there's hardly room left for content.

I count each and every character and image thrown onto a page as a cost, and I do not endorse anything that contributes to page bloat.

Like Plek said: This is a world; welcome to it. Watch out for falling rocks. Warning: Nobody is getting out of this alive. Mind the sharp edge. Don't put your hand there. Please do not operate soldering iron while plugged into this outlet while standing in shower shampooing your hair. We accept no liability for your failure to read instructions. Do not operate this encyclopedia under the influence of controlled substances. Ask your mother first. Use a potholder. Closed course, professional driver, do not attempt.

"Think of it as evolution in action." — Xiong (talk) 07:55, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Major change to Wikipedia:Requests for comment process

A somewhat secluded sect of 3-4 users have drafted a completely redefined process for RFC. The problem is that these changes were not advertised widely, nor is there a sufficient degree of participation in it's construction.

I am no longer able to reverse the changes, but I believe there has not been NEARLY enough comment made about them for it to be adopted. I have expressed this, and been ignored. As one can see, these changes were only advertised as short blurbs on three talk pages. I'd like to ask for other people to agree with me and revert the process pages (Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example admin, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user). to the old versions until such time as a solid consensus can be reached. -- Netoholic @ 21:42, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

These changes were discussed, quite appropriately, on the relevant talk page. The aim of the changes is to resolve disputes quicker and easier by adopting a less confrontational style. Let's hope they work, jguk 21:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I feel the need to point out that, as written ALL expired RfCs will be deleted. This is no minor change, and one that requires a LOT of consideration. -- Netoholic @ 23:08, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

I don't agree. Resolved disputes are best left in the dustbin of history, not preserved for the interest of the prurient, jguk 23:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps that is the case on a dispute that has truly been resolved, but a lot of RfC's exist largely for the purpose (which I think is entirely appropriate) of documenting the issues with particular problem users. I think it is very valuable to have a record of past issues. I would strongly object to the deletion of one particular RfC I was involved in, because I am not convinced that the matter was ever resolved, only that the person's bad behavior seems to have trailed off. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:45, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Netoholic that changes to big policy like this need heavy discussion, and further wish to express my horror at the removal of history of decisionmaking, and the evidence-gathering and similar that went into that. Anything binding must happen on the Village Pump. --Improv 13:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with Netoholic. A lot of arbitration cases rely on evidence of previous attempts at dispute resolution. What if an RfC closed, only to reopen when one of the parties resumes disruptive behaviour? Assuming that the case isn't appropriate for mediation, what evidence will our arbitrators have of previous attempts to resolve the dispute? Also, I've noticed cases (such as with WikiUser) where the RfC is the main repository of evidence because of the extent of the discussions there, as opposed (or in addition) to the /Evidence subpages. What will happen in these cases? --Deathphoenix 15:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, as a matter of fact, RfC is not policy. The changes were discussed and are being discussed on the talk page. Second, deleting RfCs does not destroy evidence - the evidence is already permanently preserved by diffs and page histories throughout Wikipedia - so there's really no need to be concerned there. Third, all the Arbitrators are also admins, and so can view deleted pages anyway. Removing old RfCs is important - it allows old disputes to be forgotten (some old RfCs have stayed on the page for months and months under the old approach). Besides, keeping them there only creates Wikistress and anxiety for the RfCee for the benefit of the prurient interest of the trolls.

Remember, RfC should be a genuine attempt to resolve disputes. It seems too many users just see it as a stepping stone to an ArbCom case - and the sooner that view is removed, the better, jguk 19:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Arbitrators may be administrators but the majority of those appealing to the ArbCom are not, and it is they who have to provide the evidence not the committee members. If the RfC has been deleted, how can an ordinary user provide the necessary diffs & links to show evidence that prior steps in the dispute resolution process have been attempted? This is particularly the case where personal attacks, threats, statements of intent, etc, have been made on the RfC (talk) page. I may soon be involved in an Arbitration request, and >90% of the evidence is on the RfC, which has been ongoing for some time (it may even be the same one Jmabel is referring to). Thryduulf 23:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think we have pretty clear consensus (except for jguk) that the page should be returned to the old procedures. I'd like to ask someone else please perform the reversion at the earliest, so that the page is not further disrupted. Please make sure that any subsequent requests are re-added when reverting to the version just before jguk's change, and also revert the example subpage templates at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example admin and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 19:36, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Looking at the RfC talk page, we don't have a consensus to revert them. All users who wish to discuss the new approach are welcome to come to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, jguk 20:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure noone has a problem discussing your proposal, so long as the current process is not further disrupted. -- Netoholic @ 20:09, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Netoholic. You, yourself have added a template to that page asking that it isn't reverted unless there is discussion on the talk page supporting a revert. I suggest we all accept that template and let there be a discussion on the talk page about the merits and demerits of the new approach, jguk 20:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Count me as another editor who finds the concept of erasing all old RfCs and the new policy in general to be hastily adopted by a small minority of users. Already we have more people objecting to the new process here than the few who created it. This change was made completely without consensus and needs to be put on hiatus until it can be discussed thoroughly. The fact that jguk apparently likes making changes with only a handful of people and ignoring complaints appears to be a clear attempt to make a run around of the way things are normally done here. DreamGuy 23:01, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

It seems worth a try, though. Netoholic's complaint seems to be that it makes it harder for him to rake over the coals of old disputes. I think jguk's right that it would be a lot better if users would move on and get on with improving the encyclopaedia. DreamGuy, you seem not to like "being bold". Okay, jguk might have been a bit bold, but why not give his suggestion a go? Just for a trial period, we could keep deleted RfCs on RfCs/removed or such, and use an honour system rather than delete them. But this is a thoughtful, well-intentioned change. I'm trying to feel the same about Netoholic's opposition. Dr Zen 23:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am, to the contrary, in favor of being bold on a number of things. But when one's boldness lacks consensus in an article, the other editors change it back, and the same ought to be done in other areas. That option has been prevented here, which is never a good thing. Now that there is controversy the supporters should give solid reasons for adapting it and convince the detractors instead of just saying that's the way it is now, live with it. Even if I can live with the idea of RfCs being even more likely to be used as tools of harassment, the wholesale deletion of all old RfCs strikes me as a monumentally bad idea. There ought to be a threshold of a certain number of people complaining at which the dispute is held onto and viewable for everyone to see, as knowing who the problem members are is very helpful. DreamGuy 17:13, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

And, of course, potential employers will find it useful as a way of rooting out applicants who cause trouble on Wikipedia

Unsigned comment above by jguk (talk · contribs). --Plek 17:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Add my voice to the growing list of those who feel that old RfCs should not automatically be deleted as a matter of course. I have made a more detailed comment above in response to jguk's claim that deleting the pages is OK because the ArbCom members are admins (those presenting evidence are not). Thryduulf 23:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

American or British titles of translated works

I've edited the Nikos Kazantzakis page so that the titles of his works given in English (e.g. The Last Temptation of Christ) reflect how they are titled as published in English-language translations. I feel this is best as many readers of the English Wikipedia will not recognize either the Greek transliterations or the straight Greek-to-English translations of the original Greek title for any particular book. A problem arises when the American publication and the British publication of the same novel have different titles. I could not find a policy of preferring British English over American English in naming conventions. Does this need to be a new policy? Acjelen 16:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I would suspect we don't have a strong policy in that respect -- you could probably use either, but it may be best to include both. --Improv 16:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Improv's suggestion to use both. Most helpful to the reader would be wording like "(published in the UK as Title1 and in the US as Title2)" or "Title1 (but published in India as Title2)". JamesMLane 19:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understand both of the answers and have incorporated similar language in the article. But what should be done in the case of a Wikipedia article name for an article about a translated work with differing English-language titles? The Kazantzakis article doesn't have one, but I'm sure it will come up for other authors. Acjelen 20:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah. For choosing where to put the article? I'd suggest simply picking one (possible criteria -- better known translation; better translation; first publication; avoid disambig; article originator's prerogative of choice; etc.) and using that as the name. Then, put redirects in place from the other titles. I shall now go and take my own advice with respect to Children of Gebelawi. –Hajor 22:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tried to create some guidelines about this very issue a few months back. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles)#Foreign languages. -- Samuel Wantman 09:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Copyright status of translations

Please see Mold of the Earth. I have just deleted the entire "micro-story". The article said that the translator had authorized that the translation be included in the article. To begin with, it should be at Wikisource or Wikibooks and not here, but can a translator authorize the waiving of copyright, or does the copyright lie with the original author? RickK 07:38, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I am not a copyright lawyer, but my understanding is that, with any translated work, there are two copyrights involved: the original owner's copyright, and the translator's copyright. I believe a translator can waive his own copyright on the creative effort involved in the translation, but unless there was an agreement between the original author and the translator that gives him the power to do so, I don't think the translator can waive the original author's copyright. --Carnildo 08:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Policy on PDFs?

