Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new other than a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

« Archives, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198

Software

Why does it always seams that it is an important thing if software is open source, proprietary or something like that. It is often mention first in articles, in infoboxes, in comparison of different software... I think most people care more about the price than this. How many think about if you can read/edit the source, very few does that. I think it gets a to big role in the articles (it can be mentioned of course, but not the way most articles does). (This discussion will probably not change anything, guess there are too many open-source fanatics here, like GNU/Linux-geeks. Helpsloose 23:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether software is open source is important in terms of licensing and support (whether for better or worse); both of which are significant factors for businesses thinking about adopting new products. Some companies, for example, will only adopt software that has a strong support model, whereas for others the price is a key determinant. These can vary significantly between closed and open source models. — RJH (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There might also be more information available about open software which can be examined, rather than the amount of information which a manufacturer releases. That depends upon the particular item. (SEWilco 03:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

But it plays a too important role in many articles. Helpsloose 17:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you pointed out specific problems, instead of vague claims of the subject being "too important" in unnamed articles. -- 68.156.149.62 12:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he/she means that, besides other things, Open Source is generally considered a political issue, too. So he/she possibly tries to hint at the supposed fact that Wikipedia is too political here. The real issue behind this being, of course, the sad fact that most people are still not aware how much they can, and already do, benefit from the increasing amount of Open Source software. --217.232.218.170 11:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It was actually not my point. I already said my point. It is put more weight on the issue than necessary. See for example here [[1]], almost first in the article, like it is one of the most important thing. Also one of the first in this page [[2]]. There is probably many others. Helpsloose —Preceding comment was added at 17:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Helpsloose on one point: the use of green and red in the chart in the second link to designate open source vs. non-open source definitely puts a political slant on the issue favoring open source. Maybe the community is fine with this, but it's certainly not a neutral view on the topic. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

License plate numbers in images?

Do we have any guidelines here for whether licence plate numbers can appear in images? This recently uploaded image [[3]] is of an unmarked (or personally-owned) police car in Slovakia. It's a beautiful shot but the plate number is clearly visible and I don't know if that's cool or not. Do we have any precedent about whether plate numbers need to be airbrushed out in this situation? Squidfryerchef 22:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I can't think of any specific policy on it, though one could argue that it should be airbrushed or otherwise obfuscated in compliance for privacy and in keeping with the living persons guideline (since the license plate is only slightly less personal info than posting someone's DL number, at least in the US), especially for a personally-owned car. The license plate could trace back to a living person. So my off the cuff 2 cents is that a readable plate shouldn't be seen in an image. Collectonian 02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian. Unless this person is ok with their license plate being shown, and has said as much, a courtesy blurring or blotting of the number would probably by the best option. I can't imagine such a modification would cause any problems in regards to attribution or license used. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In general, I disagree. A license plate on image of a car (absent any other context) is not significantly identifying information. I can walk down any street and get dozens of license plates without knowing anything significant about their owners. Now if the caption said, this is Bill Person's BMW and it had an identified license plate, that would be entirely different. But I don't see any need to remove isolated pieces of information taken out of context, any more than I feel the need to blur out all of the potentially identifiable faces in photographs of a crowd.

All of that said, in this specific case of a license plate on an undercover police car, it is the kind of specific context where removing the plate is probably a good idea. Dragons flight 02:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The police in this case could if they wanted have arrested the photographer if they didn't want the picture taken so why are we worrying about it .Garda40 19:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that in this particular case the courtesy blurring of an in service undercover vehicles plate would be an option. I would hazard a guess that the blurring of all non-relevant plates to halt possible identity theft is not within Wikipedia's remit. If some governments are silly enough to sell their licence databases to anyone who wants them (such as the US DMV), and those buyers charge one-off fees on the internet to anyone who wants all the information related to that plate isn't our problem. 86.21.74.40 03:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Dragon's Flight. It's not exactly private when you slap it on your car and go for a drive (unlike your DL number or SSN, which presumably you keep to yourself). As for this image, it's not exactly undercover with that red light on the roof. Not sure I see a privacy problem with it. --Kbdank71 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify. I don't think it's an unmarked in the sense that it's used for undercover detective work, i think it's for traffic enforcement. The notes with the pic said it was taken at such-and-such highway in Slovakia. Squidfryerchef 03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There may also be a law in that country that prohibits the disclosure and publication of police and other government vehicles for security purposes. Otherwise we could all produce a database on such vehicles which would pose a national security threat. Better to obscure the undercover vehicle's plate. --Andmark 15:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but "While I don't have anything definite, there might well be a law against (blank) somewhere!" is not and has never been a justification for removing anything on Wikipedia, nor should it be; our standing orders are to report any legitimate legal concerns to WP:AN and the Foundation's full-time legal counsel) who will then bump it up the ladder to Jimbo as necessary. Any more than that is WikiLawyering and beyond our individual mandate to act.

