Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive BI

• 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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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, 197, 198

Glossaries

What's the policy on glossaries, such as those found in Category:Glossaries? Do they violate Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Most of those should be transwikied to wiktionary, yes. >Radiant< 10:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So would it be OK for me to go ahead and nominate for deletion all the ones already transwikied? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. I'd recommend WP:CSD #A5 where appropriate, PROD otherwise, shared AFD if that fails. >Radiant< 09:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• No. There is nothing whatsoever at wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion that suggests that encyclopedic glossaries of the sort most often found here are candidates for Wiktionary. While Wiktionary has a new "Appendix:" namespace which is sometimes used for simple glossaries (among many other purposes), the expanded variety of glossary common on Wikipedia are not simple lists of words and definitions (if they are, then they are not encyclopedic), but are typically more exploratory of the history and usage of the terms and their relationship to other terms and the topic to which they apply (i.e., they are encyclopedic, not dictionarian). Wiktionary's sourcing standards are much more lax than those of Wikipedia; hardly anything at all in Wiktionary is sourced in any way other than by illustrative quotations (which are not considered valid sources under WP:V in Wikipedia, especially when it comes to terminology - see WP:NEO on that score). Just because some people use the term "glossary" to refer to both the Wikipedia article that is of an encyclopedic standalone list character (see also WP:LIST and WP:LISTV for further guidance), and the Wiktionary "Appendix:" page type, consisting of simple lists of dicdefs, does not mean that they are the same animal. Two "let's delete the glossaries!" Village pump commentators hardly makes a consensus for any such AfD campaign, which I note that User:Remember the dot has already launched. R.t.d., don't you think that the fact that after a week, only one person bothered to even address your proposal, is a sign that it isn't one that the community favors? PS: Just because an AfD (sensibly or not) favors traswikiing something doesn't mean that it will happen, or happen properly, and just because something in one state some time ago was transwikied doesn't mean that its present nature has far surpassed the Wikitionary copy from back-when. Some Wiktionarians (I won't point specific fingers) rather aggressively traswiki things without consensus. Its one thing to take the free content of Wikipedia and make a copy of it for Wiktionary purposes at Wiktionary, where it will begin a highly divergent editing path, but quite another to actually demonstrate that the WK copy functionally really does supersede the WP copy. To the extent that a WP glossary really is just a list of dicdefs, then this usually is the case. The problem here is that many WP glossaries are not at all simple lists of dicdefs. I think that Radiant is acknowleging this when he says "most", above, but I don't get the impression here or in AfD that R.t.d. is recognizing the difference. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Further comment: The obvious-when-you-think-about-it problem here is that "anti-glossary" sentiment seems to be unaware of the nature of WP:SUMMARY style. Many, many articles contain short glossaries of terms, and to date no one appears to object to them (when they are done properly, with sources, neutral point of view, etc.; see WP:LISTV for various pitfalls to avoid when making lists of this or any other sort). Over time as such intra-article glossary lists expand, it is virtually inevitable that they will become their own separate subtopical articles. To propose that glossaries, regardless how they are written, are categorically unencyclopedic and should be transwikied away, means either a) WP:SUMMARY must be abandoned, or b) Any article with even a short glossary in it must be AfDd for a consensus to either delete the article or strip it of that section. Neither stance is tenable. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Postscript: To quote one of the more evenhanded and responsible transwikiers, User:Xyzzyplugh: 'To "transwiki" means to copy an article to another wiki, in this case Wiktionary. Once copied over, the original article may be kept as it is, deleted, redirected, merged, or whatever is appropriate.' There is nothing inherent about transwikiing something that mandates post-transwiki deletion. The speedy deletion criteria suggest that something that has been properly transwikied after an actual AfD consensus that the article should be given this treatment (i.e. because it is a list of bare dicdefs and is thus categorically non-encyclopedic) can be deleted. This does not make transwiki a "magic bullet". Someone in a weird mood could transwiki George W. Bush to Wiktionary for some reason, after all. Transwikiing is simply making a copy from here to over there; no more, no less. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Closure: It should be noted that the Manual of Style very specifically authorizes glossaries as a valid style of list on Wikipedia, at WP:SAL. Unless consensus changes with regard to the MoS, this is pretty much a moot Village pump discussion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy relating to methods of suicide etc

There have recently been a couple of posts on the reference desk which have concerned me greatly. In one, an editor told someone who had asked about hearing voices that the voices were telling him to kill himself. I removed the comment, and left a message on the offending editor's talk page expressing my concern. There is now a thread on "bathtub suicides" on the science desk, which also concerns me, as it appears to be heading in the direction of "painless, relaxing etc" methods of killing oneself. I have expressed my concern in the thread, but I wonder if WP has a specific policy relating to this? I feel it is highly dangerous for a resource like Wikipedia to in any way suggest that there are acceptable/relaxing/painless ways of commiting suicide. DuncanHill 12:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an issue any online community, or any large group of people, faces sooner or later. From the perspective of editors and admins point of view you did all you could do. There was an inconclusive policy proposal before, Wikipedia talk:Responding to suicidal individuals. I disagree with the outcome but it may just be a case of people talking about a problem that was not ripe at the time. IMO, if someone fits the generally accepted definition among the psychiatric community of being a present suicide risk, the Foundation may wish to set its own policy directly rather than leaving it to us. The foundation may wish to quietly notify local authorities if they can determine a person's identity, in the case of credible present threats. A few organizations value privacy over physical safety, or simply lack the tools to identify their members. But those places are typically ones that have a reason to encourage open talk about difficult personal issues, which we don't. Their attorney can advise them of their obligations and options. On the other hand, if it is simply suicide talk that is not an immediate threat it might be the entirely normal if uncomfortable fact of people's daily behavior or a psychosis that is harmless to their participation in Wikipedia. The outcome of that discussion suggests that we have a hands-off, non-censorious approach as long as the talk is not dangerous, uncivil, or disruptive. Wikidemo 13:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A while back there was some discussion about responding to suicidal individuals. There weretwo policies put forward (IIRC they were originally one, and then split when the editors wanted to take these in different directions): Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals and Wikipedia:Helping suicidal individuals. Both policies were rejected. About the only thing there was any consensus for was to consult Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, although the interpretation varried. Sorry I can't be of much help. --Ybbor^Talk 13:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thought, all those proposals were about policies on what you must or should do. As far as what you may do as an individual, I believe that it is perfectly appropriate to reach out and contact a troubled individual on a person-to-person basis and offer to help, suggest counseling, etc., as long as the contact is not unwanted. And preferably take it to some more appropriate forum. It may be appropriate to develop a guideline page listing what options are available, as as opposed to one that imposes any duties or standards on the subject. Wikidemo 13:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Would it be appropriate to remove discusssions of methods of suicide from the reference desks if they appear to be taking an unhealthy turn? DuncanHill 13:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just give them straight, honest answers.

Being dead is easy, but there's no easy way to die. Human beings are tough. Killing yourself properly and with certainty, -while at the same time not traumatizing others- is hard work indeed. It takes planning. It's not something you can pull off on a whim. It's often much easier to solve your problem some other way.

I'm confident that anyone else doing the same research will find the same answers. If after having weighed all the ups and downs, they're still convinced they need to kill themselves, they very well may actually be right, and such a decision should be treated with utmost respect.

This is why I'm a proponent of full and open information being available to all persons. If information on suicide is censored, people might well conclude based on inadequate information that it is easy, or a good idea, and make a mistake they will regret for the rest of their (unexpectedly) long lives.

--Kim Bruning 13:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I'm confused. You think it's acceptable for the Reference desk to include comments about slitting your wrists in a bathtub as being a "relaxing" way to go? DuncanHill 13:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I really shouldn't answer, but I'll bite today: You think replying to a serious answer with a one-sentence rhetorical putdown is acceptable behavior for a wikipedian? :-P --Kim Bruning 14:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case I think it was okay because it seemed like an academic question - asking why a person might choose a particular method of suicide rather as opposed to asking what the best way to commit suicide is or what would happen if the poster tried that method. It seemed to me at least, that in the context of the question, saying that one reason a person might choose that method was because a bathtub is a "relaxing environment" is really not a problem. The poster was clearly not considering suicide and readers are not any more likely to be convinced to kill themselves by a couple of sentences on our ref desk than by all the other things they can find with a google search. There used to be an FAQ with detailed info on dozens and dozens of methods of killing yourself that floated around usenet. I'm sure the reader could find a lot more info on it their than on wikipedia. In this particular case I don't think censoring the information would have helped anyone. GabrielF 14:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the Humanities ref desk question does not mention suicide. It is a guy asking if others have experienced the phenomenon of hearing voices. It is a bit disturbing because it sounds like someone who is experiencing the onset of schizophrenia. I think that User:Skittle responded very well - he suggested that the poster reach out to someone who cares about him, possibly a doctor, without implying that the poster was crazy. One highly inappropriate response was removed. I am curious to see if other editors think that this situation was handled well. I think it was, but It might be worth looking to see if the American Psychiatric Association has any guidelines on how to handle this kind of thing. Maybe the foundation can consult them or a psychiatrist to make sure that we're being helpful and for the purposes of CYA. I don't know if this situation is widespread enough to warrant that though. GabrielF 14:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That was ...tactfully answered :-) --Kim Bruning 14:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I am sorry you felt that I made a "one-sentence rhetorical put down". It wasn't intended as such, I was honestly confused by your response. I have deleted as linkspam your link to a "suicide methods" website. DuncanHill 15:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, that happened to be the reference that GabrielF had been looking for in their post. You might want to put that back. You're not making a particularly good showing today, are you? --Kim Bruning 22:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, Gabriel did not request the link - he merely refered to the existence of such a thing. I am sorry that your response to an editor raising a concern and asking the community for guidance is to appear to treat it as a point-scoring exercise. I didn't come here to "make a good showing" - but I shall seriously consider withdrawing from any discussion about WP Policies if yours is the kind of response that can be expected. I shall not contribute to - or monitor- this discussion further.

Some editors have made sensible and thoughtful contributions, for which I am grateful. DuncanHill 22:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Um your referring to the wrong question. The question being discussed is one where someone asked about the least painful suicide method (or something along that line) Nil Einne 21:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I’m sorry that this thread seems to have ended in hard feelings as this is really is a topic that should be settled. As the Wikipedian who originally started the Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals article (later moved) I too am concerned with the projects lack of consensus on this issue. However reverting questions that are SUICIDE THEAMED is censorship. We are ultimately not responsible for the actions of those who use Wikipedia. To make my point I’m tempted to propose a policy by which any comment about extreme sports must be reverted (because it could cause injury or death) or any comment about unprotected sex must be reverted (because someone might get an STD). However such proposals obviously do not belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored. Thanks, --S.dedalus 02:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, it depends on your definition of censorship Nil Einne 21:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a tricky area because there's a variety of people seeking advice, and a variety of people giving advice. Often people giving advice have no idea what they're talking about. Wiki has standards to cover this kind of thing, no original research, verifiable information, etc. Sometimes people are arseholes. That's not okay, but luckily Wiki has rules about being civil, and I very much hope that editors calmly keep that rule. People seeking advice are either just curious, or they have suicidal ideation. Why doesn't wp:BEANS apply here? Dan Beale 21:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, what to do about articles which happen to be related to suicide? Should an article on coproxamol (distalgesic) not mention that it was one of the commonest drugs used for suicide in the UK, which led to it being withdrawn? What about various famous cliff tops? I dunno. The werther effect is real, but I don't think that means Wiki should self-censor. Dan Beale 21:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Having read the failed (proposed) policy page, & followed the thread above, I think the common-sense approach to a question where someone asks "How do I commit suicide?" would be:

• Ask the person if she/he is going to harm her/himself. If no, provide the information. (As others have pointed out, the information is out there, so hiding it will not stop anyone.) If yes,
• Encourage the person to seek professional help as soon as possible, if not immediately.

Doing more than that -- unless you are a trained professional -- puts you at risk, no matter how well-intended you might be. And these two steps covers all the possibilities:

• If the person is suicidal & accepts the advice -- it's a win all around.
• If the person is suicidal & ignores the advice & kills her/himself -- I seriously doubt that you could have done any more to avoid the outcome. Even the best therapists are unable to help those who refuse help.
• If the person is a troll -- anyone who thinks a stunt like that is funny needs professional help. And should be blocked until it is received.

Just my opinion(s). -- llywrch 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Smile

I recently got this template on my talk page, making me think I had an important new message (which I did get one of soon after). User:Connell66, and possibly other users, is spreading this template to other users' talk pages, seemingly chosen at random, for the purpose of "WikiLove". Is this a good idea? --NE2 02:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with that, but when I saw the new messages bar I thought someone had seen my bot playing up and my commenting on it. However that template was nominated for deletion due to users spamming other users talk pages with it. --Chris ^g 04:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a great break for users like me doing a lot of repetitive work. I personally love them :) Anyone who doesn't like it should put a notice or something on their page, maybe we need a Template:Nosmilesplease. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

He's probably inspired by User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward, wich is an "award" given to people completely at random, complete with a disclaimer saying that smiling on a bad editor should not be taken as an endorcement of said user... Complete waste of space if you ask me, but aparently I'm just grumpy and don't get it. Enough people seem to like getting uncolicited messages at random from unknown people for no reason that the project continues unphazed by the occational complaint by grumpy people like me who don't like to be interupted by the "new message" bar unless it's actualy someone who that want me to respond to or answer something or give me some relevant information. I like getting "thank you"'s and such as much as the next guy naturaly, but only as long as they actualy mean something, some guy messaging 10 people at random is not my idea of what Wikilove is about, sounds more like a scheme to increase editcount than anyting.</end rant> --Sherool (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Second that. Appreciation is welcome; questions will be answered; complaints dealt with; spam gets reverted on sight. Adrian M. H. 20:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In addtion to reverting, is there anyway to put, say, a warning on the Smile Spammer's talk page? I am a bit grumpy from time to time as well, and would like to know if there is a particular template that I could use to protest against the random use of Smiles. --Gavin Collins 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be taking things too far and would only serve to aggravate unnecessarily. Better to ignore it and/or remove it, and perhaps leave a polite comment to say that you don't wish to receive such things. There are, after all, bigger things to be concerned about. Adrian M. H. 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I do like the answer to What is the opposite of Template:Simile? --Gavin Collins 15:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox pages

When I first came on Wikipedia a few months back, I was chastised repeatedly for putting sandbox pages as subpages of user pages or mainpages, as in Filll/sandbox. I was told to make them as subpages of talk pages, as in user talk:Filll/sandbox. Now I see some people making sandbox pages as subpages of user pages. Is this permittable now? Did I just misunderstand before?--Filll 17:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Subpages of mainspace pages is generally not done, but subpages in userspace are perfectly acceptable (and have been for quite some time). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You probably just got the wrong end of the stick, or someone else did. User sub-pages are very useful for drafts and other content, such as logs and link directories. Adrian M. H. 17:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAN

Discussion at WT:BAN. Navou ^banter 12:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Rejected proposals to essays

Is it possible to re-fashion rejected policy proposals as essays? The specific page I had in mind is WP:EXPERT. It's been inactive for quite some time, but still provides some useful aspects and could become a very good essay. —AldeBaer (c) 00:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it would be too difficult to reorganize it into essays, since essays are just meant to represent the opinion of some of the editors of Wikipedia. Anyone can write any essay with any view, it's just how highly the others see of it.--Kylohk 05:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, it is possible. It happened with WP:CHILD for example. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean I can just go ahead or would I have to propose the conversion for that specific page somewhere? —AldeBaer (c) 15:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's all about whether you find it useful as an essay or not. Do you want to cite it in discussions for the arguments it makes? If so it might make a good essay. There's no real formal process, it looks like it's already tagged. It's good to make it clear that it started out as a policy proposal, which this page also seems to do. --W.marsh 19:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I went ahead and tagged it as essay/former proposal. It's not so much that I want to cite it, but rather to open it up for further development. —AldeBaer (c) 23:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed Proposal

It seems to gain a concensus of support (see talk page) since the creation of the proposal, but it hasn't been updated in over 3 weeks. I decided to revive this proposal in the village pump for people to give lasting comments/objection. Can anybody give some lasting comments in the proposal's talk page so we can decide whether it should be a policy or not?--PrestonH 16:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a great proposal. All this proposal will do is require new registered users to make a minimum amount of edits (ideally around 30) IN ADDITION to the required 4 day waiting period prior to being able to edit semi-protected articles. See Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed Proposal for a long discussion and Q/A from me and other editors addressing objections and gathering a consensus of support. There aren't any flaws in this proposal as far as I can see and it would greatly improve the protection of semi-protected articles on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

World Settlements - the drive for a Wiki-Wide naming convention

Hello. A few of us have become concerned with the present trend for naming Wiki "settlement" articles: each country seems to impose its own method of disambiguation (and local geography for the same), and this tends to make Wiki look chaotic as a whole - especially to readers researching a subject that covers several countries unfamiliar to them.