I just uploaded Image:Chicago top down view.pdf as a test - PDFs are on the whitelist of file types. Is there any policy dealing with this? Is it OK/encouraged to upload a PDF source for a raster image? --SPUI (talk) 19:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• PDFs are hard to edit, and require additional software to view. I would suggest not using them. --Improv 20:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What would you recommend using (note that this is for a source in addition to the PNG)? Or should I wait until SVG is supported? --SPUI (talk) 20:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • For raster images, go with jpg (for photos) or png (for diagrams). →Raul654 21:15, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • The PDF doesn't belong on WP; instead, place an external link to the PDF. This does raise a point; it would be really nice to support vector images. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 21:49, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well I don't have anywhere to put it. I was just very surprised that I was able to upload a PDF. --SPUI (talk) 23:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• AFAIK, .pdf and .mp3 shares the same issue: They are not "free", unlike .ogg. Thus, .pdf should likewise be avoided.--TVPR 21:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Can someone in the cabal weigh in on why PDF uploads are allowed? --SPUI (talk) 23:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The shouldn't be. QED. →Raul654 23:35, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Not on Wikipedia, anyway. They have a place on Wikisource. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • What's this 'place on Wikisource'? Why are they allowed there, not being free and all? Wouldn't it be better to rasterize them there too? --SPUI (talk) 11:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh? What makes PDF "unfree"? I don't think it's patented (unlike mp3), there are quite a few free pieces of software that generate and read PDFs, and I don't have to agree to anything to be allowed to use PDF (certain PDF DRM encryptions might have DMCA issues, but that's no reason to avoid the file format entirely). I agree that PDF isn't great for on-screen use, but until SVG gains more support (offtopic: The newest opera's have support for SVG tiny, yay!), it's the only widely-viewable vector-graphics format. Weyes 22:14, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Professor Jakob Nielsen, a usability-expert, advices against Application/Pdf for onscreen reading:

• Avoid PDF for On-Screen Reading (June 10, 2001)
• PDF: Unfit for Human Consumption (July 14, 2003)
• Gateway Pages Prevent PDF Shock (July 28, 2003)

Personally, I hate Application/Pdf. Google.Com returns one million two hundred eighty thousand results for +hate +pdf. — Ŭalabio 23:40, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

+Hate +html gets 10million hits, maybe we should stop reading that format too! Pcb21| Pete 21:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not proposing it for on-screen reading, just as a source for those that want to create their own maps based on mine. Most usage would be via the rasterized PNGs; only those that want the PDF for editing would use it. --SPUI (talk) 11:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have a point. I'm not sure what the best thing to do in this case is, when images in an open format are products of things in a relatively closed format. It pretty clearly would be handy to keep the source format around in some form, so long as it's not part of the display side of Wikipedia (so we don't impose on end-users). I would love to say that we shouldn't include generated media, but the ability to make charts/graphs is too useful, and it'd be too much work to invent some kind of new format that would be as open as we like and editable through the encyclopedia. Again though, I'm not sure where we can stash such stuff in a way that people won't start trying to use it inline as part of articles. Perhaps a good temporary solution is to toss it on a website and reference that from the image page? --Improv 14:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm definitely keeping it around on my end, waiting for the day when a good SVG → PNG convertor is built into MediaWiki (and hoping for a decent PDF → SVG convertor, which shouldn't be too hard to find, but who knows). At that time I'll upload the SVGs and put the PNGs on IFD. --SPUI (talk) 15:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although I don't disagree, this Google statistic is ridiculous. If you search for PDFs containing hate and pdf, you'll find 990,000. And none of them appear to be about hating PDFs, unsurprisingly. Deco 22:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did not search for Application/Pdf which contain the term +hate +pdf. I ran a simple search for +pdf +hate. A search for +pdf +hate -filetype:pdf which excludes Application/Pdf generates one million two hundred thirty thousands results. [1]

--

— Ŭalabio 04:05, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Use of the {{lived}} template

I've several times noticed editors (most recently on Tommy Vance) replace [[Category:xxxx births|surname, forename]] and [[Category:yyyy deaths|surname, forename]] with {{lived|b=xxxx|d=yyyy|surname, forename}}, and I have to ask Really, what is the point of doing this? as all the {{lived}} template does is create birth and death category entries! Can the practice be discouraged, as it seems to me that all it's doing is adding unnecessary entries on peoples' watchlists. -- Arwel 14:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It's also a bigger drain on WP resources, unless it's entered as {{subst:lived}}. However, for articles that don't have one or both of the relevant categories, {{subst:lived|b=xxxx|d=yyyy|surname, forename}} is a shorter way of entering the two categories. YMMV. -Sean Curtin 23:30, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'd dispute that - good old copy and paste wins out for me! violet/riga (t) 17:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sound Format Policy - Ogg only again?

A while ago there was a heated debate over what sound file formats should be allowed. The debate was resolved by decree from the Wiki gods, and as the debate stopped afterward, I suggest the decreed compromise was accepted however reluctantly by most parties.

Previously only Ogg Vorbis (.ogg) was allowed. This was relaxed to include Midi (.mid) and Wave (.wav) files, but to exclude all other formats and in particular to exclude MP3 files. This is the current policy and is reflected on the Wikipedia:Sound page.

There appears to have been a system change at some point since then, so now only .ogg files can now be uploaded. As this is in conflict with the Wikipedia:Sound policies, I think either:

• the Wikipedia config be changed to be in alignment with the policy and allow .wav and .mid sound files to be uploaded
• the policy should be changed to reflect the config change, and I for one would like to open the sound format debate again if this is the case --Zarni02 06:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I would be comfortable with reopening that debate -- I feel that wavs should be permitted for upload, but should be considered "media to be processed", eventually into ogg format by maintainers. Midis seem like a decent alternate format to allow indefinately because it's not the same kind of audio. --Improv 23:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • If the goal is to eventually convert everything to ogg, then why not encourage people to upload in that format? It seems like a lot of tedious work for maintainers to convert wavs. There are plenty of free and quite user-friendly ogg-converters. Better to let people get used to the fact that ogg is here to stay. karmosin 23:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

MathWorld

What's the policy on using material from MathWorld? Using the content is obviously allowed, but what about quoting (with source cited)? Gkhan 07:07, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

It seems their Terms of Use are not compatible with the GFDL. You cannot copy the text, you can use it only as a source of information like any other copyrighted text. As for citations: Short citations are possible, I think. However, I think in an encyclopedia you should avoid citing equations and other central facts of an article. -- Chris 73 Talk 07:36, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

About citing equations: IANAL, obviously, but aren't mathematical equations, almost by definition, statements of fact? And isn't it true that pure facts cannot be copyrighted? --Plek 12:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course, but MathWorld's phrasing of their explanations of said concepts is owned by them. You're right, though - Mathworld cannot for example claim that $A={\frac {1}{2}}\int _{\alpha }^{\beta }f(\theta )^{2}d\theta$ or $\sum _{x=1}^{\infty }\left({\frac {1}{x^{2}}}\right)={\frac {{\pi }^{2}}{6}}$ are their intellectual property. — flamingspinach | (talk) 05:58, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Mumbai images

There are quite a lot of photographs uploaded on the Mumbai page. The user who uploaded the images has been offline since Sep 27 last year and hence there is no status on the copyrights of the images. Do the images qualify for fair use or promos or should I delete them? Nichalp 19:45, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Tag for images on commons

Hi,

Currently, the message visible when an image from wikicommons is used does not mention the license of the image itself, but only a link to the site where it might be found. This is another click and less chance for a potential reuser to go through, to be informed on the license of an image. Not everyone knows that wikicommons is gfdl only :-)

So, I would like to edit the current comment so that it reflects better our own license.

I speak of the comment : Wikimedia Commons Logo This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Please see its image description page there.

Where is the file to edit to change this please ?