For the record, and in keeping with the Project's status as a "neutral source of encyclopedic information", I oppose any material alteration of an image unless it's WP:OFFICE ordered or manifestly designed to improve the image in some inoffensive way. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 21:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with showing this information. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

IMHO : Since we can get a name and address for a few bucks (and a SSN from there if you pay enough), the general rule should be to avoid showing a license plate. To state “Not our problem if DMV sells the info” is a bit short sighted. There is a difference between a single guy walking on the street, me placing the plate on my car for all to see (an obligation by law) and showing it to millions. Modern character recognitions also makes it a “big brother” issue. This being said, in this specific case, it’s a civil servant and I have liberal views on obtaining information on any government activity. They should have nothing to hide, be it a blue collar sleeping on the job in a city truck, a cop giving a ticket, or the mayor’s aid in a red light district. Finally I bow to Bullzeye’s opinion, if the picture is considered Art by the author he should have the last word on a case by case basis. YegLi (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with users of questionable mental stability

This issue is an important question for Wikipedia policy. How should administrators and the average user deal with other users who are mentally ill? What qualifies as mental illness? Where should the line be drawn? In terms of this matter, my view may be seen as rather strict. I believe that the contributions of an editor do not factor in their judgment if they have shown to be irrational and abusive towards other users. This is similar to how I think abusive editors (even if they are not mentally ill) should be treated. Currently, the administration seems to take a very laissez-faire approach. This is causing a great deal of harm here at Wikipedia as a whole and to individual users. - Cyborg Ninja 06:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to address this problem with any kind of guideline or policy, because it is a difficult problem even for mental health professionals in face-to-face situations. It will probably have to be dealt with on a case-to-case basis. Wikipedia assumes rationality and good faith, but as an activity it is vulnerable to intrusion by the corrupt, the malicious, and the deranged. The barbarians are always at the gates, and it only takes a few to destroy a civilization or a Wikipedia. We also have to recognize that Wikipedia has become an arena for contests for power. The high ranking :of its articles in the search engines is also an incentive for invasion, at first by subtle and skilled efforts that can seem to be "civilized" in this context but which if not repelled will eventually destroy the project. Jon Roland 07:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, in general, takes a very laissez-faire approach -- it's one of the fundamental precepts of our philosophy, in general, both a great strength and a source of many problems. For my part, I'd rather we avoided throwing around a bunch of unqualified, amateur guesses as to whether so-and-so has such-and-such illness, and just focused on the issue of a person's participation in the project. Are they contributing? Is their behavior disruptive or productive? Is there anything we as a community might do to help them become a better editor? What chance of improvement is there? Again, as I mentioned in your other thread, it's very difficult to have these sorts of conversations in a general sense, and I'm not sure how productive it might be. Problematic users can be reported to the appropriate admin noticeboards for discussion and possible administrative response, if need be; I'd also encourage you to make use of the dispute resolution process, whenever possible. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Cyborg; While I can understand your concern at dealing with users who, as you say, are of "questionable mental stability", may I ask one small thing? If they don't give you any indication (by userbox, etc...) - what puts you in a position to be able to judge who is mentally stable or unstable? That's not meant as an argumentative statement, simply an idea for me to understand, say, do you have some experience of dealing with mentally unstable people by reason of work or something? No one on here has ever questioned my mental stability, but I suffer from Paranoia. If I hadn't said anything about that, would you have had some way of knowing that that was the case? Thor Malmjursson 13:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a "This Wikipedian is off their meds" userbox? In all seriousness, having a bipolar userbox on a user page hardly qualifies as a legitimate means of diagnosis. Personally, I don't think we can make any special exceptions for disruptive editors because they're mentally ill, otherwise every malicious editor will try to use that as an excuse. Caknuck 15:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Caknuck, I quite agree. We don't make any