Would it be possible to make a single Wiki-wide naming convention for all placenames? A few of us are looking into the question here. Please join in! THEPROMENADER 10:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

PageRank and Wikipedia's Nofollow

I was just reading about Wikipedia's nofollow policy on a blog. I find it irresponsible of Wikipedia to graciously accept so much incoming page rank from the web, but to return none. In short, it's like Wikipedia is saying, "don't trust our links, Google." Why is this still being used? Is there still an open forum to discuss this policy? Thanks -18:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It discourages link spam and Google representatives have said they actually prefer this approach. Dragons flight 18:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a huge fight about it and more than one change to the setting in the face of a lack of consensus. I personally strongly oppose the use of nofollow, since it takes away volumes of valuable backlink information that could be gleaned from our huge human investment in selecting authoritative links. I favored compromise solutions where new links may be marked nofollow for a while. But this is the end result and not much I can do but fork, which I won't. Dcoetzee 09:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to implement (or describe in sufficient detail to allow straightforward implementation) a reasonable technical solution for marking new links nofollow for a while — preferably in such a way that it cannot be trivially circumvented, does not require excessive bureucracy nor more editor vigilance than is currently in evidence, and won't put an unreasonable burder on the database servers — I think a lot of people would be more than willing to consider it. I'm not just saying this facetiously; I'd really like to see such a solution. (Then again, I'd really like to see stable versions up and running too. In fact, having a good implementation of stable versions might go a long way towards keeping our external links spam-free. At the moment, I think, both are stalling for similar reasons.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How about: take the externallinks table that's currently used for Special:Linksearch and add a column to it which stores the date the link was added. Every time a page is saved, as part of the normal routine of adding/removing links from that table, the date field is set to the current date for all of the links that are added. When a page is purged, the table can be queried again and for all the links that are more than n days old (this number can be set in a configuration file), nofollow is removed, whilst nofollow is added for all the other links. One problem with this solution, however, is that if a link is removed and re-added to a page, its age will 'reset' and this could perhaps be exploited by spammers. This also increases the number of database queries when purging a page which may or may not have a significant impact on performance. Tra (Talk) 19:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Can a GFDL version of a logo exist?

I've noticed that several university articles use images of the respective coats of arms that have been drawn up by Wikipedians from the original blazons and have been uploaded as GFDL content. Various possible examples can be found here, here, but I'll just examine Image:Cambridge University Crest - flat.png here as a test case. This coat of arms will almost certainly be a trademark of the University of Cambridge; so how is it possible to redraw a copy of the arms, modelled as closely as possible on the original design described within the blazon, and release the image under the GFDL? --Kwekubo 16:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I can't really answer your question, but I noticed something similar recently. Consider Image:Blue horseshoe.svg - okay, just a generic object from the real world, right? Notice the similarity to Image:IndianapolisColts 1001.png though, and consider the generic free image is used on various Colts templates, so the intent is obvious... I wonder about the real legality there. Not that the NFL would really ever act even if we were using the copyrighted logo but that's not what image copyright policy is about. --W.marsh 16:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If the blazon is in the public domain (typically by virtue of being very old), then yes one can create a GFDL version of the coat of arms. However, copyright and trademark law operate independently, so that if you use that logo in a way that is likely to create confusion between yourself and the true trademark holder then you would have infringed upon their trademark rights even though the coat of arms is GFDL. I feel the Colts example is probably similar, as I doubt "blue horseshoe" in general is a sustainable copyright, but "blue horseshoe used represent an athletic team" is certainly a sustainable trademark. In general we do not do a good job of identifying materials that may be subject to trademark law. Dragons flight 17:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That Colts logo is without a doubt a copyright violation, and its use in tons of Userboxen to indicate Colts fans is troubling. Corvus cornix 22:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually it's the blue horseshoe (full disclosure: I uploaded it) that's being used in the userbox. As Dragons flight as said, this is a trademark issue, not a copyright one. howcheng {chat} 23:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • But to make it more confusing, that does not mean that this particular work cannot be licensed. When you get down to the basics, the "design" is copyrighted, but so is this specific expression of the design. That expression may not be enough of a derivative to be a useful copyright to have, because the derivative image is too much subject to the original copyright, but that does not mean is does not exist and that the maker cannot license it. It just means that the original copyright is so much "stronger", so much so that there is little point in expressing/using those rights. Because for others (we wikipedians) the rights on the "original work" are too restrictive and more important. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, such logos would likely violate copyright law. It is not uncommon to be unable to license a derivative work. >Radiant< 12:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Even where the work that the new work is derivative of is several hundred years old? It seems to me clear that the arms of the University of Cambridge (granted 1573) are no longer in copyright; the only question seems to be whether displaying them violates any trademark law. TSP 13:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That's an interesting question. I believe that coats of arms are protected under a similar law that allows only the owner to use them. But IANAL. Perhaps an inquiry on WP:CP might help? >Radiant< 10:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• As I understand, in the case of 'proper' British coats-of-arms it's that much more complicated, as the 'owner' of the coat-of-arms doesn't own the copyright and isn't the creator. They do, however, have control of usage basically comparable to that in trademark law. The college of heralds might have some clear information. SamBC 13:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • But does any of that law apply in the US, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted? Certainly a lot of the other copyright law we operate under doesn't apply in the UK (e.g. the Corel v. Bridgeman principle) but we don't feel limited by that even when hosting UK-originated works. TSP 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• You'd need some serious intellectual property law advice to answer this question (and its many latent subquestions) with any authority. Trademark law and copyright law are essentially unrelated, but they cross over each other in some ways when it comes to things like logos. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Along these lines, it would be nice if the Foundation and its lawyers could get together and come up with a "this is our interpretation of the relevant law" statement for several of these IP questions. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 09:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to AfD process

To try to improve the signal-to-noise ratio at AfD, I have posted a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Require_discussion_before_deletion that would require initiating a discussion on an article's talk page prior to initiating an AfD discussion. The reasons behind this proposal are in the discusion at the link above, and a previous discussion linked from there. Additional input from the community is requested in that forum. Dhaluza 13:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

International Phonetic Alphabet

why does wikipedia only use the International Phonetic Alphabet i have never seen a dictionary in which they use the International Phonetic Alphabet and the wikipedia page for it is very confusing. if someone with knowledge in the subject could make a simple chart for the it and make a conversion chrt for IPA symbols and other common Phonetic Alphabets that would be great.

This will probably be useful to you. Atropos 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect question

I wanted to link PSSI to be redirected to Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, but I find instead that someone has used this for a foreign acronym:[1]. I know a disambiguation page can be created, but what is the policy on this? Seems that English should take precedence on English Wikipedia.--Filll 16:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's any policy on this, but I would say that, to avoid WP:BIAS, a disambiguation page should probably be used, or redirect to your PSSI and include a note at the top pointing to either a disumabiguation page (if there's any more expansions than these two) or to the Indonesian football thing. SamBC 17:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Biting newcomers

Moved to WT:U Melsaran 18:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

GFDL copy & paste

As a RC-patroller, I see it several times a day, that users move content per copy & paste (or cut & paste) from one article to another one, neither mentioning at least the 5 main authors of the original article nor terming the original article. In my understanding (and as we handle this so on de.wikipedia) this is a violation of the GFDL (esp. section 4B).

Example (only to illustrate the point, the question is more generally):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Good_Things_%28song%29&diff=148966911&oldid=147052721 cut of the content
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Good_Things&diff=148966742&oldid=77943702 paste

In these cases, contrary to a page move, the history get lost and it seems that the copy&paster is the only author of the content. I wonder why it was told me that such things are no violation of the GFDL and this is tolerated. --Oxymoron⁸³ 17:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Original authors need to be credited. If the edit summary for the paste doesn't credit the original, then do a null edit on the destination to note the original source. And on the original article's talk, note that some content was merged elsewhere. The logic is the same as for an article merge; which is what this is, and we don't delete the history of merged articles in order to ensure that the original authorship data remains intact. GRBerry 21:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks GRBerry. Additional question: What to do if an user creates a redundant copy of an article disregarding the GFDL? (example: this is a copy of that). On de.wikipedia the copy would be deleted immediately. My speedy deletion request to the copied article in the example was denied (probably csd g12 is the wrong reason for the speedy deletion, but I'm not aware of a better possibility). Maybe at the moment nobody cares about the copy, but in the future it can become problematic to keep the original/correct history if more mergers and splits to the original article are done. I suppose a version deletion (as would be done if copyrighted content derives from another website) is obligation, isn't it? Noting the original source of the unusable copy makes less sense in this case as it's a redirect now. --Oxymoron⁸³ 00:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In all cases it is vital that the copyright holder is credited. Anything that removes this credit is a breach of the license. Trollderella 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that copy paste moves were generally not tolerated, which is why the move button exists. It's one thing if someone is merging to articles together, but if someone is just renaming the article they really should be using the move button. That is, after all, why it's there. Natalie 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason doesn't matter - any move that removes the attribution to the copyright holder is a breach of the license. Trollderella 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• disagree "List on the Title Page" says GFDL. We do not do that, ever. We don't have a title page. The five main contributers to any article may me burried far away in ancient history. By editing wikipedia we implicitly "release" this requirement of GFDL. If text is copied from one article to another, it suffices to mention from where it was copied, and we do not need to look for or mention who exactly wrote it. We give away whatever we write — without losing it ourselves. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems

I'd like feedback on an essay I developed from talk page comments by others. There seems to be some misunderstanding how tagging works. THF 02:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a nice start, Ted. But I would wait for a while before you add wikilinks to the essay from other pages in the Wikipedia namespace, in particular from policy pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Attacks on userpage

User:DrVarkey has, on his userpage, a list of "Good Things" and "Bad Things". The only item in the Bad Things list is Stephen C. Sillett, a scientist whose research this user has been disputing. How does this compare to Wikipedia:User page's bits about what may not be on a userpage, especially the Jimbo quote "libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea"? Nyttend 14:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

About what I would expect from someone who publicly announces a liking for "badonkadonk". Seriously, though, this would appear to be contrary to the user page content guideline. If it was good and bad articles that would be different, but it reads like an opinion about the subject, not the article. Maybe you should have a polite word with him on his talk page if you want to. Adrian M. H. 14:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that simply listing someone under "Bad Things" counts as an "Attack". All it says is that the user does not like Mr. Sillett. They are entitled to their opinion after all. If the user went on to rant and rave about Mr. Sillett, and made accusations about him, then I could see taking some action. But not for simply listing him under the heading "Bad Things". Blueboar 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing policy concerning succession boxes in articles concerning fictional characters

A proposal has passed at WP:WAF and WP:SBS to allow in-universe succession boxes in articles with fictional elements. A template was created, Template:s-fic, to deal with the in-universe-ness of the succession boxes and a proposal to delete the template failed last week. I am wonder what needs to be done to cancel this policy and allow succession boxes officially on templates, because currently succession boxes such as those of the Kings of Arnor are not technically allowed in their articles, although they provide an excellent method of navigating the multiple generations of kings and heirs. Similar succession boxes have been removed from certain Harry Potter and Star Wars pages, as well as many others. Can anyone tell me how to do this, because I would really like to know. Thank you!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmph... Can anyone explain why we even have articles on all the various kings of Arnor (and other such fictional kingdoms etc.) ... I can understand having the King of Arnor article ... The concept of the Kingdom of Arnor is an important background plot element in the story line of LOTR... but why in the world do we have seperate article on, for example, Arantar, who isn't even notable to the background plot and is barely even mentioned in the apendix of the series?

I see this as being similar to having articles on every single episode of a TV show, or every minor character in the Harry Potter books. There is a clear precedent for rolling all such articles into one larger article. I know the LOTR fans will be unhappy if all the little stub articles get cut... but so were the Potter and Simpsons fans when we started to roll their stubs into larger "group" articles. Shouldn't we be consistant between project groups on such things? Blueboar 14:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for not answering my question. Example aside, the question is how to get succession boxes allowed on fictional pages. It has been approved, in a sense, three times in three different forums, yet there is still a rule stating otherwise that needs to be removed and I would like to know how procedure goes to do that. Not all fictional articles are as brief as Middle Earth kings. Pages such as Albus Dumbledore and Palpatine also qualify very much for succession boxes but cannot under the current rules.

Regarding the reason for the individual pages. People seem to forget that this is an encyclopedia, which is "a book or set of books [in our case a website] giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject..." I believe that fact of this encyclopedia has been lost in some of these policy and procedure groups. I miss the days when I could go onto Wikipedia and type anything after /wiki/ and get results. Those days are gone because people have felt that to be respectable, we have to have less information instead of more. To all those people who say "that is what we have Wookiepedia for" or "that is what Wikia is for" I say, NO!, that is why we have WIKIPEDIA!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to comment here that, even in cases that a person is only given a section in a larger article rather than their own article, a succession box may still be added at the end of that section, especially since, in such a case, its size will generally be limited to one or two lines. That way, continuity is ensured (thank Unicorn there are section redirects!) and everything is in perspective as far as importance is concerned. Waltham, The Duke of 06:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm having trouble following this. You say that a proposal passed to allow succession boxes, and then you ask if this can be changed to allow succession boxes? What's the difference? Also, judged by the amount of formalisms and references to "officialness" I think you misunderstand the non-bureaucratic nature of Wikipedia. We don't do official. >Radiant< 09:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"succession boxes such as those of the Kings of Arnor are not technically allowed in their articles" - not allowed by whom? Where is this policy? Corvus cornix 21:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Some people tend to take policies overly seriously, Radiant, and the policy in question is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), or "WAF". The thing is, while there has been a great debate in the talk page, which one could reasonably say has ended with great support for the policy's modification to allow for succession boxes in articles for fictional characters, nothing whatsoever has been done towards that direction. Moreover, this policy never ceased being used as a justification to delete succession boxes in such articles and to disallow the creation of new ones. So, the question is, what do we do now? Waltham, The Duke of 10:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing usernames guidelines

Me, Andre and WJBscribe have created a set of guidelines for the changing usernames process, in an attempt to standardise our existing practices, as well as create a formal set of guidelines that reflects current pratice. Note that if the community decides to grant this guideline status, then there will be very little to no change in our existing practices at changing usernames, and usurpations. I am posting notices on several pages in an attempt to gain consensus on the talk page of the proposal to promote it to guideline. All input is welcome. --Deskana (banana) 21:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Had a look. You seem to just written down what most sensible people would do anyway. It's a good set of guidlines though - Pheonix15 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Content relating to oneself

I have heard that if there is content that relates directly to you, you can get control of that. Is this true?Lkieffer 17:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:Lkieffer. Dragons flight 20:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving bots

When is it appropriate to apply archiving bots to talk pages? Wikipedia Talk: Spoiler has had an archiving bot applied despite not being particularly busy. Complaints about it have been ignored, and it has been suggested that talk pages with a low level of activity should be blanked as a matter of course. There does not seem to be any policy relating to such things, and the justifications offered boil down to 'I post here'.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. It seems to me when talk pages are not growing quickly, there is no reason to archive them quickly until they are blanked. Leave the discussions there for new editors to join as they arrive, without having to dig around in archives to see what's going on. Otherwise, it might seem there is no debate on a page that actually does have a difficult past and perhaps not a solid consensus yet. My suggestion is to use archiving bots only on busy talk pages, or on user talk pages at the user's preference, but not on slow moving article talk pages. --Parsifal _Hello 07:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben Folds/Frally Hynes divorce: Is a podcast a reliable source? Violate WP:BLP?