SweetLittleFluffyThing

Mediawiki:Sharedupload, but Commons accepts anything under a free license, not just GFDL; see Commons:Commons:Image copyright tags. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Now that's odd. At one time it clearly stated that the Commons is a repository of free content and that one should see the Commons image description page for full information on licensing and history, but these points were removed without explanation or discussion. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 23:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, strange. Well, I restored the initial text, but left the current nice layout. I also mentionned the authorship could be found on the description page. I think it is better this way. What do you think ? SweetLittleFluffyThing 05:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Policy on same articles in different languages

What is the policy on same articles in different languages Should they be the same ? IMO yes. Is english the mother language for articles ?

Why do I ask ? I came upon the page RSS in dutch and added a line.

The next day I thougt to do the smae in the english version ! But they differ a lot ! Also the dutch version has no Acronym page. So if you go to RSS, then choose Nederlands and then choose English you end up on RSS (protocol)

BobRomeo 10:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that it is not necessarily commutative. The idea is to link the most appropriate article in each foreign language. Usually, but not always, these correspond exactly. However, there is no rule that the different languages have to organize material in the same manner, and it is certainly more useful for bilingual users to have a link to a closely related article than to have no link at all. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:02, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Not only is that not necessarily commutative, but actally most articles differ. If they are similar at some point, they quickly evolve each in a specific direction. The bottom line is the english version is not the original while the others are copies. Everyone is encourage to think on his own and use any relevant resource to complete his own article. Other languages are obviously a great resource to do so. SweetLittleFluffyThing

Sorry! I didn't even notice part of what Bobromeo said, I was just remarking on a much narrower issue.

No article is the "master". There is no requirement that articles stay sync'd up. If you are multilingual, it's entertaining to read the different articles on socialism. Even in areas where we tend to work across a couple of languages, there are differing editorial decisions. For example, many articles on Latin American history provide context in the English version that is presumed unnecessary in the Spanish. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:59, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

3RR in sandbox?

Can one get blocked for violating the 3RR in the sandbox? --SPUI (talk) 16:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eh, apparently I can, but other admins will unblock. Interesting. --SPUI (talk) 16:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What the? You're kidding me right? Please, if you get blocked for the 3RR in the sandbox, let me know via email and I'll unblock you right away! Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well said, TBSDY. The sandbox is a testing area, not article space. The 3RR is aimed at stopping edit wars, which do not matter in the sandbox (I cannot actually see why anyone would want to...). Following rules blindly (as in this case) is clearly ridiculously slavish and does no one any favours. Smoddy (t) (e) 21:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whilst the 3RR should not apply to the sandbox, I do question what SPUI was doing by his reverts - many of which had as an edit summary "REVEEEEEERT WARRRR" or similar. It certainly wasn't a sensible use of the sandbox, and whilst I disagree with the block, I am not surprised that an admin chose to apply the 3RR in this case. SPUI should use the sandbox sensibly, he should not use it as he was doing, jguk 22:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh c'mon... what's wrong with doing that in the sandbox? That's actually kinda funny, to be honest with you. And SPUI isn't actively destroying articles, despite being a self-professed GNAA member. The guy is testing the limits of boundaries we place on editors, and while normally I frown upon this sort of thing the sandbox is really the place where you can do stuff like that (with the caveat that spam is not allowed). - Ta bu shi da yu 05:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I concur with TBSDY -- there are a lot of really good policies we have, but sometimes we try to apply ones that are or should be for a particular realm to other realms where they don't fit. While I think the no-spam provision is wise to apply to the whole site, I agree that the sandbox should otherwise be light on the number of rules we apply to edits in it, and in particular that the 3RR should not apply there. --Improv 19:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL did someone seriously block him for that? Please read anal retentive! --Alterego 01:41, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is a bit twisted, but: It's good that the 3RR is applied in the sandbox - after all, if it's a place to find out how Wikipedia works, well, where else should one try to figure out how the 3RR works? In particular, if it's implemented in software (which I think it is, correct me if I'm wrong) somebody needs to test it, and it would be nice if they could do this without having to trash an article and then fight their way out from behind a block... --Andrew 06:42, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, no, the 3RR is not implemented in software. It's managed by the community. --Improv 06:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, this does take me back. Though the 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, of course— or the Sandbox, really. :-) JRM 12:18, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

Soften the 32K warning?

It presently reads:

:WARNING: This page is ### kilobytes long. Please consider condensing the page and moving the detail to another article so it is not approaching or in excess of 32KB."

---

The notice has already been softened, after a fair amount of discussion and several false starts. It now reads:

This page is ### kilobytes long. Please see article size for why this could be too long, and how to fix it. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

The warning is too stern, and its recommended action ("moving the detail to another article") is too specific. I think the harshness of the wording (and typography--it does everything but blink!) is prompting some hasty and ill-planned article refactoring, particularly the creation of POV breakout articles and subtrivia breakout articles.

Wikipedia:Browser_page_size_limits says "the issue has been found in Netscape Navigator ≤ 4.76 (the latest version of which is 7.2) and Opera ≤ 6.04 (latest is 7.54u2). No other browsers are known to be affected." And of course people using these browsers can still edit within sections, which probably takes care of 99% of all needed editing.

Articles in the 32K to, say, 75K range are too long, but this should be regarded as just another cleanup task, and not an especially urgent one. I notice that including Unicode characters is not thought to require an automatic warning, even though this causes problems in viewing, not just editing, and affects a far larger population of users than are affected by the 32K limit.

I'd like to tone the wording down to something like:

This page is ### kilobytes long. As a guideline, pages should not exceed 32KB, because longer pages load too slowly for some users, and because some users with older browsers will be unable to edit the entire page in one piece. See Wikipedia:Article size for details."

(And Wikipedia:Article size should then be expanded to include more discussion of the possible ways, and policy issues involved in, refactoring long articles).

Thoughts? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the warning should be softened, however I also think 32 kilobytes is too small of a limit for important articles. An idea I have is that there could be different warnings for pages over 32 kilobytes, over 64 kilobytes, and over 96 kilobytes, each increasing the warning severity.

Examples:

Over 32 KB = "This page is __ kilobytes long, which may load slowly on some internet connections. Also, some browsers may not support editing of the entire article. Please see the article size guidelines for more details and consider splitting or condensing the article if possible.

Over 64 KB = "This page is __ kilobytes long, which will load slowly on some internet connections and might prevent users from editing the entire article. Please see the article size guidelines for more details and, if possible, consider splitting or condensing the article.

Over 128 KB = "Warning: This page is ___ kilobytes long and will load slowly on some internet connections. In addition, some older browsers will not edit this article correctly. See the article size guidelines for more details. Please try to split or condense this article.

тəzєті 16:45, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Browsers aren't the only considerations for page size. In other words, if the warning is changed, the "because" portion should not be just about browsers. Maurreen 16:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right now the warning (MediaWiki:Longpagewarning) only shows for pages over 32K. I imagine that a developer could change that if necessary. Any sysop can edit the text of the message. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 17:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this silly limit is likely to cause people to make some equally silly decisions, and it works against the quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. For instance, EB has almost 17,000 words on Fascism, our 7,300-word article is almost 60K and so too long. I recently worked on an 80K article on a single (long) poem (The Cantos); again too long. This really mitigates against depth of coverage. Filiocht 09:50, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

While I think the technical limit is silly, I don't agree that there are no other reasons for the limit. There are many cases where one should use judgement and feel ok to go over the 32k guideline, such as your poen. However, on articles like Fascism, we have an advantage, organizationally, that EB does not -- we have hyperlinking and a tradition of breaking out subtopics, when it makes sense, into seperate articles. We might, say, have an article on Fascism under Mussolini, Fascist philosophy, historical fascism, perhaps even an article on the conflict between fascism and socialism. Of course, the when it makes sense needs to be stressed, and phrased in a way as to encourage good practice. The phrasing probably should be changed. --Improv 19:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Agree. (I refer to the first post.) I don't think a specific 32kB limit should exist, since it all depends on the article. In fact, many articles I've seen should be more than 32kB rather than being unnecessarily split because of this restriction. Of course there are many articles that are in fact too long, but there shouldn't be any hint of mandate in this notice you speak of. And as you said, in 99% of cases this is not an issue, since only people editing the entire article on old browsers would be affected. — flamingspinach | (talk) 05:53, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