exceptions for anyone based on their state of mind, that is true. But as I have said, How do you know they are mentally ill in the first place??? Thor Malmjursson 15:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Example?: I would like to offer Valery Fabrikant, a school shooting killer with chronic access to the Internet. When no access is available to him he asks his son to post on message boards, newsgroups and to update an 'official' web page. Perhaps even change his own WP page? Or worst change pages related to research of his victims (he claims said research is his and that was his motivation for the killings). This being said, current state of things shows that WP is pretty good at defending itself of abuses, and I offer Fabrikant only as a good example of 'questionable mental stability'.YegLi (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Thor and Luna. There's just no way to tell for sure if someone does or does not have a mental illness, even if we had qualified professionals who were editors here. Also, even if there was a way to tell if an editor has a mental illness, they shouldn't be treated any differently unless their behavior is somehow disruptive to the community. GlassCobra 16:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm only referring to users who are disruptive. Paranoia doesn't count as something that would be very disruptive, IMO. In no way am I suggesting I be the person to decide who is mentally ill or not; neither is there an easy way to do this. There are some users on this site who do show their true colors, even after much productivity. I suggest dealing with it privately and to be very gentle, and only in cases that are obvious. At the same time, I don't think it would work for administrators to do that. It seems like a line is being crossed if they do. I've seen mental illness in online friends of mine who have later come clean about it to me (one was extremely paranoid). I tried to help him on a personal basis, but as you probably expect, it didn't work. So what we should focus on is to not ignore any obvious policy violations. We cannot use "Oh he was just angry and got over it" or "He's ill, let him be" as an excuse. I know a lot of you just take the "report it to AN/I" approach, but I've seen administrators turn the other way even in the most extreme of cases because they don't want to hurt someone's feelings, or deal with it any further. The problem is, with many of these people, they'll get upset again and the same thing will happen again. We need to be stronger than this. Thank you all for the replies. Sorry that came off as a bit of a rambling — I don't have all the answers. - Cyborg Ninja 20:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some editors who are clearly disturbed, and it's sometimes helpful to conceive of their bizarre or abusive editing as the product of some personal issues. But mental illness isn't a yes or no thing. We're all a little sick in the head at times. And schizophrenics, obsessive compulsives, neurotics, bipolars, and even sociopaths are human beings too and may have something to contribute here. It would be sad and unfair to say that you're disqualified from Wikipedia for having an organic brain disorder. Judge the edits, not the editor, and don't punish people for being honest about their mental state. We shouldn't deny the obvious - our bipolar colleagues can be a total pain at times. But they can also be wickedly smart and productive, and deserve a seat at the table like everyone else provided they can get along.Wikidemo 21:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Some users do 'lose it' a bit very easily and appear unstable. We all know of those that when one of their articles is tagged even by a bot, say it's ruined their experience on Wikipedia. Or they go on massive WP:POINT campaigns, tagging numerous articles, solely because they feel one of theirs was tagged unfairly. It's not disparaging to those with mental health problems, most of whom can still contribute sanely to Wikipedia. But some people even if they haven't been diagnosed with any illness easily flip out, and go on a rampage. They may even say 'now I'm going to turn evil- ruhaha' or some such. Thhen go back to normal briefly and apologise slightly so they get away with it. Then a few days later something sets them off again. Hopefully they get blocked if they continue in such a pattern. As an individual editor, the best way to deal with them is probably to avoid much contact with them. As a community, to notice their history when they invite their latest block, and if the pattern has occurred several times, long-term block. 