• I'm very busy in RL. If this is not the approp. forum, would someone pls copy it to the best forum? Question: Is a podcast a reliable source? I have no speakers & wouldn't know if it were legitimate or not anyhow... I'm inclined to say a podcast is NOT a reliable source, Thanks. Ling.Nut 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A Podcast, in most instances, is a self-published source. As such, it cannot be used as a source to support claims about third-parties. See WP:SELFPUB ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends who published it, same as any other source. I listen to NPR and BBC podcasts... those are considered reliable, while Bobcast (example) would not be. -Nard 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This particular podcast has no value to confirm events in the life of Ben Folds. In the final minute, Folds says 'I'm going through a divorce.' That's it! I deleted the sentence in the article for which that was a reference. EdJohnston 22:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Blogs etc as references

I am wondering about when blogs become useful as references. Some blogs are written by known figures who are notable already from their other writing, or from their qualifications or expertise. Some are associated with people who give their real names and professional positions and credentials. Some science blogs have been highly rated. For example, Nature magazine placed a "review of some of the best blogs written by working scientists" on its website in July 2006.[2][3].

Some examples:

• Pharyngula (weblog) by PZ Myers, a biologist from the University of Minnesota, science category winner in the 2006 Weblogs Awards
• Panda's Thumb (weblog), with many professional scientist posters, also highly rated (second place winner?). Almost every poster I have seen on there already has a WP article, and is noted for other writing already. Usually with good sources.
• talkorigins not a blog exactly, but with many articles written by well-known professional scientists and well-sourced
• RealClimate, a blog produced by "real climate scientists at the American Geophysical Union"
• Aetiology, found at [4], written by Tara C. Smith, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology in Iowa
• scienceblogs, a provider of science blogs includes many interesting and useful blogs [5]. Note that they are selective in who gets to blog, in fact.
• Nature itself hosts assorted science-related blogs [6]

Comments? Ideas? Suggestions?--Filll 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that any blog is inherently self-published, which is considered a problem in some circumstances (see WP:SPS). Of course, in this as in everything, discretion and common-sense are king. SamBC 17:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many "blogs" these days, hosted by newspapers and whatnot, that are not self published and that have some level of editorial oversight. -Chunky Rice 17:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the question shoudln't be whether or not the source is a "blog." But rather, whether the author is an acknoweldged expert and whether or not the blog has editorial oversight. If the author is a notable expert in the field, then we can certainly cite their blog as to their opinion, which could be relevant to the article, though we probably shouldn't use it to cite a statement of fact. If the blog is by an expert and has editorial oversight, then I don't see how it's different from any other reliable source. -Chunky Rice 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, however, there is still a fairly strongly worded ban on all blogs (see WP:V and WP:RS). The consensus on this is, however, changing... I think most people would agree that it depends on the blog in question (who the blogger is, where the blog is hosted, what sort of oversite occurs, etc.), but I don't think there is yet a clear consensus as to where to draw the line between acceptable blogs and unaccpetable blogs (which makes the policy wonks warry of changing the policies and guidelines that relate to blogs.) Perhaps it may be time to raise the issue again and see if a consensus can be reached to change the policy... I would suggest doing so at WP:V first (as RS is a guideline that is subservient to WP:V, and more policy editors are involved there than at RS). Blueboar 18:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In actual practice, when an article pops up on your watchlist, and what's being added is an external link to a blog, it will not be one of these high-quality blogs. More than 95% of the time, it will be a personal blog by someone who believes they have information to contribute. These usually don't meet our sourcing guidelines. EdJohnston 22:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#LINK

• Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#WP:NOT#LINK - Many users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion are advancing this section of policy as grounds for deleting lists. This seems to be a case of WP:Point to me, and is not something the guideline at all intends. Well over 90% of lists would face deletion given this interpretation.

Ah, the old "Deletionists vs. Inclusionists" debate... some would argue that well over 90% of lists should face deletion. This is an difference of opinion that is not going to be resolved anytime soon. As a general comment, I have noticed that those lists that are focused on a clearly stated reason for existance, include citations and brief exposition on each item, or a clear structure (for example: listing their items in chronological order) tend to survive attacks by the "deletionists", while those that are nothing more than a list of links to other articles tend not to survive. Blueboar 17:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as a list satisfies the criteria at WP:LIST, it should be fine. If it doesn't, then... Well, WP:NOT#LINK is there for a reason. -Chunky Rice 22:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell you the amount of lists that follow the guidelines set up by WP:LIST that come up for deletion all the time. The arguments? They range from WP:Listcruft (an essay), the list will never be complete (wtf?), WP:NOT#LINK (which says except lists!), on and on. I'm just tired of neanderthals that are told over and over what policy and guidelines state yet continuously nominate lists that follow all criteria with one of these bogus ass rationales above. It gets old, and the same "pack of deletionists" have been using them forever. Hell, some just say, delete per WP:NOT. Nothing more, just per WP:NOT. Lmao. And that counts as a vote. It kills me. If someone can't take the time to explain their vote, it should not count. (Mind meal 10:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

I vote with the deletionists on this one as WP:Categorization is a lot more useful method of sorting related articles together. Take for example the random List of accounting topics, which are covered under Category:Accountancy or Category:Accounting stubs. However, I could support the inclusionists on this, if a delete proposal is not backed up with a check to ensure that a useful category exists to take its place, then this may be grounds to disallow the AfD. --Gavin Collins 16:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Manual of style: capitalization of institution names

Should congress be capitalized in the uses below and why?

Clinton ran for Congress. Congress meets in Washington. The term "Congress" may also refer to a particular meeting of Congress; that is, a "Congress" covers two years.

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Institutions, all these should be lower case, just like "The university offers financial aid.". But almost all such uses of congress and similar words are capitalized in Wikipedia articles. -Pgan002 04:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"Congress" taken alone refers to a single, specific institution, so it acts as a proper noun. It ought to be capitalized. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The first instance is very similar to "Clinton ran for office", where "office" should not be capitalized, surely. So does "Congress" really there refer to a specific institution? The third and fifth instances refer to any meeting of the institution, as in "a congress...". Surely that should not be capitalized? As for the second instance, does it make any difference if it read "The congress meets in Washington."? -Pgan002 07:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It does refer to a specific institution - when we say "Clinton ran for Congress", that is simply shorthand for "Clinton ran for office in Congress" - a sentence where office should be small, you're correct, but where Congress must be capitalized. We don't actually say "office in" because it's obvious/assumed - a multitude of such shortcuts are taken in English, but the assumed part is still a part of the structure of the grammar. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 07:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What about when congress refers to a meeting, as in "a Congress covers two years"? Pgan002 08:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the specific case. If the word "congress" is referring to a specific institution (as in "Bill Clinton ran for Congress", where it refers to the United States Congress) it should be capitalized. If it refers to the general concept ("the institution has developed recommendations for how a congress should be set up and run"), it should be lowercased. The same would apply to other similar concepts—"member of Parliament", where the term refers to a specific country's parliament, would be capitalized, but "the plans for the new government include establishment of a parliament" would be lowercase. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So in the sentence "The term Congress may also refer to a particular sitting of the US Congress; that is, a Congress covers two years.", do the first and third instances of congress refer to a specific institution or not? -Pgan002 22:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't, because "congress" is not being used as a proper noun. To reiterate what has been said, capitalize congress if it refers to a specific organization, don't capitalize it if it is being used as a regular noun. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly simple isn't it? If "Congress" is short for "United States Congress" or a session thereof, then capitalize. Likewise any other legislatures. If it refers to meeting of academics etc, then don't except when giving the full name as a proper name. Johnbod 19:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems simple, but your reply contradicts the one above. Is a sitting or session of the US Congress that lasts 2 years an institution in its own right that should be referred to by a proper name ("Congress")? I wonder if this rule holds: if it can be preceded by the indefinite particle "a", then it should not be capitalized. -Pgan002 00:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, click this link. A practical application for your understanding. A "Congress", a two-year session of the Congress, is also a proper noun. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the same proper noun - it's still short for "United States Congress" whether it sits for two years or five minutes. Johnbod 03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help. I sense annoyance in your answer, and I assure you I did not mean to annoy. I suppose I could have found that link on my own once I had realized what the answer hinged on. But I think the answer is far from obvious, and since the replies sounded so confident, I tried to clarify them first. -Pgan002 17:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't intend to express annoyance. But regardless, that link should solve your troubles, at least from an official use standpoint. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait until you ask if Congress is singular or plural. Dan Beale 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors etc.

Some peoples here in Wikipedia are not like they should be. For example:

If someone write two things in an article at once, one thing that is correct and should be there, and another that can be more doubtful or even wrong. When someone see the change, they undo ALL changes, even the correct one.

Some peoples makes the article fit their meaning, if someone tryes to correct it, they put it back with a little twist that is not actually wrong, but they makes the truth the way they want it.

          <                     >

I also want to say it is not a good idea to remove short articles, because nobody write them longer. Little information is better than none.

Helpsloose 17:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem your refering to is known in Wikipedia as reverting it is a quick way to change an article that may be a victim of vandilization, the best way to deal with this is to simply state in your edit summary what you are doing, editors are less likely to revert a page if the content descriptor indicates what's actually been said. Deathawk 02:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange movie template

User FerryUser, also editing from 172.209.243.209, has been inserting a strange template on upcoming film articles. The intention appears to be to list all 2008 movies in order of release? Anyway, I can't really call it vandalism, but I think that it's clearly inappropriate and the user refuses to stop. Any ideas on how to handle this? -Chunky Rice 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd be better off at WP:ANI. --Eyrian 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I copied the request there. Just wasn't sure if there was any reason why such a box might be appropriate. -Chunky Rice 19:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox pages

When I first came on Wikipedia a few months back, I was chastised repeatedly for putting sandbox pages as subpages of user pages or mainpages, as in Filll/sandbox. I was told to make them as subpages of talk pages, as in user talk:Filll/sandbox. Now I see some people making sandbox pages as subpages of user pages. Is this permittable now? Did I just misunderstand before?--Filll 17:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Subpages of mainspace pages is generally not done, but subpages in userspace are perfectly acceptable (and have been for quite some time). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You probably just got the wrong end of the stick, or someone else did. User sub-pages are very useful for drafts and other content, such as logs and link directories. Adrian M. H. 17:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Joel Wheatley

How Come Whenever Actor Joel Wheatley Is Added to wikipedia he is deleted i feel this is discrimination against one of the best gay actors of our generation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.68.200 (talk)

Probably because whenever an article is created under that name it's usually an attack or nonsense article (e.g. BJAODN entry) and qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G1. By all means, request the creation of an article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation if you can provide a rough article outline and a handful of sources for the information provided. - Foxhill 14:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOVD : Tagging pages should be a "last resort"

I object to the language in WP:NPOVD that calls adding a tag a "last resort."

Identification of problems in articles is an important task in the creation of a reliable encyclopedia. "Tags" are often used to indicate problems. Some people object to tagging instead of fixing, but tags do have their place.

The encyclopedia is way too large for anyone to read the whole thing, and there is a lot of value in tagging particular articles for particular problems. Tagging makes it easier for people who have expertise or interest in a particular area to hone in on things they can work on, it warns readers about rough patches (so they don't think a disputed passage is authoritative), and it encourages more passers-by to pitch in. Sure, it's better if people fix the problems they find, but complex problems can take a long time to untangle, and not everyone has the information immediately at hand to do the job right. An editor who places a tag has no obligation other than to justify the inclusion of the tag on the talk page if the tag is challenged.

Criticisms (as expressed through article tags) and incremental editing are an important part of writing a collaborative encyclopedia, and should be welcomed rather than discouraged. Wikipedia values contributions from everyone, whether or not they have contributed before, and even whether or not they are experts. Even novices and non-experts can help improve presentation without changing the underlying information. It is important to listen to even casual readers who find an article to be biased or confusing or unconvincing. They might not have the expertise to fix those problems, but the fact that they report these symptoms means that the encyclopedia could probably be doing a better job.

The problem with Wikipedia is one of false negatives, not false positives: there are too many pages that should be tagged that are untagged. WP:NPOVD's "last resort" language, and ambiguities about responsibility for fixing problems, requires editors to babysit those pages. The policy should be less hostile to casual editors who don't have the time to babysit pages, but who can draw attention to problems in the encyclopedia for editors with more time. There are literally thousands of pages with POV problems in Wikipedia, and only a small fraction are tagged. THF 12:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. See DreamHost and how many times that has been tagged and untagged

For most tags such as {{unrefferenced}}, {{synthesis}}, etc. I would agree... but not for NPOVD tags. I know of far too many agenda pushers who would tag articles simply because they feel the article does not adiquitely advance their particular pet theory or agenda. If an article has POV problems, we should have to raise the issue on the talk page and at least attempt to reach consensus and compromise before tagging the article. If that does not work, then the article can be tagged. In other words, there has to actually be a legitimate POV dispute going on before the tag is placed on the article. Blueboar 12:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image policy

Helo, I'm from Indonesian Wikipedia. Lately, there is an electronic magazine who are willing to provide us photos, mostly celebrities. They used copyright license but permitting wikipedia to use those photos. And they have their web address printed above the photos. I would like to know the policy in english wikipedia (or maybe general policy of wikipedia, if any)? Thanks. roscoe_x 13:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Our policy is at Wikipedia:Image use policy. If it's a picture of a living person, generally we only accept GDFL'ed or free use images, though occasionally a fair use image is allowed. I would note that "Wikipedia only" images are considered as normal fair use images - because the mirrors, etc - including some for-profit mirrors have to be able to use the images as well. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 14:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Images that are licensed as permission for a certain project are not allowed on any Wikimedia project, including Wikipedia. See the message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kat Walsh's statement. The aim of all Wikimedia projects is to produce free content images and text, so having a license of Wikipedia only or non-commercial use only does not help that goal. Graham87 04:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The images must permit reuse by anyone, for any purpose; and they must allow modification -- eg cropping or otherwise removing the magazine's logo from the pix. But it is acceptable for the source to require attribution, eg on the image page. Jheald 15:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirects into middle of articles now work. Implications for WP:FICT, WP:BAND

At long last, the bug that prevented using a redirect with a tag into the middle of an article, such as Dynasty (TV series)#Main characters has been fixed in Wikimedia. This is useful for dealing with characters and items in fiction that don't rate a separate article. Per WP:FICT, characters and such that don't meet the standards for notability by themselves are supposed to be mentioned as paragraphs in the main article, rather than as separate articles. I suggest that redirects into the main article be used when this situation comes up, and someone creates an article that doesn't really meet WP:FICT but refers to something bigger that does. It's a useful tool for RC patrollers.