There is no limit, there is a warning, and it's very softly worded. It says "please consider", not "you will be blocked if you don't!". Long pages are hard to navigate and edit, so I'd be recommending a size warning even if it hadn't been prompted by browser issues. --Brion 23:55, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, the warning has already been softened, see above. The issue was not whether to have a size warning. The issue was that people were overinterpreting the warning and doing hasty and ill-considered things, under the impression that "I had to do something, the page was too large" when in fact it might have been 34K or 36K. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New policy

I've made a new proposed policy. Not sure if I'm going about it the right way. Anyway, it's Wikipedia:Confirm queried sources. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Reasonable, but overly formalized. We can do this right now without any new mechanism or policy. Simply state the challenge on the talk page, and perhaps on the user page of the contributor of the unsourced statement. Wait an appropriate period of time (based on activity of those concerned). Then delete unsourced statement. If reverted, delete once more with edit comment requesting discussion in Talk. If reverted again, issue a Request for Comment. Etc. etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not really. How many people have we had to block because they remove information that is unsourced, two or more POV pushers put it back and thus override the editor who wishes to see good sourced content in the article? The reasonable editor then gets blocked for violating the 3RR, and the POV pusher is rewarded by having his/her critic silenced. This policy would put and end to this, and do it very clearly. Arguments from the POV pusher could be met with a reference to the policy: hence the end (or the minimisation) of people feeling that they have been treated unfairly. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me. I would support such a policy, since i had trouble with other users before, admitting that they do not have a reference, but removing my referenced text. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:37, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • I've also seen the flip-side of this, where an author uses a reference that others reasonably discount because the reference is just wrong/mistaken and that's the only reference the author can come up with. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 03:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This policy is a step in the right direction, but shouldn't we say something about only removing material actually in dispute? There's plenty of worthwhile material that is hard to find adequate justification for even thiugh one knows it is true: in such a case an editor on a tidiness purge who deletes material wholesale in the name of this policy would not be improving the encylopaedia. Also, we already have the Wikipedia:cite sources guideline, in a similar vein, maybe this would-be-policy would better be an extension of that? ---- Charles Stewart 09:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you're on the right track. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 03:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I would support such a policy as long as Charles Stewart objection above is dealt with. Paul August ☎ 20:41, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • • What good is another policy when the first is never used and people delete anyway with references or not. Look, I referenced two different books and many extracts from classical texts, and still vanavsos is up for deletion. I have over 80 footnotes and a huge bibliography and quotations from modern scholary works on the meaning of "classical republicanism" and still it is voted off and "votes for Undeletion". What gives. References and a bibliography are no good on Wikipedia. I have good sourced document and then SimonP, AndyL complain that an encyclopaedia is not to have footnotes. I put in footnotes and a person still deletes. Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic got deleted with over 80 footnotes and 45,000 hits on the internet with the term "classical republic" and it still gets deleted. What we have now is not going to get any better with more laws and policies.WHEELER 16:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Original research. That's what gives. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:25, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I grant you that 30% was original, Jmabel. but here is the kicker. This person wants a policy on footnotes.

DELETE This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a research paper. It's too long and the primary author expects readers to follow footnotes to read other sources,. I shouldn't have to read other sources to understand an encyclopedia article. Hedgeman 05:41, 14 Feb 2005 from the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/classical definition of republic.

How can we have it both ways. Here is a classic example. People don't want to follow footnotes, then delete material and then others claim why the deletion of material because it is sourced. What gives? Vanavsos is perfectly sourced and it is still up for deletion and I have to add more footnotes because people have never read classical works have no understanding of classical millelieu, so they delete everything that doesn't accord with their socialist upbringing and education. What Can I do? What's it going to be? If it ain't footnoted it gets deleted. And then you have computer software experts defining what goes on in the classical millilieu. This is a mess.WHEELER 14:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe what I am hearing! We are in the midst of building an encyclopaedia. Either I am charged with original research because i put the bare bones out and other Wikipedians charge me alone with having to write a complete and thorough article at the onset or now, they want to delete because, I WHEELER, haven't had the time and the knowhow to put other articles on the encyclopaedia to mesh with vanavsos which is now the supposition and reasoning of WhiteC. This is absolutely outrageous! I am benumbed with consternation at all these floating reasons that have no bearing on the essence of the question! These people don't charge others with "these crimes" only myself and create "rules" that I must abide by but noone else. By WhiteC's argument, "The article must be deleted because it is not linked to any other article's". To WhiteC, this illogicity is glaring, "How are we to build an encyclopaedia when others are going to delete articles because they are not connected to something else?" I am floored by the "reasonings" imagined in order to get this article deleted. Sources don't matter!!!WHEELER 18:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Problem solved

• Delete. According to WHEELER, "The question is 'Should people be voting on something they have not a clue on?'." On Wikipedia, the answer is "Yes, that's our policy." You've been around long enough to know this. You talk about the commercial ethos and the warrior ethos. Well, the Wiki ethos is that of open source. The theory is that, if we let a bunch of people without professional qualifications write and edit and delete pretty much as they please, a good encyclopedia will somehow emerge. I know you disagree with the theory and with the policy. That's certainly your privilege, and you have good company, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica pooh-bahs. As long as you stay here, though, you have to recognize that that's the way it works here. The MediaWiki software is available under the GFDL for anyone who wants to start a similar project but with stricter quality controls. By the way, to save you the trouble of clicking through to my user page, I'll admit right now that I'm not qualified as a classicist. JamesMLane 08:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) Addendum: I made the foregoing comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Vanavsos. I have no objection to WHEELER's reposting of it here, where it's also relevant, but I wanted to clarify the context. My "Delete" doesn't mean that I want to delete a VP topic! JamesMLane 14:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. And it is very clear to me. This is in a sense "stricter quality control". Yes. But the "quality control" on wikipedia is Marxist and Fabian, Humanist and Modern. You have laid out very clearly to me that "who is in control here". The standards being that people who are ignorant of any subject but with a bias to protect can delete stuff off of Wikipedia. And that is not professional, academic, righteous (justice) or truthful. I understand perfectly what you are saying. I will not start another page nor work for Wikipedia (though I will transfer stuff here). I see clearly where this is going. I can do better and stop wasting my time here because surely I am. Thanks Mr. James MLane. You have certainly opened my eyes to the fundamental core of Wikipedia. And that yes, then Wikipedia is run by a cabal. And it is a fundamental lie that Mr. James MLane has exposed the fallacy "of free and open content". Wikipedia is not "an encylcopaedia" it's a "controlled information platform".WHEELER 14:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wheeler

• "I don't have a college degree...What is a college degree worth? Toilet paper." [2]

• "What credentials...On the User page should be stated: Schooling, Experience..." quote from a few paragaphs up.

You had me going for a while Wheeler. I thought you were nuts. Now I think you're trolling. -anon

• I don't think he's trolling, and I think he knows exactly what he wants. He's just too busy blustering to put it into words. Really what it comes down to is that he expresses his contempt for book-larnin', yet seems to want to show off just how much of it he's done despite not having had formal education in that matter. I don't know what else to say about the guy -- he's obviously kind of a headcase, well-meaning but full of self-righteous fire and the unshaking conviction that there's someone, if not exactly out to get him, then at least determined to see things done their way regardless of the truth of the matter. In that regard, he fits Martin Gardner's profile of the hermit scientist rather well -- perhaps he is an expert at what he claims, but he's so consumed by his perceptions of his own righteousness/infallibility/whatever that it doesn't even really matter -- he's so far outside the framework that what he says has no meaning to those within it, and he has no interest in rectifying the matter. Haikupoet 07:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you call three deleted articles and more of your pages up for deletion and others screwed up. You know, I quote from a book written by the president of Corpus Christi college in England, an eminent Classicist, And I have twenty Wikipedians calling the page "orginal research" and voting to delete it. Furthermore, the question is begged that it is somehow "original research" but then the word in question entered the English language in 1845. The whole methodology of language is that a word is common to be used because it is understood by the mass of people and yet, vanavsos is under deletion? I really question what goes on around here! Here, Arete (excellence) was changed and the edits I tried to make were reverted by User:SimonP. SimonP did not have a clue what he was talking about. But several people, who thought they were experts and that I MUST BE WRONG, hacked it badly. Finally, the page is back to normal. I am surely wasting my time arguing.WHEELER 17:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you are referring to Wikipedia content as "your" pages, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Contributors don't own their contributions. In fact, it's against the rules even to sign them. As it says on every editing screen, "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." There could be an encyclopedia in which contributors have ownership and control of their articles, but Wikipedia isn't it. And, in point of fact, in the world of traditional print-based publishing, it is usually the case that "editors" know less than the authors they are editing, yet have the final control over content, so the phenomenon of being edited by idiots is hardly unique to Wikipedia. I think it was Hemingway who said something like "editors always change things, because they like the flavor better after they pee in it." Yet Hemingway owes a great deal of his success and reputation to editor Maxwell Perkins. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, Arete (excellence) got hacked again, removing all text of a Lexicon to further help a reader in the understanding of the word. And more material is removed because it is unsourced. What duplicity.WHEELER 17:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One man's "hacked" is another man's "back to normal," it seems. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is from "Votes for deletion" for vanavsos. Please look carefully at these comments:

Who ever suggested this was a professional encyclopedia? — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 21:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As for your "marxist" claptrap, there's plenty of articles that would satisfy "the right" in here. Plenty. But it's not as if we can leave out "the left" as well. All viewpoints belong, as long as they have encyclopedic relevance. I really don't understand why you're using up so much time wailing about such minor issues. The Wikipedia is the encyclopedia of the people, and if you can't get the people to recognize a few obtuse concepts, then boo-hoo-hoo. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 21:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here is a man who says, "We are not a professional encylcopaedia" Then turns around in the next statement and says, "All viewpoints belong, as long as they have encyclopedic relevance". (I am laughing so hard right now, I can't contain myself.) Here in two different paragraphs is the hypocrisy of wikipedia and exhibits the illogicity of the whole essence of Wikipedia. This man denies that we are a "professional encyclopaedia" and then turns around and says that articles must have "encyclopaeidic relevance". If you are not a "professional encyclopaedia", that means you have no standards and then how can one "judge" the pertinancy of an article anywhere, when there are no standards because IT IS NOT PROFESSIONAL. This is absolutely ludicrious. This man votes to delete because the article in question doesn't have "encyclopaedic revelance" and then goes on to say that Wikipedia is not a "professional encyclopaedia", Then, what grounds for deletion is there other than MOB RULE? I mean to say how can one even mention "encyclopaedic relevance" at all when we are not professional. Then, there are no grounds to delete anything. It gets more stupider around here by the hour!WHEELER 14:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not professional, because it is not performed by persons receiving pay. It is amateur because, it is produced by people working for the love of it. Neither of these has any relevance to the quality of content or to the presence or absence of codified standards. A Boy Scout is not paid for being a Boy Scout but nevertheless is expected to be adhere to standards requiring him to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Before I comment, I should disclose that I, too, am a Dead White Male. And I actually agree with Mr. W's point, or at least what it would be if not buried under claptrap. I'm not a modernist, but a classist. I resent modern revisionism in many fields, such as architecture -- I think Mies should be exhumed and pilloried. On the other hand, I think it's way past time to Own Up for the sins of our fathers -- not our sins, but sins nevertheless. I'm not trying to advance my view here; only to disclose my bias.

That said, I'm fed up with this guy. I wasted half an hour writing out a serious reply to him after ridicule failed to cow his brash ignorance; at the last moment, sanity prevailed. Now, I do not know what he has done to deserve what he's already gotten, but I'd like to suggest we revive an old institution, most appropriate in tightly-knit societies (of which Wikipedia surely is one, if not by design, then by evolution): Coventry. I do not guarantee that if we ignore Mr. W and refuse to speak to him for a week he will go away (nor is that certainly desirable), but I will wager it has an effect sobering beyond any rational argument. "Don't feed the trolls."

While my back is up, I'd like to propose Coventry as a Wikipedia institution, under that name. There is something childish to me about 24-hour bans, and something much more dignified and befitting a scholarly community about the practice of shunning a miscreant. And I do expect it to be quite effective. — Xiong (talk) 07:37, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

To: Xiong You said above that you are also a DWEM. That he calls himself a classicist. I am in the trenches here at Wikipedia defending classical meanings and terminology. Where are you? Did you defend Arete (excellence) when it was going to be bowderized into [Arete (virtue)], granted I did name it wrong in the beginning as [Arete (paideia)] but it was changed into something which the original article was not meant to be. Where were you? Where were you in the battle over vanavsos? Where were you in the battle of [classical definition of republic]? I am in the trenches fighting revisionism, deconstructionism, and other things. And I am alll alone fighting a pernicious battle against malice and ignorance and bias. Please look at this Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/WHEELER. I am having trouble and the Category:Classical studies needs help.WHEELER 14:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To: dpbsmithLet me point out to you the context where [Stevie the man] makes his point. I asked how people who have no understanding of Classical millilieu be voting on the vanavsos article?

The question is "Should people be voting on something they have not a clue on?". Do Software engineers run the philosophy departments on College Universities? Do Software engineers decide who gets degrees within the philosophy department? No. People in the academic system are judged by their peers. All I am saying, is that the "Vanavsos" Article be judged by people who are classicists! Why should people ignorant of the subject matter be voting about something they have no clue on what they are saying? And what is happening here, is that these people are damaging, through their ignorance, classical studies and knowledge! That's the essence of the problem here! This is commonsense".

Since you say you approve of "jury of peers," I'd ask: should jurors, selected at random from a lay population, be deciding court cases in the U. S.? "Jury of peers" does not mean "jury of experts," and juries typically have "not a clue" either on the law or on the matter they are being asked to decide. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In so many responses later does Stevie say, "We are not a professional encyclopaedia". And what is going on is that the method of government at Wikipedia is destroying the classical studies and department. That anybody can vote on an article or ask that it be deleted or change the name of the subject without ever KNOWING the material. This is ludicrious. But Stevie the man replies---"We are not a professional encyclopaedia". Then what are we? Professionality requires "Standards" not pay. Yes, all should edit, but decision making should be left to experts of the field in question. What is going on is that Software and Computer gurus are making decisions in the Classical field.WHEELER 15:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ending Anonymity

It is about time we end Anonymity on Wikipedia. Check out Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Classical definition of republic. Please check out all the Users that voted for deletion. Please check out their credentials. What credentials. The one that started this mess was Pcpcpc, a guy from Britain. When I checked out his User Page. He stated that he edited and Sports and Cricket articles. Here is a man that starts a beef because he is into sports and Crickets because he finds my deleted article on [Classical definition of republic] strange!!

Why does this man have any weight in any discussion? Where is the merit of his opinion? This is ludicrious people.

It is time to end Anonymity on Wikipedia. On the User page should be stated: Schooling, Experience, Pages started, Pages with major contributions, and Bias. I am open and upfront. Everybody else hides beneath Anonymity. Why should someone who is Anonymous have more bearing than someone who exhibits and demonstrates his merit and worth? And points out his bias. Huh. Is this any way to run any organization? Why should their be equal weight given to not-so-well educated people over those who know what the hell they are talking about? On Colleges and Universities, do undergraduate students tell the teacher what to do? (Oh, no, this is a bad example, This is what exactly goes on today at colleges and Universities, ignorant students do run the insane asylum).

I have demonstrated my worth and expertize. I am tired of this.