91.110.169.154 16:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about, and I'm glad that you noticed it too. "Unstable" is the keyword here. There are multiple editors who have this problem, and I think it's a part of their lifestyle, but I believe the laissez-faire approach at this site and others on the Web allows them to keep being disruptive. To add to your characterization, these editors take minor setbacks (tags, warnings, bots, etc) very personally and threaten other users for something that is quite minor. This, to me, shows that they are not trying to make Wikipedia a better place and that they are acting in poor faith. I'm sorry, but assuming good faith in evidence of obvious bad faith is absurd, and some administrators and many regular editors need to realize that and stop using that as an excuse. This is a serious problem on Wikipedia. I realize that some of these editors contribute plenty to Wikipedia, and therefore many people don't want to ban them, but if this is a pattern and if they are harming other users: it needs to stop. I try to be sensitive to unstable people like this both online and in real life. I have a grandmother who behaves like this, and the best my family can do is try to alleviate her stress to avoid setting her off. However, I recognize that she does have some ability to control herself and we do not accept every emotional outburst. We do love and forgive her, of course. But please realize, administrators, that if an unstable user has a pattern of this behavior and is harming other users, you absolutely should not accept it. I imagine that a lot of you are thinking "We don't," but I've seen this from other admins and users. The twisting of the WP:AGF policy is partly to blame. - Cyborg Ninja 19:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I should add that I have one person in mind right now (though he is not the only one to act like this). A quick glance of his Contributions page shows me that he makes 300+ edits a day and frequently spends over half of the day, every minute, editing Wikipedia. Every day. Now, I think I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia, but that's mostly to read articles to expand my knowledge. But that person's amount of time here... can we really call that normal, or healthy? He does everything the user above cited as conduct that an unstable editor does here. I'm not suggesting that we warn someone just because they spend vast amounts of time here obviously, but I think it's something to think about. - Cyborg Ninja 20:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can be overly suspicious just due to 'spends too much time here.' What we are basically talking about is conduct that would lead to an RfC, but because the user spreads the conduct over different areas and his/her WP:POINT sprees target many different articles and people, it's hard to have an RfC that truly covers what they get upto, because RfCs have to be about 'the same dispute', so it's harder to raise the two people needed that have the boldness to stand up. If RfCs were allowed to address the user's behavior in general when they're having one of their 'episodes', then they would be a more accurate representation of the user. Because while it runs the risk of being seen as ganging up on someone, sometimes that kind of RfC would be useful/necessary.91.110.230.131 21:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Two RFCs have been done of one person I have considered as unstable. Even if a tagging spree spans over dozens of articles that are unrelated, a question comes into one's head: is it acceptable to do mass-tagging of articles that one has not spent more than 5 seconds with? I know we have bots that handle other operations, but most of what they do makes sense to me and is useful. Marking every article with a big citations tag at the top isn't really going to encourage people to improve the article. I mean, come on people, get real. Still, some admins think it's helpful. But on this issue; it's nowhere near the worst example and even I wouldn't consider anything more than an informal warning for it if I were an admin, unless they ignore the warning. As you hinted at, RfCs are dedicated to one episode or event. If a user's behavior over several months needed to be reviewed, where should it be done? - Cyborg Ninja 08:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As an editor with a mental illness (although I don't think you would be able to guess that based on my contributions) I appreciate your concern, but I don't think that any special consideration should apply except for the application of the WP:CIVIL policy. If we just remember that this applies to comments made to all editors, even abusive ones, then there should be no problem. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to distinguish two things; (1) Having a mental illness, which isn't necessarily the project's business; (2) behaving disruptively, which is the project's business, but which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a mental illness. I'm not saying there's never a relationship between the two, but it does seem to me the project's proper business is the second only. I don't see how Wikipedia volunteers could be trained or equipped to understand when (1) does and does not affect (2). One reason for a gentler approach with established editors is the belief that ordinary people sometimes get overheated and affected by emotions in conflicts and similar situations, in other words, a belief that variation and "instability" is a characteristic of ordinary people and not the exclusive province of the mentally ill. It's very important to avoid stereotyping here, to avoid a discriminatory prejudice that having a psychological diagnosis implies an editor or admin is going to be disruptive. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