We might want to consider extending this to music. For bands and musicians that are just barely notable per WP:BAND, one article for the band, with redirects for band members and albums, might be sufficient. I'd suggest that notability for a specific song or album is there only if the song or album reached some official threshold of notability, like going gold or platinum. If a song or album didn't make it big, it only needs a paragraph in the band's article. --John Nagle 16:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of the proposal itself, I would just like to point out that it can often take some work to maintain these types of links. The anchors available are pretty much only those of ==headlines==, and as such can change, meaning many of those redirects will likely change sometime over the life of the article.

(As an aside, I'm pretty sure we've been able to use anchors in redirects for some time now.)--Ybbor^Talk 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Using <span id="NAME" /> creates a permanent anchor that will avoid the problems of editors changing headers. Just link to the "NAME" tag rather than the sub-title. Dhaluza 22:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a bot that adds a comment after the heading when there is a redirect to the heading. So an editor would be aware of this potential problem. If the span solution is better, then maybe the bot could be modified to add that instead of the comment. Vegaswikian 22:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merging overly short articles is often a good idea. So yes, list albums under the band, list characters under the book, et cetera. >Radiant< 11:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image/media hotlinking

When a non-Wikimedia site places an image from Wikipedia or the Commons directly on one of their pages, users likely won't know that it comes from Wikipedia or the Commons or who originally created the image. They might think it was created by the site's own staff or comes from a commercial stock-image collection. Although I don't think we should ban hotlinking, given the headaches it would create for webmasters with limited disk space, I think it would be a good idea to at least add the image-description-page URL to the metadata, where possible. It also means bandwidth gets used up without bringing in any name recognition or visibility for the Edit This Page links. There are thus four options:

• Do nothing.
• Add a metadata watermark.
• Add a visible/audible watermark.
• Ban hotlinking. A file cannot be downloaded with a non-Wikimedia referrer.

Which option do you all like best? NeonMerlin 18:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't think this is a Wikipedia issue, but rather a foundation issue. — The Storm Surfer 19:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we have, you know, a discussion first, before we jump to straw polls? how should we expect people to make informed choices without seeing some people flesh out a genuine discussion. --Ybbor^Talk 19:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Yep, what Ybbor said. Plus, the community cannot meaningfully decide on this, as it requires a software upgrade. I suggest that you bring up your issue with the devs, at WP:BUG. >Radiant< 11:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Untranslated foreign language on article talk page

I just came across Talk:Termite, which has an enormous amount of untranslated text in some language written with the Arabic alphabet. Is it appropriate to delete this text, since the large majority of the talk page's users (including me) can't possibly benefit from the text? Nyttend 14:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that the text was added by an IP editor as their only edit [7]], I would say remove it. If it was added by someone with a longer record, I would think asking them about it first would be a better choice. 14:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree, but you can do a show/hide thingy if you want, with a note to say what it is. Johnbod 12:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You could ask someone to translate it for you. — The Storm Surfer 10:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's a foreign language it serves absolutely no purpose per the principles of what the talk page on an English Wikipedia is for and can be removed without notice. DreamGuy 09:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that is true here, but for articles on many types of non-English subjects short quotes in foreign languages may be valid and important, and it is certainly wrong to say they can all be removed at whim. Would you approve of the removal of all Greek/Hebrew quotes on Biblical talk pages for example? Johnbod 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You can always remove it to the talk page too. pschemp | talk 13:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Links to Fan Sites

There is currently an edit war going on at the Eagles and Don Henley pages over whether or not links to fan sites should be included on the pages for the artists concerned. One of the people who removed the links stated on the Talk Page "The Wikipedia DMOZ template has been substituted into the EL linkfarm to prevent users from re-adding links to their personal fan webpages. This has already been done on many other music related articles where external link violations are common.(see AC/DC, Motorhead ...etc). The DMOZ open directory project is free and open for any website owners to add their own personal pages and is Wikipedia approved. 156.34.142.158 17:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)" and has refused to comment further despite questions being raised by other users. My view on this is that SOME fan sites provide useful additional information about artists that cannot be included in Wikipedia - and therefore a handful of good fan sites enhance Wikipedia. It is the responsibility of editors on Wikipedia to decide which sites are spam and which add useful information, and Wikipedia should not be delegating this task to DMOZ. Since the person (s) removing the links don't want to comment further I wondered if anyone else had a view on this? Is this official policy as one editor stated here : [8] because I don't interpret the policy he quotes in the same way? Thanks for your thoughts. Kelpin 07:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kelpin. Useful links enhance Wikipedia - and as we all know, many times, the official links are not always the most useful ones. In the Eagles' case, at one point, the fansites which were deleted were replaced by a dozen links to artist pages on sites like VH1 and AOL - articles with basically the same info as Wikipedia, if not less. The fansites, on the other hands, had vast archives and an amazing amount of information, the kind any fan would crave. Such link deletions are a disservice to the Wikipedia user. After all, as Wikipedia's link policy states, when there is a great amount of detail or additional information elsewhere, the proper thing to do is to link to the site with the detail rather than attempt to put all of it on the Wikipedia entry. How can one do so if all the links that aren't official are deleted? Not to mention the fact that "official site" doesn't even seem very clearly defined by this editor. He puts under "official sites" a link to an article on cameroncrowe.com, for instance, but the last time I checked Cameron Crowe wasn't in the Eagles. And what if the artist doesn't even have an official site? The editor's argument that linking to DMOZ is better also has flaws. Some of the same sites he deleted are also listed there... so adding in the extra step of going to DMOZ seems illogical and almost arbitrary. What makes DMOZ more acceptable? It's not official either, so theoretically, it should fall into the same category. Besides, Wikipedia has always relied upon its own users, not the editors of DMOZ. It's not as if the sites are affiliated - why should DMOZ determine what is linked from Wikipedia? Finally, as Kelpin pointed out, if this is indeed a policy, why isn't it universally applied? It seems that some editors wish to purge fansites from select artist pages without regard to their quality, and I think that such disregard for quality is a detriment to Wikipedia and counterproductive to its mission. Thank you. Sodascouts 08:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Some fansites are okay, but only the particularly significant ones. The guideline is at External linking and fits the wider policies on external linking, spam, POV, self-promotion, notability, etc. Fansites, unofficial fan clubs, online stores, and similar sites should not be linked unless they are from an "established organization or a recognized fan community", are "clearly more informative" than most, or have a "significant quantity of information that is inappropriate for incorporation into wikipedia" such as: an exhaustive database of tour dates and set lists, a noninfringing repository of lyrics, a large image collection, a large amount of trivia, or especially established and recognized forums and community pages. There's no rule limiting an article to one fan site but in practice it's unlikely that a single band would have more than one or a small number that rise to that level of significance. Likewise, I see no basis for a general rule that you must discuss external links on a talk page before modifying them, but in practice if there has been some dispute on the point that is just good consensus/editing practice.

Applying this standard, The Fastlane clearly fails and should not be included. It's got sparse information, no pictures, etc. It is a commercial site that looks like it was done mechanically by someone who has other similar sites and wants to make money on advertising or links to referral programs. Everything there is links to commercial providers of tickets, ring tones, search engines, etc. Basically, linkspam. If you let people add that kind of thing, Wikipedia would be overrun with bad links. Eagles Online Central and Don Henley Online are closer calls. They aren't commercial so they aren't spammy. But there's not a whole lot of information on them, especially not the Eagles one. Some tour dates and news for Don Henley, which is useful. If this is truly the very best or one of the best sites for Don Henley and for the Eagles, maybe it is okay. But if a user is posting links to his own project, that's not appropriate.

While we're at it, some of the other links are inappropriate. As per common sense and the style guideline, an article about a band should not link directly to external pages for its various artists. If the artists have their own pages, then to keep things orderly and avoid redundancy the external links should be on those artist pages. The Cameron Crowe article is interesting but it should be in a reference section, not external links. Probably best to use it as a source and cite it there. And Don Henley's side projects should have external links on the articles in question, e.g. on the page for Caddo Lake, Walden Pond, and the artist coalition -- not on his main article. Wikidemo 09:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your point on the The Fastlane I agree that link has no place, but that's because someone vandalised the link - it should be The Fastlane . I've fixed the link on the Eagles page. Kelpin 12:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction I added but it was taken down by the Editor keeps removing the Fansites. Kelpin 12:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia {DMOZ} template has been added to the article which negates the need for any linkspamming to Kelpin's personal fansite webpage or any others. 156.34.142.158 12:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all that's not my website. Secondly why are we delegating responsibility to decide which sites can be linked to - to DMOZ - which to the best of my knowledge is not a Wikipedia site? Kelpin 12:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That's more like it. The Fastlane does seem to fit the style guideline criteria for inclusion as a fansite link. You could have a reasonable debate yes or no, but from the recent message sounds as if 156.34.142.158 is simply not willing to discuss the matter, pay attention to this discussion, read the policy, etc. I would give it another try but if they won't you may have to go through a more formal dispute resolution process. This conversation is the attempt at consensus. Next step mediation. Wikidemo 21:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Having been asked to comment here I would point to the section in the the guidelines on external links, which states "Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template." I would think that both the editors are editing in what they see as being best for wikipedia.--Alf ^melmac 14:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment - however 156.34.142.158 has so far failed to explain what he/she finds so objectionable about The Fastlane for example. To get a consensus surely there needs to be a reasoned discussion not a blanket removal of all links? Kelpin 14:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Smile

I recently got this template on my talk page, making me think I had an important new message (which I did get one of soon after). User:Connell66, and possibly other users, is spreading this template to other users' talk pages, seemingly chosen at random, for the purpose of "WikiLove". Is this a good idea? --NE2 02:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with that, but when I saw the new messages bar I thought someone had seen my bot playing up and my commenting on it. However that template was nominated for deletion due to users spamming other users talk pages with it. --Chris ^g 04:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a great break for users like me doing a lot of repetitive work. I personally love them :) Anyone who doesn't like it should put a notice or something on their page, maybe we need a Template:Nosmilesplease. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

He's probably inspired by User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward, wich is an "award" given to people completely at random, complete with a disclaimer saying that smiling on a bad editor should not be taken as an endorcement of said user... Complete waste of space if you ask me, but aparently I'm just grumpy and don't get it. Enough people seem to like getting uncolicited messages at random from unknown people for no reason that the project continues unphazed by the occational complaint by grumpy people like me who don't like to be interupted by the "new message" bar unless it's actualy someone who that want me to respond to or answer something or give me some relevant information. I like getting "thank you"'s and such as much as the next guy naturaly, but only as long as they actualy mean something, some guy messaging 10 people at random is not my idea of what Wikilove is about, sounds more like a scheme to increase editcount than anyting.</end rant> --Sherool (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Second that. Appreciation is welcome; questions will be answered; complaints dealt with; spam gets reverted on sight. Adrian M. H. 20:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In addtion to reverting, is there anyway to put, say, a warning on the Smile Spammer's talk page? I am a bit grumpy from time to time as well, and would like to know if there is a particular template that I could use to protest against the random use of Smiles. --Gavin Collins 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be taking things too far and would only serve to aggravate unnecessarily. Better to ignore it and/or remove it, and perhaps leave a polite comment to say that you don't wish to receive such things. There are, after all, bigger things to be concerned about. Adrian M. H. 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I do like the answer to What is the opposite of Template:Simile? --Gavin Collins 15:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Query about deleted article

Hi there, I recently attempted to post some information about the company Booking.com, an internet travel site. It was removed within minutes of me uploading it, and i was wondering why exactly? All of its competitors and similar companies, such as Expedia and Priceline, have pages with their information, and my piece of writing was in no way advertising or promoting any aspect of the company. Thanks, Samorro

Hi. This isn't really the best place to discuss this, so I'll come to your talk page. --Dweller 13:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Impersonating administrators?

User:IrishLizard has been replacing pages with a note that the page has been deleted and salted, although the user is not an administrator. For example, see this version of The Treaty. Is there additional penalty for impersonating administrators, or should this be treated as normal vandalism? Nyttend 15:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore. This was a vandalism-only account (likely a sock of a banned user, as this demonstrated knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and templates), so an indefblock is the most severe "penalty" we can give. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 03:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki for pop-culture lists?

There are many lists of mentions of various topics in Wikipedia. Some of these are better done than others, but some editors don't feel they belong in an encylopedia. On there other hand, there's a significant number of people here who really dig writing these lists. Sometimes they are useful to people. One of them has a comment on the talk page saying how useful it was for a school project. We're ending up with something vaguely like the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, but for mass media. Is it possible to transwiki these, what are essentially directories of citations, to Wikisource or Wikiquote? Squidfryerchef 04:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• No specific reply to yours, exactly, but see my edit history for today to confirm that I strongly agree with the idea you've just expressed, in principle. Are you up for actually working on the idea? AndyJones 19:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think Wikisource or Wikiquote would take them. Wikibooks might, in the vein of a book on pop culture in general, but I don't think they'd be any happier than we are with lists of "X got mentioned in Y, and Z, and Family Guy spoofed it once...". Those are more suited to a fansite, there are many fan wikis at Wikia that those would probably fit just fine on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use album covers for songs

Are fair use album covers permitted to be used in articles about individual songs? I would think not, because they fail to satisfy WP:FUC#8; they do not really "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". See, for instance, Image:The White Album.jpg#filelinks. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 21:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. The cover parameter was at one point removed from Template:Infobox song as a technical solution, but this was discarded as certain non-single songs do have associated images (e.g. "Stairway to Heaven"). If you would like to help with this problem, read the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_Song#Cover. Λυδαcιτγ 03:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

UK, England, Scotland...

As I read through Wikipedia articles, I noticed something I wasn't familiar to. It is the high level of nationalism British people have for their respective constituent country and a rejection of the "UK" entity. While I'm not writing here to argue this, but to discuss some of the inconsistency and confusion in Wikipedia articles any non-British reader might encounter. First, non-British are only familiar with the UK, they might be able to identify England and Scotland but rarely Wales; I find it odd that there isn't any page in Wikipedia that clarifies this issue, instead, it takes for granted that regular reader share the way of thinking of British people and find it perfectly normal to reference locations by their consitituent country (instead of UK); nationalities (English, Scottish, instead of British) and flags (flag of England instead of the UK flag). In addition, this leads to some inconstistencies between pages maintained by UK Wikipedians and others that don't (take a look at List of counties in Rhode Island).Could someone clarify this issue, and maybe write a guideline, policy, page about it. Thank you. CG 12:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. You might want to read the 'Nationality' debate further up, though it doesn't seem to have come to any particular conclusion, unfortunately.