Do privates run the army or those knowledgeable like generals run the army? If you look at the Classical deletion page, the majority voting to delete were computer software engineers, computer nerds and sports nerds. What expertise do they have? Absolutely NONE. This is what is guiding Wikipedia. WHEELER 15:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Wheeler, people are going to listen to your arguments more if you tone them down. Note that you're proposing major policy changes that would completely rework the encyclopedia. I would suggest that you show to us all that you understand NPOV, that you've accumulated respect from the community, and that you can talk in a reasonable, non-"I'm about to explode" manner, and people may start listening to you. You may have some valid points, but they're hard to pull out with the way you phrase things. Some of these points actually may be worth exploring on one of the clones of Wikipedia -- I know some other Wikipedians who are concerned about things similar to you, and if you guys could all get together, start a new clone, and work on it, maybe you'll make something great. --Improv 16:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I am exasperated to no end. I apologize for my outburts. But all I get is people edit like on the vanavsos article. I had all the "b" as "v" because it is a transliteration. Someone went through and took out the "v" and replaced them with "b". On the "Republic of Venice" article. I have two primary footnotes and a secondary footnote. I placed the footnotes to show where that information came from and a secondary to back up one piece of information. Some editor come in and makes three footnotes and changes the numbering and says one information comes from a totally different book, which was totally wrong. I am sick of this. In all my arguing on this website, very few, very very few, maybe 1% have ever quoted a book and say, "Hey, this book says this and you say this". It is just a bunch of arguing. Noone quotes anything. People start arguing they never look at the references or bibliography. What the heck am I supposed to do? And then I do take my material Mr. Improv, to an clone and now the the Wikipedia community disallows the link. Why go to a clone when even the majority will refuse a link to the clone. It is all becoming rather illogical...quickly and is showing signs of censorship at something that this supposed to be "Free and open-Content".
    • How can there be NPOV when absolutely noone these days has any comphrension of the classical Millilieu? How can there be NPOV when everybody thinks "democracy" is the greatest when for 2300 years noone thought that? And then NPOV is stretched into making "democracy" a good thing. For example. I copied directly from a book in 1922 and the author italicized it in the original as "The Founding Fathers distrusted democracy". Someone comes in Milneaue Trudenau and writes, "Curiously, the Founding Fathers did not have a favourable attituded for democracy as one thinks there ought to be". Then I have corraborating evidence Two leftist authors, Baird, write: "The Founding Fathers hated democracy more than they hated original sin". Now I ask you, What is a Faithful representation of reality". NPOV is about slanting the reality. I am about a Faithful representation of reality. What is the faithful representation of reality: They hated democracy or did they just not have a high enough regard for democracy? Which is it? THEY HATED DEMOCRACY. That's the TRUTH.WHEELER 17:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Wheeler, I'm not trying to attack you. I'm trying to help smooth out a situation which looks like it's messy. One thing that might help you out here is to assume that not everyone on Wikipedia is an idiot, and to be tolerant of mistakes. As for transliteration issues, just do your best to calmly point out people's mistakes, and if people won't agree, use a calm discussion with them to try to change their minds. As for the footnotes, I'm sure it was an honest mistake. When that happens, fix the footnotes, and if you feel it's necessary, leave a message on the talk page of the person who messed it up (kindly) letting them know of their mistake and that you fixed it. Finally, as for clones, the point of clones should be that they can stand on their own merit. It's not the job of Wikipedia to link to them, so don't expect that. If you move to a clone, operate entirely on it and don't try to tie it to Wikipedia or Wikipedia to it. Censorship isn't about what you're claiming it is. If, for example, there were an article on schools, and some kind from a school in Nebraska writes about how he loves his art teacher, is it censorship to take that stuff out? Reflect on this. --Improv 21:19, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • As for your second note, try not to be so protective about the specific wording of articles. The original author doesn't have special rights to keep the article as they please. People who try that are generally ostracised, or at least recieve a lot of flak for such efforts. Note again that you're talking like a "shock jock" radio host. That's not productive, and just makes people ignore you. First, be open minded -- remember when you post things that you could be wrong, and that other people likely have reasonable points of view. Second, calm down and don't talk like you're a fire and brimstone preacher. We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not tell people why they're wrong and that they suck. Third, remember that the sources you quote are often secondary sources -- statements of opinions. Why not just say in the article "According to such-and-such, the founding fathers felt that democracy ...". Finally, try not to talk about liberal or conservative conspiracies on Wikipedia. Again, it just makes people angry and doesn't contribute anything. Remember, talk calmly, act calmly, and be calm. Civility is very important here. --Improv 21:19, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Part of Wheeler's frustration could be from a lack of understanding from most contributors about what consensus is and how it works. The concensus decision making process in Wikipedia is not clear. If we make the process clear, we can get people to abide by the process. Most people who are unsure of there facts will not put the time or energy trying to convince others they are right. The few that do will make fools of themselves trying. The consensus decision making section higher on this page talks about this. Please take a look. -- Samuel Wantman 09:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have put many reasons and several quotations from modern scholarly works on two sites now. No one is paying attention. They don't want to see facts. Look at the facts and see the voting:

Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Classical_definition_of_republic and Talk:Republic#Locked. WHEELER 14:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Wantman, I am all for "consensu decision". But of people QUALIFIED to do so. These people are anonymous and deleting my articles for no other than they have a personal beef with me. If we are to have "consensus" then for the classical articles that "consensus" should be of people who have an interest and knowledge of Classical antiquity. I am now arguing with people who have not read Aristotle, Cicero, or anything. Ending Anonymity is a must and a Jury of Peers for "consensus" in a particular field. That is what is necessary!!!WHEELER 16:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know from whence I write my articles. I do research and read before I do anything. Others, write things and you can tell, have no such education. The deletion notice on Family as a model for the state and vanavsos are good examples of this. These two articles are and were up for deletion because a crowd of Wikipedians decided to back up User:SimonP who has no clue on what he is talking about. They deleted one thing and so now, they are going through the book and deleting the rest of my articles. I am not complaining about everbody editiing. I am talking about the "deletion" processs and who can vote for that. "Deletion" is much more than just editing. It is also akin to "censorship". Humanists have been trying to destroy "Aristotelity", as one writer put in in the early modern era. They hate Aristotle and the scholastics. I am an Aristotelian. This "deletion" process is about ganging up on me and destroying information needful for other classicists, aristotelians and Catholics. The Deletion process should be up to "experts" in that particular subject area otherwise you have ignorant people voting on something they have no clue on, but hate the subject material. Is this "valid" grounds for deleting an article, no it isn't. It's not professional. Let the editing be free and open source. Good. But the deletion process is different, much different than editing--roving gangs of ideological purists then can delete material unfavorable to the majority consensus and ideology!WHEELER 16:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If people want to be anonymous. That is fine by me. Let them edit articles anonymously. but when it comes to deletion or over arguments of content, Then the person who is not anonymous has a greater Say. There should be an advancement of rights to those NOT anonymous. Why should an anonymous User like User:SimonP ask for a "protect"? What are his qualifications? What has he proved to the Wikipedian community that his stand should be worth more than mine. My stand, is the prove of my pages started and the major editing I have done on other articles. I PROVE MY WORTH. Yet, an anonymous user, we don't know nothing about him, has more weight than I do, and the Sysops and the Admins take his position.

When it comes to the important stuff like "deletions" and "protections" and other more weighty decisions, Users who showed their worth on the User pages, show their education and their age and their bias are to have more rights than those who HIDE under anonymity and are really the ones causing the disturbances on Wikipedia. Anonymity is really the sign of puerility and not professionality. A professional is proud to show his "professionality", a gangster hides behind anonymity. An anonymous user IS NOT EQUAL to one who displays his talents, education, bias and age openly and honestly. Honesty is a concommitant of TRUTH. When a man hides, how can he speak the truth?

And for votes for deletion in the Category:Classical studies should be undertaken by Wikipedians who have studied Classical Antiquity. We can go to a "User's" page and see his qualifications for voting and determine his weight and right to vote for deletion. Because as it stands out, Category:Classical studies is being destroyed by modernists who want to impose their modernity onto a subject they hate and despise. That is why they coined the term "DWEM" "Dead White European males".WHEELER 17:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Posting of photos depicting sexual or quasi-sexual acts

Discussion moved to: Wikipedia_talk:Graphic_and_potentially_disturbing_images

Why was this discussion moved off this page? Talk about censorship! --Samuel Wantman 05:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because a general discussion was already well underway on a dedicated page. I don't understand how moving content constitutes censorship, but maybe that's just me. WP:AGF! --MarkSweep 06:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It dampens debate in this forum and elsewhere. The discussion was moved to a page that is essentially dead. By doing that, the message is, "we decided this already, don't talk about it any more". That is not how consensus works. Consensus is most effective when the views of a vocal and serious minority are listened to by the majority. That is how creative solutions that address serious concerns come about. I could see leaving what was posted here while adding a link to the previous discussion on that page. I suspect this issue along with other controversial issues will be discussed over and over and over again. Each iteration will hopefully generate new ideas and better solutions. -- Samuel Wantman 06:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I moved the page so that the discussion could better be informed by the prior work done in this area, and also so those Wikipedians interested in this topic in particular would have a chance to respond. Many Wikipedians follow several policy pages of interest to them but do not follow this page closely because it is so general. You may note that I moved several other discussions at the same time. In each case, it seemed to me that the better place for the discussion was on the policy page devoted to the topic. If you disagree, move it back. For what it's worth, I too believe that the project would be better served by a more conservative policy regarding images with sexual content. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pornography

Almost every time I click on a link in the upper right (today it is about the Kurdinsh President of Iraq) I get some kind of male genitalia photo. Since I sometimes look at wikipedia at the office, this can create a situation. Are not all the main page links locked down somehow? I wish this were dealt with...