New mental illness in established admins and editors

• I'm starting this as a new section because I believe it is worthy of its own category. - Cyborg Ninja 09:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The question seems loaded. Most abusive editors do not have any recognised mental illness. The interesting borderline case to consider here is: if there's a person who makes useful contributions, or even achieves adminship, while in a good mental state, and then their mental integrity degrades as a result of a illness-induced mood change, acquiring a new illness, or a change of medication, should they be de-adminned or banned, or should we wait for them to seek assistance and recover? If they do recover, do they have a means of requesting re-evaluation on this basis? Dcoetzee 14:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Depending on their behavior, if they are an admin and they behave poorly, then they should have their privileges taken away. You can't put power into the hands of someone who isn't mentally healthy. Of course, the admin would have to come out as having mental illness or it would have to be clearly discernible from normal behavior. Most cases won't be so easy. As for editors, it's a bit more difficult. I would not want to upset the user and taking away their ability to edit could have a drastic effect on them. But, as I've stated above, if there is a pattern of this behavior, it cannot be tolerated. If they decide to come back and state that they are now healthy and be open about their past, then I would welcome them. - Cyborg Ninja 09:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am really at odds with the NNOTABILITY/Trivia policy right now.

Sirs:

I am really at odds with the NOTABILITY/Trivia policy.

This policy has alienated a large number of WebComic advocates, and certainally cost WP some creadibility and good will, and some donation money too.

As I stated on my former user page, ( I will provbibly not log in again ):

"This is upsetting me, a lot. Articles are set for speedy deletion based upon the concept of Notability, i.e. popularization which to me has a connotation of sensationalizm. Since the most of the web is sensationalism and esoteric, and polarized in that way. ( Some eMusic sites I have been to only have 25~30 page views.)

Why would you want a encyclopedia, that only has popular topics? I really wound't want that. Id read 'People' Magazine if I wanted that. Encyclopedias should EMBRACE THE ESOTERIC. There is an article here on wikipedia for every pokemon character, and I %*&3 hate pokemon, but I respect its reverence amoung five year olds, and especially five year olds who use wikipedia as their reference. Can you imagine the effect of children growing up as knowing wikipedia as something that was usefull to them, and they would enjoy comtributing to?

By this criteria alone ( Notability ), we should delete ALL HISTORY before WWII for its irelevence. Is Joan D'Arc relevent? Practically no. But she has extrodinary significance to the history of religion, spirituality and philosophy." You can easily rewrite history, by only looking at the "popular" aspects of it.

I have an eye for detail and consistancy, and am about to actually work on my first complete rewrite, ( although, no one has stepped forward to guide me, or adopt me). Is it actually become sport to destory what others are passionate about? ( Feel free, of course, to delete this message if you feel that is not notable enough. )

What is being done policy wise about this?

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Comments:Wikimedia_fundraiser_highlights_webcomic_community%27s_frustration_with_Wikipedia_guidelines#The_tip_of_an_iceberg.

end of soapbox

You're clearly upset about the notability requirement, but I'm sorry to say that I don't understand much more than that. I'll take just a couple of your points: Why would you want a encyclopedia, that only has popular topics? Why indeed? But en:WP isn't that. (Brutalist architecture isn't a popular topic or a popular kind of architecture.) Again: By this criteria alone ( Notability ), we should delete ALL HISTORY before WWII for its irelevence. Is Joan D'Arc relevent? Practically no. But she has extrodinary significance to the history of religion, spirituality and philosophy. If she indeed has extraordinary significance to these three histories, then surely she's notable. Where's the (potential) problem with here? Perhaps you could rephrase your complaint. -- Hoary 09:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is no longer essentially nessessary. Wikipedia will be the only product of 'Group thought' and 'Mass popularizm' If its "interesting" to the admins It stays, I am taking Jim Bo's suggestion that I find something else significant to do with my life other than swim upstream. I have created other accounts on other wiki's and am developing my SPAM bot to help a few others using wiki-software that do not have the benefit of a few million dollars in resources. See ya. (i.e. dont waste your time ) Stupidly I didnt sign my very last, and final post. G'day mate! Artoftransformation 12:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• The notability guideline sets some easy to follow and fairly objective standards, with a relatively low bar to inclusion. However, I do see uneven application of the standards at AfD, mostly by uninformed nominators and less informed evaluators. This is more of a problem than the guidelines. --Kevin Murray 13:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• A lot of people tried to abuse the rules by including webcomics that were just starting hadn't gotten any outside coverage (reliable or otherwise). I'm sure there are multiple webcomics that satisfy the current criteria. We just can't include ALL of them. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I need help determining notability. It states on the Wikipedia Notability page that short term news bursts don't count as notability. But what if that news burst was short term, but major in how far it reached? Like a person who got on the news in America and also got on the news in Korea?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heero Kirashami (talk • contribs) 04:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As our world becomes more connected, through global TV networks, the internet, and general mass media, it becomes more and more likely that the reach of a news item will grow. Where someone once became famous for five minutes only locally, they can now become famous for five minutes on a global scale. That does not change the fact that they were only famous for five minutes. A short term news burst is still a short term news burst, no matter it's reach. Blueboar 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion? Ask yourself, if it disappears from the headlines and nothing else happens, will people still want to read about this a year from now? Sometimes you can predict. If a volcano explodes or someone wins the Nobel Prize you can be pretty sure people will be interested a year from now, even a hundred years from now. If a person gets arrested for a bizarre crime, nobody will care next week. In between you have to guess. Sometimes, an event is just news for now but there is a lot of context, connection with other important events, importance in illustrating the subject, etc., so you can take a chance and infer that it is notable. But you're risking the possibility that after all your work, six months from now people are going to decide the article is pointless and delete it. It's nice when Wikipedia can be current and relevant, and useful to understand the latest headlines. But we don't have to be completely up to date with the news - that's what newspapers are for. There's usually no harm in taking a breather and waiting a week or a month to see how the story plays out before writing the article.Wikidemo 00:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So in the case that a person continues to make news, at least amongst academia, that person may be article-worthy?... --Heero Kirashami 02:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is no hard and fast standard, only guidelines which are subject to reasonable interpretation. Read WP:BIO and use good judgment. For an academic or musician consult WP:PROF or WP:MUSIC respectively. If someone doesn't like your article you will hear about it or it will be nominated for deletion. Without very clear information on you subject we just can't tell much more. If you write an article and feel it is being unfairly criticized, please contact me and I will help. --Kevin Murray 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Notability for an encyclopedia article differs from notability in the news cycle. If a topic is notable enough for a stand alone encyclopedia article at one time, it remains notable even after the news fades. Take for example Theodore Kaczynski, who hasn't been in the news much lately. Conversely it is prudent not to place excessive merit on skiing squirrels simply because they made the evening news report. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars

There has been a lot of rewriting going on at Wikipedia:Five pillars recently, with very little broad based oversight. It might be a good idea for more of us to be involved, at least in observing the process. --Kevin Murray 16:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a look, & didn't see anything. But your concern leads me to wonder: if some troublemaker managed to significantly rewrite some fundamental policy but almost no one supported the change, would that rewrite matter? Beyond a few literalists who might believe we must "follow the policy -- right or wrong!" -- llywrch 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that there is the very real possibility that a very small number can change policies, and then cite them to support what they, in good faith, believe is best for the many. The fact that most editors are interested in article topics and content rather then policies or consensus discussions provides the obscurity to allow what would not pass muster among the many. Watch the deletion discussions, and the policy changes. The same names appear from fewer than 25 wikipedians, making decisions for all who do not enter into those specific discussions. And even when a lone editor confronts them they dispose of the arguments one by one, one after another, day in and day out, month after month. As if representing the objectives of some larger, external agency, as a full time job. - Michael J Swassing 02:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be WP:CABAL. WP:ROGUE may or may not also be relevant. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Golly, now I feel silly. Surely various government agencies, and political partisans take no interest whatever in how policies are presented. Corporate public relations departments can be similarly trusted. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Policy thrash

Yes, an otherwise unimportant change to policy does matter, because tools and processes are built on policy. Example:- including or excluding high schools is not really that critical - but a move to exclude them would result in many thousands of hours of work being nullified. Moreover, an undocumented later move to allow them again would absorb a load more effort. This has been happening on MoS to some extent. Rich Farmbrough, 11:55 18 November 2007 (GMT).

Could you link to that discussion? Relata refero (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why can archival material be edited?

NOTE: THis discussion moved here from Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