I agree that the sovereign state (i.e. United Kingdom) should always be included at the end. I would also say, though, that it looks odd to me to just have "Newport, United Kingdom" Would you say, "Boston, USA", rather than "Boston, Massachusetts, USA"? I would have thought that you at least want "Newport, Wales, United Kingdom", if not "Newport, Monmouthshire, Wales, United Kingdom". TSP 12:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. I would probably just say Boston, Massachusetts or Newport, Wales. If an English speaker doesn't know where Wales is, it only takes one click to learn. The argument is a bit weaker for U.S. states (since there's 50 of them, instead of four), but I think Boston, Massachusetts is probably the most common on Wikipedia today. — The Storm Surfer 00:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad example, Mass and Wales don't compare, since Wales is a country, Mass is a state within a federal system.ALR 15:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not that bad of an analogy. The US states actually have more autonomy than the countries in the UK. David D. (Talk) 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult discussing this using Wales as the example, but I'd see autonomy as different from existence as a state entity. ALR 14:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a very obvious solution here - 'Newport, Monmouthshire, Wales' may well be tolerable in a UK context, however when speaking internationally I think it's complete idiocy to maintain that approach. If we're talking about international twinned towns etc, it ought to be like every other country on wikipedia and have 'UK' at the end. I find that British people have an odd habit of inflating their Home Nations and pretending they have some sort of unique status - they don't. I really see Wales, with its strong identity, as no different from the likes of Texas or Quebec. Anyway, how difficult or insulting is it to tack two letters on to the end of a placename to ensure it is recognised and for the sake of consistency? I can think of few times when 'Newport, United Kingdom' would be used alone, so it's certainly not about trying to exclude the Home Nations from their positions - although certain edit warriors would doubtless like to pretend this is a fact. --Breadandcheese 05:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering if you mean 'Newport, Pembs', 'Newport, Mons', 'Newport, IOW' or any one of the other 'Newports' that could claim to be 'Newport, United Kingdom'. To that end the UK is an anomoly when it comes to naming conventions.

Insofar as it has a lot of places named Newport? I'd hardly count that as hugely anomalous. I must admit to having rather overlooked the multiple Newports available, but common sense ought to apply in the convention, as it tends to. Ultimately this is a thread about the inter-relation or exclusion of the names of the Home Nations and the UK generally, so I don't think there's much point getting drawn into anything below that in terms of convention. --Breadandcheese 14:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is interesting at the very least though. Jmlk17 05:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the analogy overall, however, the problem with the state/country analogy (and correct me if I'm wrong), is that there are more common city names in America. There are at least two well known by the name Lexington, many Springfields, and plenty of British city/county names (Suffolk, Essex, Oxford, etc.), so the state names are more important. It's not about the ease of knowledge, because the convention is perpetuated by those who use it. We shouldn't say "Newport, UK" because Americans are ignorant, or "Boston, USA" because it's not worth a European's time to memorize the states. The convention is determined by the people who use it because they need it quickly determine what city they are talking about, and adding "USA" to the end of cities is just superfluous for most Americans. tdmg 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles relating to places in Cornwall present special problems. There is a certain degree of debate about the Constitutional status of Cornwall, particularly whether or not it should be considered a part of England, and about how to refer to locations within Cornwall. A rough consensus to use the formula "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" has been hammered out at WikiProject Cornwall (after much debate at various other locations). There are periodic outbreaks of edit-warring relating to this, and I would ask & hope that any policy or guidance as suggested above take this into account. DuncanHill 23:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be an issue here with being neutral in our treatment of different countries. Personally, I find both "Boston, Massachusetts" and "Newport, Wales" entirely clear and unambiguous. But would we say (in an internationally-focused article) "Shillong, Meghalaya" and equally expect people to know where that is? Meghalaya has a population comparable to Wales or to, say, Nevada, and English is one of its official languages. If we wouldn't expect our readers to know where Meghalaya is, should we expect them to know where Wales or Nevada are? TSP 14:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

England used to be broken down into smaller countries, known as the heptarchy. The seven kingdoms were unified into England in 927. Could East Anglian, Kentish etc be valid nationalities for contemporary people on Wikipedia? Now fast forward to 1707. The same thing has happened, only England and Scotland have merged into one country, the United Kingdom. This was 300 years ago. I don't want Kentish being used as a valid nationality for recent folk, and by the same logic I'd rather have British used as a nationality than English or Scottish. For nationalities, it is my opinion that only the sovereign state at the time the person was around should be used. If we start breaking down a sovereign state into subdivisions then what limit is there? It would then become subjective and there is no place for subjectivity in Wikipedia articles. Readro 15:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that my post has initiated some discussion, but I think that my point hasn't been understood clearly. I wasn't looking for a change in convention and usage but for a clarification. I think that the usage of city, constituent country is pretty clear and analogous to city, state. However I don't understand, and this what needs to be clarified, is primarly why the flags of the constituent countries are used instead of the UK flag. And why UK isn't treated as a country like non-british people would view it. CG 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Because that's not how people view it, most people will refer to their individual nationality rather than identifying themselves as British. In the interests of disclosure I'm an expat Scot living in England.

ALR 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The UK isn't a nation, it's a country. Not every state is a nation-state, nor does every nationality have its own nation-state. Taking the Kentish example above, Kentish nationality may no longer exist today, but I suspect it did in the year 1200 -- nationalities change much more slowly than statehoods, especially for geographically-stable populations.

The page you want is British Isles (terminology). Perebourne 14:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the biggest sticking point in the debate is that we are oversimplifying the situation in most cases. As Perebourne alluded to above, while the U.K. is a sovereign state, it is not a nation. A sovereign state is one with a government that is recognized and accepted by other sovereign states as representing the entire land and population under the jurisdiction of that sovereign state in international relations. That's it. A nation is something very different. A nation represents a group of people with a common culture, language, and geographical ties. In some cases, we have nation-states (like say, France) where the sovereign state and teh nation coincide. Other times, they don't. We have nations without sovereign states (Palestine, the Basque, Quebec); we have sovereign states that bear little in common with any nations (Almost the entire continent of Africa comes to mind; Iraq is another) nations that spill over sovereign state borders (Kurdistan, for example), and multinational soveriegn states (the U.K.) There are numerous situations politically and culturally in the world. To constrain all situations to the simplified "Country-State-County" model is rediculous. Each situation should be adjudged against its own standard and not constrained to an artificial and overly simplified model. Does being a Scot and being a Virginian mean the same thing? Nope. Does being a Scot and being an American mean the same thing. Nope. The relationship between being a Scot to being a Brit is unique to that situation and should not be constrained to a model that may work in other nations. Is Scotland a nation. Yes. Is the U.K. a sovereign state that contains the nation of Scotland. Yes. Why is that hard to understand?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

To deny that Britain is a nation seems absolutely ludicrous to me. A nation is a distinct cultural community filled with people who self-identify. The vast majority of people in the UK (and a majority in every single one of its Home Nations, when presented with a full range of options) cite themselves as having some British identity. It also has a very distinct culture which spreads across the UK, and arguably into the Irish Republic (which is not a foreign state, by virtue of the Ireland Act). Objectively, you'd have a far easier time arguing that Britain was a distinct nation than Scotland or England, which are almost identical culturally save for a few historical quicks and donning kilts at weddings. I, like damn near everybody else, recognises that multiple identities do exist and therefore both Scottish and English nations can exist alongside a British nation. --Breadandcheese 05:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right about the problem of oversimplification -- but it works in ways beyond the original question whether it is correct to call someone "British" or to one of the recognized subgroups in the UK -- which arguably extend beyond "English", "Scots", "Welsh" or "Northern Ireland" not only to "Cornish" but to "Manx" & "Channel Islanders" to even arguably "Yorkshire". IMHO, while providing the nationality of a person assigns her/him to a state (e.g. "British"="U.K."), more importantly this term provides a cultural context for the person. For example, while it would be correct to say Dylan Thomas was a "Welsh poet" (he was born in Wales) or an "English poet" (that is the language he wrote in), each term puts him in a different context. (BTW, there is still a living corpus of Welsh literature, some of it written in English). In short, it is a complex issue, with a many possible points of view -- which suggests how we should approach this problem. (Yes, WP:NPOV) -- llywrch 19:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of "British" I'd have thought was more NPOV than using the subdivisions. Readro 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would you think that? Being Scottish, English or so forth is exclusively an emotional allegiance which, if included in Wikipedia, has to be inferred simply from conduct. If there was a Wikipedia article on me, I may well be labelled as Scottish - however I don't identify as such, and therefore am not. However to state that I was British, even if I did not have a British identity, would be cold, objective fact if I was a British citizen born in the United Kingdom. An example: Gerry Adams if factually British, however Tony Blair is not factually Scottish and doesn't seem to identify himself as such. I'd rather have something correct and explain how it may be inappropriate than to risk inaccuracy and resort to wild supposition. The obvious issue here is that British, despite also being identifying with a cultural nation (like Scottish, English, Welsh...) also has another attribute - it's political status. --Breadandcheese 05:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts. I've recently been swayed away from "completism" in specifying locations, especially in article leads. A typical bio article might begin: Stanton McCandlish (b. January 1, 1901, Someplace, Somestate) is a curmudgeonly American Wikipedian... To add USA after Somestate is just redundant, since the very next clause makes it clear I'm an American, and as pointed out by others above, one can simply click on Somestate to find out where it is. I think an exception would be when the birthplace is not the nationality (many people are born abroad, and failure to fully specify the birth location could be reader-misleading), and another would be cases of ambiguity, such as Punjab, which is the name of a major region in both India and Pakistan. On the Britain matter in particular, the UK is just plain strange in this regard, and we just have to live with it. The UK government itself recognizes England, Scotland and Wales as "countries" within the British "union", but does not afford this level of recognition to Cornwall despite its Wales-like separate ethnicity, culture and (flagging) language. Northern Ireland I don't even want to get into. Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales have strong nationalist movements, and in Scotland's case in particular they maintain their own unique legal system (and have all along), and have semi-recently re-established their own Parliament; they clearly have at least a passable government of their own, even if it must answer on some levels to that of the UK. Taking this stuff too seriously will lead one inexorably down the path of the declaring that the UK, and France, etc., are no longer nations but are simply subdivisions of the European Union/EEC and that modern bio articles should call Europeans "European" instead of "French" or whatever. There are other pitfalls. Many Native Americans belong to tribes that have a curious form of independent nationality, that doesn't really map onto the Wikipedia concepts "nation/country" and "nationality". Some territories are disputed. Some governments and the country names they assert (e.g. Myanmar vs. Burma) are internationally disputed. And so forth and so on. Just go with the flow, and where reasonable defer to the preferences of people who are actually from the region being written about.

Scotland has no more 'it's own government' than a county, state or province anywhere in the world. As for the European issue, I'd actually rather a page stated someone to be a European than a Scotsman: at least with the advent of European citizenship, it would be objectively accurate. However I think that would be far too great a flight of intellectual fancy contrary to common conceptions of nationality - and of course it was specifically stated that European citizenship was derivative to member-state citizenship when it was created. --Breadandcheese 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody think there's even the slightest chance that a consensus will be reached on this? It's just that I'm greatly worried not only by the massive inconsistency that this is causing but also by the strong levels of nationalism and "national ownership" (for lack of a better term) that are arising. Here's an example of something I noticed a while ago, long before any of this even occured to me. I stumbled across the Royal Bank of Scotland article and noticed that the headquarters were listed as being in "Edinburgh, Scotland". Having not noticed any other UK addresses in my wiki-travels that ended thusly I edited it to say "Edinburgh, Scotland, UK" which was instantly met with reversion. I found that quite odd as my edit was factually correct so I did some further snooping and noticed that for non-English, UK-related articles it seems to be the norm to place emphasis on the constituent country and virtually ignore mentioning the UK e.g. "Scotish inventor", "Welsh town" etc. So I naturally assumed that for consistency's sake the same would apply to English articles and yet in my experience that hasn't been the case. A good example is the J. K. Rowling article; the heated discussion of her nationality seems to arise every week. There's a concerted effort by editors who, interestingly seem to be largely uninvolved in Wiki Project Harry Potter, to change the existing text from "English author" to "British author" and occasionally even "Scotish author". I've always argued against that on the basis that 1) it's inconsistent with my experience of established practice relating to the rest of the UK and 2) in the case of "Scotish", J. K. was born in England to English parents (but that's another argument). If it comes down to it I suppose I don't really care which way the consensus falls so long as the outcome is applied consistently to all relevant articles but somehow I do feel that going with the constituent country rather than the UK as a whole is more informative and it's certainly how UK-natives refer to things/people/themselves in meatspace. Is there a way to drive things forward with, perhaps, a view to adding the issue to the MOS? Aula^TPN 22:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If you like, we're attempting to discuss a world-(wiki)-wide single disambiguation method for settlement names here. Please join in. THEPROMENADER 10:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how likely a consensus is, but I do think that there should be consistency across Wikipedia with regard to referring to people as British or English/Scottish/Welsh etc. I have no opinion as to what should be used, but I would rather there be consistency. Readro 00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a bit disappointing that this discussion hasn't progressed much. Personally I'd like to see inclusion of both British and then more local identities, but with the first taking priority. Infoboxes could very easily carry British (English) or something similar. Equally for placenames, in a UK context, only county is really required. Speaking globally and in infoboxes etc, I think UK should certainly be shown. It's creating a whole universe of problems not having a consensus on the matter and it basically becomes a battleground for those with political opinions. --Breadandcheese 03:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that on the JK Rowling page the editors are adament that she be referred to as English opposed to British. Now, if I was to change the Tony Blair page to show him as a Scottish Politician it would be reverted to British right away wouldn't it? I think the only solution is to create policy which forces the use of British. Can I just add, the idea of being Scottish or English is romantic fantasy the UK Government does not recognize its citizens as being English or Scottish but British, thus these nationalities don't exist. Gavin Scott 01:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I just had a proper look at my passport. There is a field in there which reads "Nationality: British Citizen". If by law my nationality is defined as British then that is what Wikipedia should use for all Brits. Readro 01:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to say, whatever your feelings, you are what your passport says you are. Afaik, there is no such thing as a Scottish or Welsh Passport atm. pschemp | talk 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the legal status of these peoples' nationalities has sealed the argument, we must push for consensus.Gavin Scott 08:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As I've said before, it is completely fine to note that someone is English-born, lives in England, and any other verifiable fact; but as far as nationality goes, I think it must follow their citizenship(s), as on their passport. TSP 09:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree but if the decision is going to fall that way then there's got to be some kind of official gulideline or policy to backup the correcting edits to non-English, UK articles which will almost certainly be instantly reverted. Aula^TPN 12:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. Readro 12:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that British should be the nationality. However I do accept that while not something legal, someone's Scottish/English/Welsh/Northern Irish/etc identity may be worth noting in certain circumstances within the text of an article. So that's us got a fairly respectable number in favour of this - what do we do now? I'm not entirely au fait with wikipedia policy making--Breadandcheese 14:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, saying that someone is Scottish is factual, and anything factual can be noted within the text. However, you wouldn't be able to say that someone's nationality was anything other than British. Regarding policy making, I guess we draft a policy page. Readro 15:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to stick to "Scottish-born", "of Scottish ancestry", "grew up in Scotland", "resident in Scotland"; although if all of these are true it's probably uncontroversial to call someone "Scottish". In many cases, though, it will be a matter of opinion whether the title is justified - Tony Blair (Scottish-born, Scots/Irish ancestry, grew up in England, English-resident) and J K Rowling (English-born, English ancestry, grew up in Wales, Scottish-resident) have been discussed - so in any even vaguely controversial cases it's probably best to stick to 'British' then qualify that with 'Scottish-born' and the like. TSP 16:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles), which would fit in with the other country-specific MoS guidelines. You won't get a policy about this, so a MoS proposal is the best that you can hope for. FWIW, I agree fully with the emerging consensus of this discussion. Adrian M. H. 16:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Breadandcheese - if you're making serious proposals to change policy I'd recommend some accuracy checking - "...and arguably into the Irish Republic (which is not a foreign state, by virtue of the Ireland Act)." The Irish Republic ceased to exist in 1922. If, presumably, you meant to write Republic of Ireland, then I've no idea what you mean about the RoI not being a foreign state to the UK... Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To be pedantic, I should've "small-r"-ed "republic" - The Irish Republic is a fairly informal descriptive term, the state's only name being "Éire" or rendered in English "Ireland" - not exactly precise when we're discussing matters political, cultural and whatever else you fancy thrown in for good measure. What I mean is that arguably Ireland shares in the common culture of the UK, it really isn't all that different considering what is included within the UK definition. As for Éire (to be precise) not being a foreign state to the UK, I mean just that - s.2 of the Ireland Act 1949 states: "It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty’s dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom or in any colony, protectorate" etc. It's not particularly relevant to the discussion, it was just a little aside, but save for some convenient shorthand to describe the state that lies in the south of that island, I cannot agree with you that any accuracy checking is required. Cordial regards --Breadandcheese 16:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly we do have a lot of vaguely nationalist bullshit in the UK where people regard their various regions or sub-nations as if they were sovereign states. I to have noticed the tendency to "provincialise" various bios etc as being 'Gloucester, England' or 'Aviemore, Scotland' etc. Quite frankly i think it should be immediate region "(i.e. Surrey, Moray, Cornwall, Galloway etc' and then the nation-state which is obviously 'UK'. A common POV amongst the British of various parts of that country is a problem imo and ive commented against it before. The UK is no different to France (Britanny, Languadoc, Burgunday etc) or Italy (Lombardia, Papal States, Sicily, Naples etc) or any other vaguely historic nation although its inhabitants would like to believe it is some special case. Immediate region and then overall sovereign state is the way it should be broken down i.e. "Texas, USA". siarach 23:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

RE Cornwall. There may be certain Questions over whether or not Cornwall might historically be legitimately regarded as a part of the Kingdom of England but these are irreleant to the current question. Cornwall is commonly

(whether or not this is legitimate i wont pass judgement) regarded as part of England within the UK therefore has no bearing on this current discussion. The day it is officially accepted that Cornwall is distinct to Greater England then fair enough we might discuss it as if it was truly distinct - a status only really valid for Scotland as the other founding nation of the United Kingdom - considering the fact that Ireland and Wales became parts of the UK as colonies/part of England. siarach 23:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Officially, Cornwall is defined as part of England - and when I say 'officially' I also imply legally. In common usage, England includes Cornwall and generally most people would refer to Cornwall as part of England. Therefore it shocks me that this discussion is even being had. Admittedly, the law is not everything - Scotland didn't cease to exist in 1707 only to be semi-resurrected in 1999 - however the 'historical peculiarities of Cornwall' argument doesn't hold a great deal of weight with me at all.