• No linked pages aren't locked as highly visible pages are likely to draw in new contributors. There is a good side though, such pages are always watched and it's likely it's all dealt with within minutes. Mgm|^(talk) 18:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

CFD restructuring

Some people think that CfD is getting too large and unwieldy to be practical. Several proposals have been made to alleviate that. These are open for discussion (and voting) on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Restructuring.

Talk page spamming

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Spam

An actor has an alias he doesn't want known

I have a question about how to handle a specific situation. It's my understanding that some voice actors use an alias in some of their work. This happens when the actor is a member of the Screen Actors Guild, but some producers aren't willing to spend the money to use SAG actors, so the actor sometimes takes jobs under the alias to earn some income even though he union contract says he's not allowed to. If the actor's use of this alias were ever made apparent to SAG, SAG would respond with fines and suspended health coverage. So the actor has an obligation to do all he can to discourage people from linking his name with the alias. The problem arises, then: should the Wikipedia article about this actor mention the alias? Or not? What happens if the actor (or his representative) wants the alias removed from the Wikipedia article? - Brian Kendig 03:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is more important to preserve: someone's privacy, or freedom of speech? If you choose one side over the other, then how far are you willing to go? It’s a very emotional debate in professional ethics and journalism. I tend toward respecting privacy, it more classy.Paradiso 03:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where do you get the information about the alias? If it was available on the web, then this actor's cover is already blown (although the information may be much easier to find on Wikipedia than on an obscure fan site). We should probably keep the information. Was it online but already been taken down at the request of the actor? That's a more difficult question - I don't have an answer. Is this something added to Wikipedia but is not verified? We should remove it. Finally, if we've had this information in our article for more than a few days, then our mirrors will already have picked up on it, and it will take quite some time to disappear from the web - possibly forever, if a mirror has updated in that time but then becomes dormant.-gadfium 04:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The alias is given on IMDB (in the "Sometimes Credited As" section), as well as several other fan sites; it's generally common knowledge. (So it kind of surprises me why the SAG doesn't act on it.) My concern is if a user comes to Wikipedia looking for voice actor X, but X isn't listed, because we don't reflect that it's a common alias of Y. - Brian Kendig 04:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability is your friend. If it's sufficiently well-documented for adding to Wikipedia, it's sufficiently well-known that we don't need to worry about being the ones to blow the actor's cover. --Carnildo 04:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to provide specific examples: two examples of this situation are Steven Blum and Melissa Fahn (both of whom, incidentally, worked on the English-language dubs of the Cowboy Bebop anime). It is a fairly widespread belief, backed up by hundreds of hits on Google, that other anime roles which credit "Steven Blum" and "Melissa Charles" (for example) are actually performed by these two voice actors. IMDB lists these aliases. Should Wikipedia? - Brian Kendig 04:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it is widely belived, but there is no proof, then the wording in the article should be "It is commonly believed that .... but there is no proof." with a reference to IMDB or another source for evidence of widespread belief. --Carnildo 05:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the internet knows, then you can be sure that entities with specialist knowledge such as the SAG will definitely know. It is likely that SAG implicitly accepts the odd infringement, but does not say so publicly. Pcb21| Pete 07:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lemme ask a followup question. Take Steven Blum / David Lucas for example. Have a look at his IMDB entry. Some productions list him as "Steven Blum". Others list him as "David Lucas". His voice and style of delivery are quite distinctive; it's highly unlikely that these are two different people, and far more likely that it's one actor trying to dodge SAG penalties by using an alias and refusing to acknowledge that it's him. (There are sites which claim to have proof that these are one and the same person.) So do we list the alias on his Wikipedia article? Or do we play along and create two Wikipedia articles as if these are two different people? - Brian Kendig 14:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I would just like to comment on the motive -- I agree with Carnildo that verifiability is the key element. We should not be 'playing along' or otherwise getting involved in value judgements unrelated to if the material is encyclopedic and, as possibly a subset of that, if it is verifiable. It's not our job to care about other things. --Improv 20:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hope you don't see this as rank opportunism, but I just wrote something a couple of items above this one about "uncomplimentary history", plus a new style article: Wikipedia:Uncomplimentary_history. I think I have the answer - the Wikipedia article includes a sentence that says, "IMDB (insert link) claims that Name X is actually Person X." That way, Wikipedia is absolutely correct. As for privacy, I think that comes into play with things like, "The home address of Actor X, or Federal Judge X, is 123 Mulberry Street." A voice actor who uses a pseudonym? It's hard for me to see any privacy issue there I'd merit with half a second's thought. Twestgard

I want to take a poll to help me decide what to do. I know of several voice actors with well-known pseudonyms they use so that they can get non-union work by sneaking around the SAG to avoid harsh penalties. They do NOT want these aliases to appear at all in the Wikipedia articles, even though the true identities of these aliases are all over Google, because they worry that if a SAG representative ever looks at Wikipedia and sees the aliases, the actors will get in trouble. But meanwhile these actors want to claim credit for the productions they've done under these aliases (like, X says "I was the voice of Space Cadet in this movie!" when the movie lists some other actor for that character), and in fact their Wikipedia articles list the productions they've done under other names. They're betting that a SAG rep isn't going to bother verifying the credits for the productions they've claimed credit for.

An added wrinkle is that there are people who represent these actors on the Internet, and they have told me that they are obligated to remove the aliases from the Wikipedia article if I mention them even simply as rumors. They've said the other option is for them to stop helping with the article at all, and that this could sacrifice the accuracy of the article in the future.

So, should I:

(a) Uphold fact and eschew censorship, and put in the articles something to the extent of "IMDB and some other web sites claim that X has performed under aliases including "Y" and "Z"" in some of his voice work. Mr. X has not commented on these rumors." It's not Wikipedia's job to protect someone who has secretly violated a union contract. When the actors' representatives revert my changes, deal with this as per standard Wikipedia policy.

(b) Respect the desires of the actors, protect them from what could be stiff penalties from the SAG, and simply fail to mention the well-known aliases at all. This means that if someone looks up the voice actor of his favorite character in his favorite anime series, the actor's name might not appear in Wikipedia at all. This is a little bit of censorship and it means the article won't be as complete as it could be, but it will avoid the problem. Wikipedia doesn't need to be complete.

(c) Go even further, and remove from the Wikipedia article any production credits which are done under aliases. That is, if the Wikipedia article about Steven Blum doesn't specifically say that David Lucas is his alias, the article shouldn't list credits for the name David Lucas.

By the way, the two specific actors I'm trying to decide how to handle right now are Melissa Fahn and Steven Blum. An IMDB or Google search should easily turn up what aliases these actors are purported to use. - Brian Kendig 03:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

defintey option a. It's not the first outside group to try and censor wikipedia.Geni 09:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find the discussion a bit ridiculous. Are we talking about people who slightly bend the law to feed starving kids here? They knew what they were doing and must face consequences. Mikkalai 23:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written from a "complimentary point of view," in contrast with wikinfo, which is. As such, the subject of an article does not control -- or even have a material opportunity to influence -- the contents of the article. As noted, unverifiable information should not be added, but information from other sources deemed reliable can and should be included regardless of the possible consequences for the article's subject. The possibility that agents may take their ball and go home (a promise they are unlikely to carry out) is beside the point. We are Wikipedia and have our own sources, writers, and editors. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Templates and tags

A user has spoken strongly against templates which include other templates; he wrote a long opinion piece on the subject and tries to force it into policy over considerable objection, even over attempts by sympathizers to improve the opinion. I wrote a factual rebuttal to the opinion, to which he failed to respond -- directly.

In place of direct discourse, he has systematically nominated for deletion a series of templates which I created -- one of which I used in the text of my rebuttal, in fact. He has nominated both useful and foolish templates with an equal hand. In each case, he has insisted that the only proper way to perform such a nomination is to insert the {tfd} tag into the body of the nominated template. This is a bad idea in many cases, perhaps all. At the least, it creates exactly the sort of trouble he himself has spoken against.