As for Wales and Ireland, however. Ireland was possessed, but never incorporated into England. Its first official relationship was by the Act of Union with Great Britain. Wales, on the other hand, very definitely was incorporated, but I'd say that status was lost with the various legislative interpretation measures adopted in the 1960s(?).

Returning to the original point, I agree 100% - there is an enormous double-standard when it comes to British topics. Almost every state on earth has subdivisions in the same way that the UK does, however it would be massively encyclopaedic to recognise them in this way. --Breadandcheese 07:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A word of moderation on this discussion. There has been an ongoing edit war between User:Mais oui! and [[Mallimak and associated Sockpuppets on this issue. An unknown editor User:84.9.229.167 who does not appear to have been party to these discussions is now working through various Scottish articles on the basis of this emerging policy. Has a concencus been reached and a policy determined? --Stewart 16:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I think said user and sockpuppets (I don't believe the link has been proven, and having been accused of 'IP sockpuppetry' - totally unfounded, of course - by Mais oui! before, I take everything he says with a pinch of salt) are going to be doing anything that winds him up regardless of what discussions take place here. I certainly think it's nothing to edit war over, and I'd presume that editors would await consensus and further discussion before starting a mass campaign of alteration. The said, neither should those of the contrary opinion - who are equally (perhaps more) inclined to engage in such edits - be engaged in a similar campaign. --Breadandcheese 06:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have created the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles) so that the proposal can be developed and discussed. Readro 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents pages, and lists of lists

We cannot agree on which namespace some of these pages belong in: {{Contents pages (header bar)}}:

1. What namespace do items 2–6 belong in, mainspace or projectspace? (see example log for many disputed moves) Part of the problem seems to be the overlap of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and Wikipedia:Lists.
2. If they are in mainspace, should they have the fancy but unnecessary colouring and icons? Can and are they aiming for Featured List status?
3. We desperately need more participation. I'm still shocked that Wikipedia:Contents made it into the sidebar so easily. We need more editors to go through all the subpages, to add missing items and remove unwarranted items. There aren't nearly enough people watchlisting the central talkpage to have a discussion there. (Please do, it's a very low update page. Actually all 8 are).

That's the very condensed version, with many tangential issues. Previous discussions abound, most recently here, here, here, and here.

Please advise. --Quiddity 17:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• They are in the main namespace, as evidenced by the lack of "wikipedia:" or "template:" or something else at the start of their name. If you wish to discuss their layout, either edit them yourself or use the talk page. Wrt featured lists, refer to the WP:FLC page >Radiant< 12:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Nonono. They have been moved back and forth between mainspace and projectspace a number of times. That is the problem.
    Many (most?) editors believe pages like Lists of basic topics belong in projectspace. They cannot pass Featured list criteria (WP:WIAFL), as by design they have no references or lead section. They look and act like portals, but don't belong in that namespace either.
    As the admin Prodego said (referring to List of overviews): "Obviously this is a list of Wikipedia overviews, not all overviews, so I think it probably belongs in the Wikipedia namespace." User Rbellin said: "... I don't think a move to the Wikipedia namespace is a bad idea for most of the list-of-topics/contents lists ..." User Moe Epsilon said: "Lists of topics is maintained like a WikiProject, not an article that provides disambiguation, and thus should have been moved to the Wikipedia namespace."
    The Transhumanist is the main (only?) proponent of moving them to/keeping them in mainspace (see User talk:The Transhumanist#Contents and User talk:Quiddity#Contents pages and mirrors for his reasons, which I find partly compelling, and mostly confusing).
    (With the exception of List of academic disciplines, which we all seem to agree belongs in mainspace)
    If this were simple, I wouldn't have brought it here! And as I explained, only a handful of people watchlist Wikipedia:Contents (the low participation is a major problem in itself), so it isn't productive to discuss it there. --Quiddity 17:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability Not Truth, and urban myth

A bunch of normally reliable sources have many links to vague, unsourced, unattributable, information. An example would be (but is not limited to) something like "Data on hard drives that is overwritten can still be recovered using 'mysterious, secret, methods'." Thus Wikipedia distributes urban myth. There's no real evidence that X happens, but because a lot of sources say X happens Wikipedia says X happens, and not "These sources say X happens". What should an editor do in this situation? Should I ask for sources that verify that X actually happens, or should I edit the article to reflect the fact that it's the sources that say X happens, and that X might not happen, or should I just leave it, and accept that this is what Wikipedia is? Dan Beale 10:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If there's a refutation, link to it, and replace the text. If the WP:BRD cycle results in the urban legend being reinserted, then the best we can hope for is to ensure the false claim doesn't get too much WP:WEIGHT relative to the refutation. (And if the UL violates WP:BLP, take it up to WP:BLP/N.) THF 10:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I would not take out the myth... After all, it is verifiable that A,B and C all say that X happens... even if they may be wrong. But if you can find a source that says X is an urban legend (or even that it is likely that X is an urban legend) then we should say so in the article and cite the source. If there is no source, but you feel that X is clearly an urban legend, then change the text so it attributes X to those who repeat it ("According to authors A, B and C, X happens") - without any additional editorial comment. Blueboar 14:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Straw Poll

Can anybody participate in Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Straw Poll so we can decide ehter it is a policy/guideline or not?--PrestonH 16:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, no. First, policy and guidelines are never instated by polling on them, and second, the autoconfirmed proposal is neither a policy or guideline, but rather a feature that can be requested from the developers. >Radiant< 10:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Strikethroughs as a Resolution to Subjects of Questionable Neutrality

Inaccuracy on Wikipedia is, generally, quickly corrected, especially on frequently-visited pages. However, accuracy and neutrality are not the same thing, and specific opinions are increasingly being put forward by implication. For example, the statement "Drinking Coca-Cola makes you immortal" would be easily deleted as unprovable, while statements such as "Many believe drinking Coca-Cola", or "it is often cited that drinking Coca-Cola makes you immortal" would not.

The solution to this problem is to use a tool rarely used in the main encyclopedia, the strike, which could prove invaluable to the resolution of this dilemma. It's main advantage is that, while the information is still accessible, the reader will be made aware of any biased implications and take them into account accordingly. After all, Wikipedia is about presenting the evidence, not the conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorsak (talk • contribs)

If it isn't obviously wrong, you can use {{fact}}. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Using strikethroughs in the main article?? Uh, NO, please not that! Strikethroughs are a holdover from the time before computers and delete keys. We use them talk pages to take back statements which we have thought better of, but still need to be on the talk page for contextual reasons. It certainly isn't necessary in the main space. Besides, it's UGLY! not pretty. - BillCJ 21:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Never strikethrough anything in an article. This opens the door to subjective edits (i.e. in content disputes, someone who doesn't agree with a line but cannot remove it because of 3RR can strike it through instead), distracts the reader, looks very unencyclopaedic, and clearly POV text should be removed altogether, placed inbetween <!-- --> or reworded. By the way, your example of "it is often cited that drinking Coca-Cola makes you immortal" is a bit strange, of course that sentence would be deleted (as nonsense). Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 21:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I used the "Coca-Cola" example as a neutral arguement, as I doubt, although I cannot be certain, that there is anyone who seriously believes that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorsak (talk • contribs)

• Since this is the Internet, there likely is. Anyway, striking in articles looks pretty bad. Instead, we have a variety of tags for this, and can discuss things on the talk page. >Radiant< 10:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've becomed very irritated with fair use rationale hounds.

I've noticed a recent influx of people that are going around slapping speedy delete tags on any image that happens to not state its fair use rationale. Granted, it's policy, but my problem is that these people are also tagging images that are clearly useful to the article itself. And by "clearly", I mean things like book covers and film posters, things that are standard to every article of its type. These people need to help by adding fair use rationales themselves, not by deleting the images because somebody else didn't. They are creating undue extra work that needs to be done in having to refind and resubmit these images, which is a major hassle.--SeizureDog 13:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

An excellent example of this would be J. K. Rowling. There is a widespread practice of using copyrighted images of notable people (often publicity photos) in their biographical articles under a fair-use rationale. Whereas this seems to go unchallenged in the majority of bio articles there are a few that have become targets for fair-use removals. What is the rule of thumb on this? In the last year it has proven nigh-on impossible to source a free image of J. K. Rowling for this article so why does it not meet the criteria for the fair-use of a publicity shot? And why does this particular instance take so much heat when thousands of other articles do not? Aula^TPN 14:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the major point is the one SeizureDog makes above: in case of obvious fair use rationale (eg a book cover, logo etc) people who come across it, would be more helpful to the project by adding the obvious rationale themselves instead of the comparatively lengthier process of tagging the images, contacting the uploader etc. Instead of "Tag 'n' run", WP:BB and add the rationale themselves. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the tagging and notification is being done by an approved bot (BetacommandBot, I believe). There have been many threads on this at Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. There is a lag of several days between the tagging and deletion of images, which is meant to give time for people to add a fair use rationale. The project-wide image cleanup is being done per Foundation directive. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ive done everything I can to help, BCBot tags an image notifies all uploaders, and the talkpages of any articles that the image is used on. Recently I have added WikiProject support, If your project wants to be notifed leave a note on my talkpage with the name of the template(s) that the wikiproject uses to tag articles and the page were you want BCbot to leave the notice. As a side note/reminder between tagging and deletion there is a seven day period. β^_command 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it not be possible to run a bot that does not add a deletion nomination, but just adds a request tag and a category and informs the uploading editor that an FUR is needed. Then it subsequently revisits any unchanged images after a set number of days, either re-categorising them for the attention of interested editors, who can add the rationale, or nominate them for deletion. Whichever works best in the view of those who deal with image deletions and licensing. The problem would not exist if everyone who uploads FU images added the FUR in the first place. Adrian M. H. 15:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That could work better. A major problem with the current situation is that generally only the submitter is notified that the image may soon be deleted. It's unreasonable to assume that one person will fix the problem within a week. Greater awareness would be helpful in getting images their necessary rationales.--SeizureDog 19:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the matter in depth and have serious qualms about whether the bot is duly approved. However, given the size of the problem with old images here, I've found it more constructive to actually work towards a solution than argue against the bot, as long as the people organized around deleting images are willing to pay some attention. Some kind of bot is necessary, so the real goal is finding a process that works. Wikidemo 21:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I was going to redraft my suggestion on VP Proposals, but opted out because I don't really know enough about the current established system apart from what has been discussed about Betacommandbot. Do you think that something along those lines would help? Adrian M. H. 21:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good but, again thinking of J. K. Rowling, what can we do when no free/libre image seems to be obtainable? I must say I find the (seemingly absolutionist) doctrine of free over quality to be somewhat objectionable - taking either extreme in that debate is going to lead to something which is, by definition, sub-optimal. It must surely be exceptable to use a fair-use rationale when dealing with someone/something as highly notable as JKR. How is writing the article with no image a favourable option? Aula^TPN 22:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What you can do is add a request for a free image so people reading the article will know we are looking for one. Surely there are people out there who have taken photos of her during a reading or book signing or some such, or will be eable to do so in the future. That's the point of this policy, to encourage the creation of free content rater that just using the first and best non-free image we can find on the subject. --Sherool (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

JK Rowling is someone who regularly appears in public - it can hardly be considered impossible or even difficult to get a picture. You might have a point with JD Salinger, but not here. There are various user taken photos on Flickr, have you tried asking these users if they will freely licence their images? --Cherry blossom tree 06:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've given up uploading images because of the number that are inappropriately deleted because I didn't cross the i's and dot the t's. There seem to exist a group of people who simply delight in finding any excuse to delete images, even when the ownership is described in depth. If a tag is wrong, DELETE! Trollderella 16:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've recently started writing fair use rationales for images that I actually think are fair use, and I've found it a lot easier than I thought it was going to be. Granted, I generally deal with articles about historical events rather than living people, so it's easier to justify the use of the image. But really, you just need to do a few basic things: state that the image is low resolution and give it's source, explain why it's important to use in the article it's being used in, explain why it isn't replaceable with a free content image (non repeatable historic event, corporate logo, etc.), and explain how the use of the image will not prevent the copyright holder from profiting from the image. Writing a good fair use rationale (which is the responsibility of the uploader, BTW) takes 15 minutes at most. Natalie 16:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability for places?