My every attempt to reason with him has failed. He refuses to accept insertion of {tfd} into the nominated template's Talk page as a workable substitute for insertion into body. He is strident on the subject, upholding this principle with fervor. This is all the more surprising since he himself raised the issue of tag insertion last year.

I have nominated Template:Tfd itself for deletion, since it does more harm than good (the tag itself, not the process). The respected user continues to insist -- and demonstrate -- that {tfd} must be included in the body of every template nominated, which leads inescapably to the conclusion that it must be included within {tfd} itself. In a perfect world, this would generate a {tfd} tag of infinite length, as every instance of {tfd} would include yet another instance. In practice, the MediaWiki engine prevents this (or so I assume; I shall not put it to the test, lest I be wrong). But, in accordance with stated and vigorously upheld procedure, I have inserted (directly, not by reference) the tag {tfd} into the body of Template:Tfd.

Please do not remove this tag. It is inserted in strict accordance with established procedure. If you think this is a bad idea, then I suggest you comment in the proper place for such comment. If you think the matter absurd, then I ask you to reflect on the evils inherent in reliance on authority over good common sense. Thank you. — Xiongtalk 18:43, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Brevity is good too. Thank you. Rhobite 05:44, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Here, here! -- Netoholic @ 05:48, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

here hare here

Brevity is excellent, and when a certain user learns to take a hint in a few words, instead of provoking explanation after debate after explanation after debate, I shall return to my regularly scheduled life. Or would he care to respond directly to any one of the many points I have raised?

I have been up for 6 hours past my bedtime working hard on a cogent explanation of only one facet of the disruption provoked by one user's refusal to simply let stand one comment (albeit lengthy) I made on one opinion of his. He has stalked me throughout the project, disrupting nearly every single thing I have touched. I have thrown about 40 hours of my life into clear, accurate explanations of why I spoke, why I should be allowed to comment, why it appears he has taken such vindictive actions, why I have done certain things and not others. I have responded directly to questions whether or not they were made in good faith; I have attempted to respond to every point made, leaving no question open about my good faith or entire willingness to debate matters on merits, not on personalities. I have restrained myself (with some failures, for which I apologize) from argument ad hominem -- that is, I have not avoided discussing the issues by discussing the man instead.

This gentleman responds to my every point and question with a sneer, a snigger, and another random act of violence. No cogent explanations from him, though you might get a facile line or two. You might say I'm put out. If he were merely rude, I could ignore him. But he continues to fool with things, provoke others to fool with them, and generally turn this project into a circus.

I have begged a high-ranking Wikipedian to simply block both of us until the Arbitration Committee renders its opinion; it does not seem I will be granted even that relief.

Any user who thinks this is a long-winded reply should go look at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion#Tag location (process) where I really have laid out the entire gory technical mess for anyone to see. This user is clever enough to meddle in areas that are so complex that he knows most users will never bother to follow the lengthy technical explanation of his actions and their effects. That is what makes him so dangerous. He is a master of superficial plausibility (and I tip my hat).

I am a reasonably competent technician, and people pay me to build things that do not break, things that make life easier for them, or make them Cash Money. I am a fairly competent graphic designer, and people pay me to take ugly photos and make them look good, to take bland boxes full of text and spice them up with well-chosen and pertinent art (not gingerbread). I am a surprisingly competent systems generalist, and I can take almost any process apart into its components and rebuild it to function more smoothly, at less cost, with a nicer range of features which work as expected. I am an absolutely sterling writer and master of the American language, and nobody pays me a bent nickel to write anything, because I refuse to pander to common taste or compromise my integrity by uttering that which is not precise, accurate, lucid, and correct.

Against this must be weighed the fact that, crash diets notwithstanding, I come in the giant economy size package. If you rip my head off, turn me upside down, and shake to see what comes loose, I daresay you will get a lapful.

Now, as surely as salt follows snow, I know this certain user is ROTFL. He is having a whale of a time, like any bully. There is nothing I can do about that. I'm too new here; I have no gang of followers; and as I said, his style is to make war in such out-of-the-way, technical areas that most of you are simply offended when it rises from the black deeps. The wiser are offended at both of us; the less perceptive do not bother to read anything, and merely judge a case on the length of the argument, awarding victory to he who says the least -- anti-intellectualism taken to its ultimate.

On which note, I approach not my bedtime, but my time for rising to meet a new day, for earning Cash Money so I may indulge myself in substantive contribution to this project. I trust I will return to a pleasant, congenial, scholarly working environment. Thank you. — Xiongtalk 12:04, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks . . . unless they're true?

Should personal attacks be allowed, or at least overlooked, if they are judged true and accurate? Please visit Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks and comment. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 17:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Forgive me; I can't pass by this comment unnoticed. Personal attacks should always be avoided. You can say something directly about a user, even something negative, if true, and if necessary; but phrase your statement as gently as possible, and seek hard for alternatives to labeling. Argue on merit, not on personality. None of us is perfect; none of us is perfect in our respect of others' blemishes; and I am not perfect either. But we must all uphold an ideal. — Xiongtalk 18:29, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
• Definitely not! The more true a comment is, the more likely the person at the receiving end is going to be offended. I'm with Xiong on this one. Mgm|^(talk) 19:48, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ergo, you go there and discuss.--TVPR 21:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm also with Xiong on this one: ruthlessly (but patiently) attack a person's logic, but not their character.Paradiso 03:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Xiong as well. If I state somewhere on my user page or talk page that I love weevils, this doesn't give you free license to go around and call me a weevil lover. In other words, this is acceptable: "I disagree with your edits because the facts you put in are wrong." This is not: "I disagree with your edits, you weevil lover, because the facts you put in are wrong." --Deathphoenix 16:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Reading the entire discussion linked to above, I can't help but wonder if the matter would be better expressed as "If someone makes a false accusation, is that a personal attack?" (For example, if A accuses B of vandalism, it investigation shows that B merely made edits A disagrees with, did A make a personal attack on B?) -- llywrch 17:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the two issues are separate. A personal attack is defined by the intention to upset someone and do them down. A correct use of a statement is defined by the intention to help write an encyclopedia by dealing with someone elses behavior. The only difference may be in the head of the user writing the statement. No simple rule will help solve this. You might need entirely outside evidence to sort them out. Sometimes you might not be able to tell at all. Mozzerati 19:52, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Need policy on uncomplimentary history

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Dirty laundry

Quotation Style

There's been a lot of discussion, arguments, flamewars, etc. over whether to use single or double quotation marks to mark text that has been quoted, but I seem to have encountered a new style that does not conform to American or (as far as I know) British usage: putting that text in italics. This came to my attention when I looked over the Featured Article on Ezra Pound's The Cantos, where quoted text is presented in italics. This is an intentional change; reviewing the Page History, I found that at one stage the more familiar single & double quotation marks were used in this article.

I was very tempted to change the style of all of these quotations, but I've encountered this nonstandard usage elsewhere on EN. I've since remembered that presenting quotes in italics is the standard practice for South African English, Polish, French, & in the novels of James Joyce. So before I enforce American style conventions on this article about an American poem, I thought I should ask if this practice is acceptable on EN, whether its use has been debated -- or are we subjected to the misunderstanding of an enthusiastic editor, & I should have no qualms about changing italics to quotations where it is otherwise appropriate. -- llywrch 04:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Italicizing inline quotes is a very uncommon style -- so uncommon, I doubt it's been discussed -- and should be converted into a more traditional style, since most people don't know that it's a form of quoting. Italicising blockquotes is more common, but is unneccessary, as the material is already set off by blockquoting. --Carnildo 05:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Basically concur. It has been discussed a few times (couldn't say where, but I've seen it go by) and firmly rejected: it is not common English-language practice. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

If someone could find a previous discussion on this matter, I'd appreciate the link. I'm hoping that we can tacitly agree to stop doing this, rather than have to make a formal proposal, put it to a vote, etc. etc. -- llywrch 16:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive11#Italics for quotations, there was widespread agreement against italicizing quotations. Accordingly, the MoS now states, "There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.)." JamesMLane 15:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Italicizing should be reserved for titles of books, films, and artworks. Bolding also works well for titles. Paradiso 13:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree with the italicizing part, don't agree with the bolding part. Bolding should only be used for article term words or redirected terms noted in articles. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a growing practice of using bold rather than italics with Cyrillic, on the basis that the italic version of Cyrillic looks so different to the normal version that ordinary users would not understand it. rossb 15:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)