Honestly, I've looked long and hard but I just can't find any guidance on what makes a place notable enough to be in Wikipedia. I'm amazed at some of the tiny places around where I live which have entries on here, places that I doubt even the people who actually live there regard as terribly significant. Crimond, for example, barely even exists. I know Crimond - it's the sort of place you'd cycle through and not notice it was there (as I do, frequently). 7 kilobytes on pretty much nothing? That looks likes a vanity page to me. -88.110.150.100 16:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Towns and villages are inherently notable (see here), although there does not seem to be anywhere that it is written down as a policy/guideline. Discussions at Articles for Deletion definitely show that places are considered inherently notable. Certainly if there are census records for a place, like Crimond, it should be notable. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a bot to create articles like Cherry Valley, Pennsylvania, which is far smaller than Crimond. This is a fairly powerful precedent. WilyD 17:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Walk away from the New World, and consider the Old. Places of human habitation may have existed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, and what may now be a collection of a few homes with no local amenities may once have been then world focal point of some industry a few centuries back (i.e. like the village I live in!). If such places in Europe, Asia, Arabia and Africa are notable as places of habitation because of a likelihood of long occupation then the same notability needs to be extended toward those in the Americas and Australisia, if only for continuity. Lastly, and this is perhaps the clincher, nearly every settlement is easily and comprehensively verifiable. LessHeard vanU 18:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but the fact that I exist if verifiable, but I don't have an article. Although a small town, Crimond has a nice sized article. What I really hate is articles that say "So-and-so is a villiage in the XYZ department of Brazil" or something like that and no other information. True, it may be notable, but I'd say to delete it and recreate the article when there's some useful information. Crimond may be useful, but Seyeds and Osinniki are not. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I say keep it until a Brazilian with enough English and knowledge to expand it arrives on WP. As it is it is factual and not violating anything (i.e. = stub). There are better uses of editing time than deleting stuff because it is too sparse, IMO. LessHeard vanU 20:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, I was probably a bit harsh on Crimond. But look at the other places listed as Villages in Aberdeenshire and a lot of them are just little stubs and sub-stubs, and for many there doesn't seem much hope of there being any "notable" information to put in them. -88.109.59.160 08:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an old argument... and one that has long been settled in favor of the "inclusionist" view. There have been numerous AfD debates on such places, and the resulting consenus is that all towns, villages, hamlets, etc. (no matter how small they are or how stubby the article on them is) are "Keepers". They are considered notable just by existing. The argument that this is not consistent with the notablility requirements for other topics (the "I exist, and there isn't an article on me." argument) is not relevant... we simply have different criteria for different topics. You can go and argue your case at WP:NOTE, but I doubt that you will change consensus. Blueboar 13:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not really my case. Actually, I'm quite impressed that there is one small corner of Wikipedia where inclusionism prevails. It may be a lousy encyclopedia but it could yet be a pretty decent gazetteer... assuming of course that the deletionists who rule the rest of Wikipedia never wake up and have all the geographical inclusionists executed. But I'm not going to tip them off. -88.111.82.107 17:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Places usually have a lot more history than is contained in the Wikipedia article. To take a random example, compare Wikipedia's entry for Doddington, Cambridgeshire with its The Victory County History entry. Bluap 14:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A factual and verifiable stub is a welcome mat to someone to expand it. There's no reason to delete it. Trollderella 16:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

protection & welcoming of young teen and child editors

Today in following a talk page link, I found myself at an editor's user page and saw that he stated he is 15 years old, that he had posted his full name, and that he has email enabled on his account. I left him a welcome message and asked him to remove his last name from his page and advised him to keep his personal information private.

This got me thinking about how many editors there must be who are children or young teens, and how Wikipedia policy and practice addresses that concern.

Does anyone know if Wikipedia has statistics on how many children or young teens are actively editing?

I did some searching and found this essay: Wikipedia:Youth protection. It is not a policy or a guideline, though it does contain some important information.

I was not able to find anything else about this. Does anyone know of a current policy or guideline on this topic? If so, please provide the link.

If there is not such a guideline, there should be. We need it both for adult editors-in-general to know the parameters of interacting with self-identified child editors, and we also should have a special welcome template that is written for child editors - or maybe two versions - one for children and one for young teens.

For example, it doesn't help to have a guideline that experienced Wikipedia adult editors know about if the children editors are not aware of it and themselves make the mistake of posting their photograph or personal information on their user pages. If we had a welcome template for young editors, and we made sure that editors in general are aware of it - for example by adding a link to it in the basic welcome templates - then when an editor goes to post on a user's talk page, if they see that the user is a self-identified child editor, they could add the template, which would explain to the child that they should protect their own identity, not use their real name, not post their birthday or school name, photo, etc.

We might consider a procedure or guideline to allow editors, or administrators, within guidlines, to remove personally identifiable information from user pages of children.

In addition to the details listed in the Wikipedia:Youth protection essay, we should also consider what happens when a child encounters the various kinds of Wikipedia editor personalities or challenges on talk pages, etc, and how the child or young teen communicates themselves. For example, most of us have encountered disruptive or tendentious editors, and sometimes their comments can be quite insulting or even downright mean. How would a child experience comments like that directed at them? Maybe the child editor welcome template should include some advice on how to not take that personally, or what to do if someone is mean to them.

The child-editor welcome template could also include instructions for a child about what to do if someone tries to email them from their user page, or if someone posts inappropriate content on their page. We do have the Wikipedia:Youth protection essay for adults to read, but that doesn't help the child know what to do if someone contacts them inappropriately.

As it is now, do we even have a place for a child to report a problem? WP:AN could be, but it's pretty complicated for someone young and inexperienced. Maybe a simpler page would be better for this. It would probably not be very active, but if something appeared there, it could be important.

I'm not sure about where to draw the lines on this, so I am posting the concern here to generate some discussion.

Maybe this is a non-issue because we don't have many child-editors, or maybe this has already been worked out, so if it has, please let me know.

But if not, let's discuss it and come up with some guidelines. --Parzival418 _Hello 22:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all I will say "Wikipedia is not censored", just to get it out of the way, and secondly it is the parents responsibility to ensure that a child/young teen does not interact on inappropriate websites (and it should be the parents decision whether Wikipedia is appropriate.)

Now that I have got those out of the way, I think the best area to place information to assist younger contributors would be a dedicated help page in the help section. It should contain useful info such as not giving out your real name (first names either) or personal details, and how to deal with rude adults, and the fact that they may be exposed to content that may upset them (or their parents if they found out), and to get further help dealing with the issues. With the best will in the world I don't think we should even encourage young people to edit, but have some place where they can find out how best to contribute if they insist on doing so. In no way should we compromise the ethics of wikipedia, but the community has to recognise its responsibility toward the younger members. LessHeard vanU 22:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right to raise this issue. I agree with LessHeard vanU as well. To be honest, as I'm not a parent, I have never thought about this issue in relation to WP before; that might well be the case for a lot of editors. From the talk page of that essay, I saw Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy, so there have clearly been some attempts to raise this issue more than once. I'm sure not why it wasn't sufficiently well received to progress further, but if it can do so now, I think it would be a very good thing. Ethics and the safety of minors are very important indeed (stating the obvious there, really) and being free of censorship need not get in the way of that at all. Adrian M. H. 23:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There was an ArbCom ruling related to this but it was rejected - but the community was encouraged to find a (alternative?) way to protect minors - or worded to that effect. Perhaps a page, such as Wikipedia:Information for minors, could be linked to the registration page or something. x42bn6 Talk Mess 09:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea - that would be a place where everyone registering an account would see it. We could combine that idea with LessHeard vanU's idea of a dedicated page in the help area, perhaps by adding the information in the help area, but putting the link to that page in the registration page. It seems to me we need three pages, and a policy or guideline consensus (I don't know how that process works). The pages I think we need are:

(1) policy or guideline page, similar to Wikipedia:Youth protection, but improved to the point of being an official page, and also including information for parents.

(2) child-friendly help page, linked from the registration page, written for minors, to introduce them to Wikipedia and give them the basics they need, like - don't post your photo, don't use your real name, where to report problems, etc... That page could also include a section for parents to read.

(3) help page for adults, added to the various informal welcome templates, with information about what to do if they run across a child-editor in a problem situation, such as - personal info on their user page, or being harrassed by rude editors, or perhaps a young editor violating policy unintentionally, but just because they are not likely to have read and/or understood the rules.

I'm not saying we should be going way out of our way to make Wikipedia a place for minors, but we do have young editors already, so there is a need for our system to manage their involvement in a way that's safe, friendly and effective.

A few questions -

• I'm not a parent either (someone else above also mentioned they are not) - It would be good to request help with this from editors who have experience with kids, perhaps editors on education articles or articles about parenting, who may be teachers or parents with direct experience. Does anyone have any ideas about the best place to post that request?
• If the pages listed above get some consensus and I or someone else creates the pages, what kind of process would we need to go through to get the link added to the registration page, or to get the pages accepted as formal guidelines? I can do some work on this, but I can't do it all myself, and I need to know how big a project it could become.
• Do you think this is the right place to continue this discussion, or is there a better forum for this? I'd like to invite editors from education or parenting and need a place to link the invitation to. Maybe some of the welcoming committee editors would be interested in this as well. Thanks for the responses on this so far. --Parzival418 _Hello 19:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speaking as an editor considered a "young teen" by your definition, I don't want to be "protected and welcomed". I want to be treated like anyone else. -Amarkov moo! 19:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. But please consider that you are probably tougher and smarter than many other young teens or even younger kids. The reason I posted this whole section is that I saw an example of a problem with a young editor who did not understand why he was being warned about being blocked, by an adult who was rude to him - The kid was upset that a page he had worked hard on was being changed, and he didn't seem to understand why that was happening. You are clearly tough and smart enough to handle that kind of thing, but some kids are younger or less tough and might need some help or advice.

I am not suggesting that there would be different rules for kids (other than not posting their photos or personal identifying information), I am only suggesting that we have a page or two for kids to read - if they need it. If you don't need that, you could just skip it. Also, if a young editor does not identify themselves as being a kid or young teen, then none of this applies, because no-one would know. This only applies to users who identify themselves as kids or young teens. As soon as they do that, we need to consider their safety and try to prevent any real-life problems that could result from their posting their information here. (By young teens, I mean minors legally, but especially younger teens). Google for example indexes Wikipedia, so if a kid posts private personal information here, it can be found by anyone using Google. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm creating Wikipedia:Young Users. Can you help make it longer? (P.S. Can someone make the help page too?) ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 17:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that started, good idea. I can't work on it at this moment, but I will help with it as soon as I can. --Parzival418 _Hello 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov, I'm not really sure how old you are, but there is a big difference between a 10 year old user and a 16 year old user. I would say that the suggestion of having one page for teenagers and one page for children is probably a good idea. Perhaps the teenager page could emphasize the "Wikipedia is not myspace" aspect as well. Natalie 18:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continued at: Wikipedia talk:Young Users

Interested editors, please visit with your comments at Wikipedia talk:Young Users. If anyone knows editors who are parents or educators, please invite them as well. Thank you. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Killing Trivia sections: OK or not?

Considering that "Trivia" or "Pop culture" sections keep popping up like mushrooms after a rainstorm, I would like to know if it would ever be acceptable for an editor to unilaterally remove one of these sections from an article. The consensus seems to be that Trivia is "bad" but deleting a giant section of an article might not be looked upon very kindly, either. So, for example, if I was to remove the "in Popular culture" section from the article Mr. T, would I be violating any kind of policy (assuming I announced my intentions beforehand on the talk page)? GhostPirate 06:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all trivia is actually trivia, but more like a misc. section of an article. WP:TRIVIA talks about finding good homes for the relevant information, if there is any. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to work information into the article where possible. Whatever other randomness is left, I typically move to the article talk page with a notice that it needs to be worked into the body... and anything unsourced needs to be sourced or stay out of the article altogether. Lara♥Love 06:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove a trivia section because it is labeled Trivia. Individual items in a trivia section (which are usually in my experience formatted as bulleted lists) should be removed if they are unsourced or, well, trivial. — The Storm Surfer 04:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested an approach over at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#A nontrivial matter of Trivia; I didn't realize that I was duplicating the existing discussion here. In any case, I would suggest that

• Where an article is mature (established for a long period of time, fairly stable, and comprehensive); and
• where little or no recent effort has been made to incorporate material from the trivia section into the body of the article (the dated maintenance categories are helpful here)

it would be appropriate to move the entire Trivia section to the article's talk page. No information is lost, and the people who are saying that 'Well, eventually the trivia section's material will be added to the article body' can put their money where their mouths are. I wouldn't tend to kill trivia sections in new articles, as they can be a quick way to gather facts on a topic. I recommend further discussion take place at the Proposals Pump thread linked above. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is bolding necessary for the article title?

I asked this on Wikipedia talk:Lead section but received no answer. On an article like Interstate 15 in Arizona, bolding the title but not linking within it results in ridiculous sentences like "Interstate 15 in Arizona is the portion of Interstate 15 in the U.S. state of Arizona." Is the proper solution to bold nothing? --NE2 00:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:MoS the article subject should be bolded in the first instance of use, and not contain wikilinks. You could try using alternative text to the wikilink required, so your example would be typed; "'''Interstate 15 in Arizona''' is the portion of [[Interstate 15|the highway]] in the [[U.S. state]] of [[Arizona]], United States." This allows the link to Interstate 15 with a more natural style of writing. LessHeard vanU 10:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC) ps. You were, of course, intending to note the nation alongside the state!? ;~)

I have seen some articles, where such usage is cumbersome, "creatively" using the bolding, and have not seen objections. For example, you could start the article something like Interstate 15 is a major Interstate Highway in Arizona. Of I-15's XXXX total mileage, XXXX miles are in Arizona. Not sure if that usage is completely frowned upon, and not sure I did it perfect, but that might give you some more ideas on how to stay within the bounds. Remember, ignore all rules, especially where said rules make for a worse article. Bending of the rules where said rules actually produce a worse article is encouraged, as long as just IAR cases are easily justified... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that it says If the topic of an article has no name, and the title is simply descriptive...the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface. I think this is probably the case with Interstate 15 in Arizona. — The Storm Surfer 05:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's actually a convention of the Wikimedia software. If you link to the article you're in, the text is bolded, but not linked. See: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). --John Nagle 05:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Change to fair use rationale requirement

Please see the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#A rational change (pun intended). —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fun with the GFDL

Here's a funny little story which played out last week. It's not the first time this happens but it's rarely so delightfully clear. Take a look at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Fcb981 A user wants to licence his images so that commercial use of them is not allowed. He gets told that this isn't allowed and his images will be deleted - he has to use a free licence. Oh dear, an impasse. But wait! Someone comes and suggests he can just use the GFDL - its terms are so onerous that they'll effectively stop almost all commercial use of the images. The user happily switches to GFDL-only and the images are kept. Brave GNU world we live in... Haukur 23:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Murdering doctors

I find it distasteful that two doctors who were never thought of murderers but assisted two famous people to die (Max Schur for Sigmund Freud and Bertrand Dawson, 1st Viscount Dawson of Penn for George V of the United Kingdom) are in a category with Josef Mengele and Harold Shipman. The category was created by Special:Contributions/Malick78 who keeps on reverting me when I try and remove the categories from these two doctors. I would appreciate other opinions on whether I am in the right here. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Categories For Discussion debate on Category:American murderers may be relevant here.

The basic problem is that the category does not provide a verifiable standard for inclusion; so can never be a verifiable and NPOV category.

I would suggest that, like the above, it should be renamed Doctors convicted of murder, and exclude all that do not fit this. In the case of euthanasia, Doctors who have performed euthanasia would in any case be more useful, and avoid POV questions of terminology, even in jurisdictions where euthanasia inevitably puts the doctor in danger of a murder conviction.

Murder is not a synonym for killing, and should generally, I think, be saved for legal judgements. Many factors can lead a court to decide that something brought before them as murder is in fact manslaughter or no crime at all; I don't think it's a term that should be applied indiscriminately to all forms of killing in the absence of any legal judgement. TSP 13:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is too wide a category, making it open to abuse such as inapporiate labelling that the nominator is objecting to. In my view, this is a valid candidate for WP:AfD, as the subject is a WP:POV fork and should be redirected to a more appropriate Category such as Doctors of Medicine convicted of murder, of which only Harold Shipman might justifiably qualify. --Gavin Collins 17:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's good to have a verifiable standard for inclusion. But to simplify the category name, how about 'Medical doctors convicted of murder.' EdJohnston 17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. (Also, 'medical doctor' is an occupation, whereas 'doctor of medicine' is a qualification; I think what we care about here is people who practiced as doctors, not people who happened to hold an MD.)

'Medical practitioners' might be a viable alternative, to broaden the scope a little - for the purposes of the category, nurses are probably as relevant as doctors. TSP 10:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've taken this to WP:CFD to suggest a rename. >Radiant< 11:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The debate is hotting up. --Gavin Collins 09:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am quite honestly shocked that this category didn't have any sort of abortion related disputes. But really, it's a timebomb. Natalie 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• The result of the debate was rename to Category:Doctors convicted of murdering their patients --Kbdank71 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

I beleive that a Spoiler Warning should be manditory for all plot summaries that give away all or most important details. For those many who have never been on Wikipedia and think that a plot summary is just an overview like on the back or front of a book. It takes like only 5 seconds to add. It is kind to all. Rembrant12 22:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SW. — Bob • (talk) • 04:12, July 24, 2007 (UTC)

After a lot of recent discussion, the general consensus is that plot summary sections should not carry a generic warning template, since the section title makes it clear there are pot details. See the link above (the talk page) for links to the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the template was initially listed for deletion, and that triggered an intense discussion about spoiler warnings, which resulted in them being no longer required in articles on movies, tv episodes and the like.--Kylohk 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

But it does not make that clear everywhere. No offence but you are doing something that many people do. You beleive that if you know something that seems obvious to you, it is obvious to everyone. IT IS NOT! It is not clear in saying "Plot Summary" it gives awway details. I myself first believed it was an overview with no important details put up. And I am not saying put up a template but just "SPOILER WARNING, gives away important information" will make it clear to everyone that it gives away details. Rembrant12 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

By going on Wikipedia and trying to find plot details, any sensible person would expect that there will be spoilers on the book. It's simple intuition. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

When 70-80% of all sections titled plot summery, or some variation of, had a spoiler warning of some sort, mostly because it was titled as a plot summery or some variation of, it just proved that it was a pointless warning. --Farix (Talk) 23:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have said, you are still being short minded. IT IS NOT OBVIOUS!!!!! It is not a pointless warning! Many people including myself thought it to be an overview with no details given away. You must specify these things! Rembrant12 19:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, to NOT give the plot away would be a serious lapse. The subject of the article has to be discussed in detail in a fair and balanced manner as with all encyclopaedia's. The fact that it includes a large number of popular history, literary and televisual articles should really not impact on it being a store of factual information. Would readers of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica expect to be warned that a page they are about to read may give away the plot of book? Not likely, they would expect the article to examine the whole plot in depth and give information on it's creation, real-life equivalents, social impact and literary impact. Why should Wikipedia be different? - Foxhill 19:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Encyclopedia entries most of the time have no legitimate reason to give the whole plot away. Encyclopedias typically don;t go into that level of detail on fiction works, and shouldn't. If someone does it either should be removed or should be tagged to warn people. One or the other. DreamGuy 09:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they go into that much detail? Choosing some B-class articles of books that I particularly like; Nineteen Eighty-Four contains all of the above, as does The Lord of the Rings. The LOTR's component books all contain extensive plot details even down to chapter summaries as at The Two Towers, something used also in Brave New World. The article on Fahrenheit 451 provides the plot (including the ending) as well as exploring the themes and cultural impact of the book, and yet none of these seem to require spoiler warnings. Foxhill 10:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Allright. You are being short-minded still so I will give you insight on a mind like mine. I did not first beleive Wikipedia to be and encyclopedia. I believed it to be a website with good and yet totally horrible information. Not many people are genius's like you believe yourself to be or are. You must delve into the mind of others to actually help and be kind to them. You refuse to look into the subject and put it in lamen terms. You must learn that to keep people happy and coming to Wikipedia you must be kind to those and understand those less intillegnt that you. You must learn that to must people plot summary is an overview and till you know this, as I have been trying to explain, Wikipedia will never, I repeat NEVER cease to make people disappointed and angry. Rembrant12 19:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[deleting myself -- wrong page, sorry] Claudia 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to "keep people happy". If it was, we would have deleted all images of Mohammed long ago and we wouldn't we have this content disclaimer. --Farix (Talk) 19:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That is true but, we need to try to be kind to people so they come back. 10 seconds of time and it makes all the difference. Rembrant12 19:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree wi/ all. Razorclaw (talk · contribs) 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to discuss this. — The Storm Surfer 14:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• As has been said before, Warning: Wikipedia may contain information. If you do not wish to learn about stuff, might I suggest you not use the internet. >Radiant< 11:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive what I am about to say, but, YOU IMBASOLS. You are treating this with the belief that everyone has the same considerable brain power. I cannot say you are understanding, for you are as understanding about this as Hitler was about the Jews. I say add SPOILER WARNING to the template. that would be good. Rembrant12 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright of certain works of modern art

I've noticed that a number of images depicting works of modern art are tagged as copyrighted and included in WP under fair use, despite the fact that the artists have died more than 70 years ago. Shouldn't these images be considered as being in the Public Domain? I've seen this pattern in quite a few images and have inquired in the relevant Image talk pages, however (a) I want to know if my reasoning is correct and (b) if it is correct, it would be interesting to find out weather this is a generalized pattern with more such images of works of art whose creators died more than 70 years ago and have been inappropriately tagged as copyrighted.

The images I've spotted so far are these:

• Image:'PIÉTA', drypoint by Lovis Corinth, 1920.jpg, creator Lovis Corinth died in 1925
• Image:Deer in the Woods II.jpg, crator Franz Marc died in 1916
• Image:The Fate of the Animals.jpg, as above
• Image:Fighting Forms.jpg, as above
• Image:Franz Marc The Lamb.jpg, as above
• Image:'Standing Youth', cast stone sculpture by Wilhelm Lehmbruck, 1913, Museum of Modern Art (New York City).jpg, creator Wilhelm Lehmbruck died in 1919

--Michalis Famelis (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If they died over 70 years ago then they are public domain. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that a photograph of a sculpture such as "Standing Youth" above will have its own copyright separatefrom the sculpture. Dsmdgold 12:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So, the 70 year limit is correct? Is it safe to re-tag at least the above images? Oh, and is there any other place on WP I could inquire about this? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That is my understanding. In my opinion the apropriate tag would be {{pd-art}} for everything except the picture of the Lembruck sculpture. Dsmdgold 02:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so quick. The photos of these works of art may be indeed copyrighted, by the Museum, the photographer, or the owner of the work of art. {{pd-art}} is not suitable. You need to provide the source of the image and the proper licensing tag added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought one couldn't claim copyright on a reproduction of a previously copyrighted item. There was a debate a few weeks ago about an unmodified scan of an old image (really old, like 1600s) that a library was claiming copyright over, and I think it was determined that they could not claim copyright on the scan. But perhaps I'm remembering this wrong. Natalie 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Natalie is correct, unless you were referring to a photo of a sculpture. Accurate photographic reproductions of two-dimensional images are not independently copyrightable in the U.S., because such photos lack the requisite originality or creativity—all you've done is make an accurate copy. American copyright law only protects creative expression, not labor or skill. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (and more generally, Feist v. Rural). However, photographs of three-dimensional objects are independently copyrightable because the photographer has to make creative choices as to composition, lighting, etc. Postdlf 02:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. English Wikipedia follows US copyright law, under which the "70 years after death" rule is not relevant (except in a few rare cases). Usually, the work needs to have been published (e.g., reproduced in a book, on a postcard, on a poster, etc.) prior to 1923. Works published after 1923 can be public domain in certain circumstances if the first publication was outside the US, but this is a bit complicated; see this chart for more. —Celithemis 01:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The "70 years after death" rule is U.S. law - take a look at Wikipedia:Public domain#Artworks. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That guideline is extremely misleading. The 70 year rule applies only to works not published until after December 31, 2002. That can happen, but it's a rare case. If a painting got published in an exhibition catalog, art book, magazine or newspaper article, or anywhere else prior to 2003 -- even once -- then the life+70 rule does not apply. That's going to be the case for most works that have received enough attention for anyone to bother including them in Wikipedia in the first place. —Celithemis 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think we can safely (and pragmatically) assume that a famous painting/painting by a famous artist has been "published," absent information to the contrary ("this painting remained hidden in the artist's basement until decades after his death"). Postdlf 02:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Which means the current guideline needs to be changed. I'm trying to start discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Misleading_advice_on_artworks. —Celithemis 01:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonfree images on the Main Page

There have been several reverts on the Main Page today based on whether or not the blurb for the Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion article should use a copyrighted picture of the painting itself. Following a discussion about the picture at Talk:Main Page#Fair use image on the main page?, it looks like the subject is being reopened for discussion on the issue at large at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions#TFA/Main Page exemption, revisited. It'd be helpful to get some broad discussion to determine the community's consensus on the issue. 17Drew 21:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Question related to article deletion

Good morning,

The other day I discovered that an article was posted on Wikipedia related to a member of my family. My cousin was convicted of drug manufacturing and smuggling in the United Kingdom and is currently serving a twenty year sentence there. I find it disgraceful that an article has been posted about him - especially as the article discusses the matter in a manner that is subtly biased toward his so-called "cause".

What can I do to have this article removed?

Thank you.

First, you need to tell use the name of the article. This would also probably get a better response at WP:ANI or WP:BLPN, which are watched more closely. --Eyrian 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've raised the Casey William Hardison article at WP:BLPN after inquiring on the user's talk page. THF 15:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Video game article naming conventions

I have proposed a new guideline on video game article naming conventions here. These are all things that we have been going by but haven't been written down yet. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed at WP:COI

WP:COI simultaneously refers to two things:

• The existence of a conflict of interest; and
• The conflict of interest policy

This leads to unnecessary confusion: WP:COI permits editors with a conflict of interest to participate on Wikipedia, subject to certain procedural limitations, but other editors misread that to believe that the existence of a conflict of interest violates WP:COI, leading to a lot of time wasted on the COI noticeboard. (For example: WP:COI requires editors with a conflict of interest to discuss edits on the talk page. An editor left a lengthy report accusing me of violating WP:COI because I was discussing edits on the talk page while I had a conflict of interest.) Someone can be subject to WP:COI and comply with WP:COI: it's a two-part inquiry, and some sort of disambiguation is necessary to distinguish the two to avoid these problems. THF 08:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• The solution is probably rewording the header of the policy to make it clearer. >Radiant< 09:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Radiant. I have done precisely what you suggested. Can some administrators take a look and comment? THF 22:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

people only "notable" due to one event?

What's the policy on articles on people that seem to be "notable" only for one event? For instance, I just ran across Glenn Kopitske. It's a great article - well sourced and everything. But would Glenn be notable for any other reason? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

'Notability' is not part of policy. Verifiability is what's important. Trollderella 17:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLP1E. Adrian M. H. 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jonny Wilkinson and Andrew Flintoff were awarded honours for what were just one-offs against Australia, so on that basis notability should not particularly highly thought of. Certainly in Flintoff's case the honour was signally un-warranted and undermines the value of the award to those who were more deserving of it. --JohnArmagh 17:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, it depends on what the event is. Some events are more notable than others, thus those who participated in them are more notable. Blueboar 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article Glenn Kopitske is about a notable person. The crime itself isn't notable in my opinion. I'd say {{subst:prod}} it, or take it to WP:AFD. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The important thing is 'how verifiable is it'? Trollderella 17:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The argument that people known for a single event are not notable is soft at best. Some events are infamous, of lasting importance, influential on other events, etc. What it's really getting at is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Matters of fleeting interest shouldn't be covered. These people too are known for a single event or achievement, yet quite notable: Neil Armstrong, Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark Spitz. Wikidemo 18:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So how long do we wait to see whether Lady Bird Johnson or Johnny Appleseed planting one tree is notable or the notable start of an event or industry? (SEWilco 19:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

I think you'll wait a while before a non-stub like that can be verifiably written - let's see a real-world example of what you're talking about. Trollderella 23:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an oddly written article, tending me to believe that it's a copyright violation. But at any rate it isn't really abour Mr. Kopitske, or for that matter about Mr. Hirte, who hasn't been dignified with an article. It's an article about the event which may or may not be notable, and which I gather is filed nuder the name of the victim for lack of a better way to catalog it. Mangoe 21:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's part of a kind of series - Violence against LGBT people links to a number of (quite well-written and sourced) articles about LGBT victims of murder or violence, often linked to only from that article. TSP 21:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There's some useful discussion in the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm#Pseudo-biographies. I quote:

An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event or position and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context.

Note that this doesn't say you shouldn't have an article about a person connected primarily with only one event, just that in cases where you have very little other verifiable information about them, you shouldn't try and create an unbalanced biography based on available info. Dcoetzee 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent point. This article reminds me a lot of the Anna Svidersky article in that (unlike Lee Harvey Oswald, Neil Armstrong etc) I don't think either the individual or the event are likely to be remembered 10 years from now much less a hundred.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Disregarding soapboxing to the contrary, if someone is notable only for one event we tend to avoid an article on that person, because such articles tend to get focused on the event instead, becoming a coatrack and/or WP:BLP hazard. Generally, the article on the person is redirected to the article on the event. >Radiant< 10:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's really an article about one event, rather than a biography of the person, then move it to a title that reflects that. In this case, it's become Glenn Kopitske murder, although I think Murder of Glenn Kopitske would be better. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Biting newcomers

Moved to WT:U Melsaran 18:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

GFDL copy & paste

As a RC-patroller, I see it several times a day, that users move content per copy & paste (or cut & paste) from one article to another one, neither mentioning at least the 5 main authors of the original article nor terming the original article. In my understanding (and as we handle this so on de.wikipedia) this is a violation of the GFDL (esp. section 4B).

Example (only to illustrate the point, the question is more generally):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Good_Things_%28song%29&diff=148966911&oldid=147052721 cut of the content
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Good_Things&diff=148966742&oldid=77943702 paste

In these cases, contrary to a page move, the history get lost and it seems that the copy&paster is the only author of the content. I wonder why it was told me that such things are no violation of the GFDL and this is tolerated. --Oxymoron⁸³ 17:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Original authors need to be credited. If the edit summary for the paste doesn't credit the original, then do a null edit on the destination to note the original source. And on the original article's talk, note that some content was merged elsewhere. The logic is the same as for an article merge; which is what this is, and we don't delete the history of merged articles in order to ensure that the original authorship data remains intact. GRBerry 21:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks GRBerry. Additional question: What to do if an user creates a redundant copy of an article disregarding the GFDL? (example: this is a copy of that). On de.wikipedia the copy would be deleted immediately. My speedy deletion request to the copied article in the example was denied (probably csd g12 is the wrong reason for the speedy deletion, but I'm not aware of a better possibility). Maybe at the moment nobody cares about the copy, but in the future it can become problematic to keep the original/correct history if more mergers and splits to the original article are done. I suppose a version deletion (as would be done if copyrighted content derives from another website) is obligation, isn't it? Noting the original source of the unusable copy makes less sense in this case as it's a redirect now. --Oxymoron⁸³ 00:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In all cases it is vital that the copyright holder is credited. Anything that removes this credit is a breach of the license. Trollderella 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that copy paste moves were generally not tolerated, which is why the move button exists. It's one thing if someone is merging to articles together, but if someone is just renaming the article they really should be using the move button. That is, after all, why it's there. Natalie 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason doesn't matter - any move that removes the attribution to the copyright holder is a breach of the license. Trollderella 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• disagree "List on the Title Page" says GFDL. We do not do that, ever. We don't have a title page. The five main contributers to any article may me burried far away in ancient history. By editing wikipedia we implicitly "release" this requirement of GFDL. If text is copied from one article to another, it suffices to mention from where it was copied, and we do not need to look for or mention who exactly wrote it. We give away whatever we write — without losing it ourselves. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)