I am puzzled as to why Archival material can be edited. Surely archived material should, by definition, be packed away and not be changed or deleted? This would include archived talk pages, archives of the reference desks and so on. If you wish to reactivate some of this material, you should copy it over to a current active page, link it to the archive it came from and take it from there. And similarly, why does the system allow the history pages of articles to be amended? It is after all an auditable record of what was actually written. I know you can get the history of the history pages, but wouldn’t it be simpler and cut down on data storage to cut out as much of this stuff as possible? Myles325a 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The main reasons I've seen are new "archive" navigation templates being invented, users who have changed their usernames updating their signature, and new spelling bots. As for why these pages aren't protected, it would appear to be a waste of admin time to have our sysops protect every archived discussion and then have to respond to requests to people asking for edits to the protected archives, especially when archive edits are so rare and so transparently traceable through the history. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "why does the system allow the history pages of articles to be amended". Do you mean, "Why can page revisions be deleted by admins?" - BanyanTree 20:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm the one who doesn't understand. As someone with auditing experience, my understanding of archives are they are historical records, which have had a line ruled under them, and are packed away for future reference, not something which can be amended or "fixed up" later. And I don't get why we would need "sysops [to] protect every archived discussion", seeing as there are already umpteen articles which have been locked, either temporarily or indefinitely. And you don't say anything about my idea of posters copy/pasing material from archives into current pages. Of course, someone researching archived material could look for changes in the history pages, but that is a tiresome task which should not have to slow them down. And really, if the only reason you can give me is that some users change their usernames, then I must confess I consider that to be a trifling matter. In contrast, I would estimate that about 5% of Wikipedia is encyclopedia articles. The rest is all this stuff, and it gets hard to sift thru it all. Letting archives be archives would be a step in the right direction in slowing down and rationalising some of this stuff. BT, you're a great sysop, but I think you should have a chat with an auditor. Editing historical records is what people like Stalin did. Myles325a 03:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I thought you were looking for an explanation, rather than an excuse to start an argument. Please ignore my response above as I wouldn't have bothered if I had realized your intention. - BanyanTree 04:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Myles325a, are you sure that you are addressing a real problem rather than a theoretical one? Do you have evidence that (1) there are archives being modified in a way that is truly problematic, (2) these problematic changes are not being caught and (3) these problematic changes are happening often enough to warrant the cost of preventing them?

If you are an auditor or have worked with one, surely you know that there is a cost/benefit analysis to preventing or even detecting problems. The edit history on archive files is enough to prove that an archive file has been tampered with and how. Even if an editor goes into an archive file and makes a substantive but illegitimate change, we would be able to detect that if it were important enough to make the effort. Usually, however, archive files are not of any great value except in providing evidence for ARBCOM cases. I would drop this line of inquiry as not likely to be very productive.

--Richard 17:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Archives may be edited, but histories are not. While the currently visible version of any page may or may not be the full story, the history tab shows every single version of every single page including talk pages. You can't make stuff change or disappear by altering an "archive". Even deleted pages aren't really "deleted". Admins and buerocrats have access to them and their histories. This seems a non-issue to me. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Myles325 replies to BanyanTree, above. Ho hang about a sec, bro, and swap that high horse for a pony. You sound like some high priest giving “explanations” to a young dynamic researcher as to why the status quo is the best of all possible worlds, and getting snippy when he doesn’t just say “Oh, of course, how silly of me, O Divine One, thank you for setting me straight.” Wikipedia is not some medieval conclave of metaphysicians pulling rank on their novitiates, but a dynamic, evolving structure. And, frankly, I don’t mind an argument; you seem to think it an impertinence. I am a novice here, sure, and I was genuinely in search of explanations, but there is an element of the Socratic Question in my approach. I think that there is something irregular in allowing archives to be amended. Are you so sure that that there is nothing in anything that I said? I was, until medical retirement, a Senior Management Consultant in a large organisation, in charge of about $1 billion in capital investment. That involved a lot of careful and intricate analysis of structures. What’s your line of work? You have not substantially answered any of my points, and I would appreciate it if you did not bother to reply to this with more of your snotty “humour”. There are plenty of sysops out there, and the chances are that nearly all of them would have heads made of something of more benefit than the wood of a Banyan Tree.

To Richard. I am a management consultant, and they work with everyone in an organisation, including auditors. But making the most of cost-benefit analysis is not an auditor’s job. In fact, it’s quite the reverse. It is their job to make the system as fraud and fool proof as possible, at whatever expense. Trying to make it profitable is mine. Auditors demand audit trails on every transaction made in any business. The lack of strong transparent audit trails is behind most frauds. I fully realise that your history pages act as a kind of audit trail. I do not see why there needs to be a byte consuming tier on top of the archives, when it serves no real purpose. This might be cruel of me but the problems of a user “Stuffymuffy” who now wants to be known as “Fluffymuffy” would not be top of my priorities. As to whether these archives have much use, I point you to Karl Popper’s notion of World 3, as the cultural world which holds information in libraries etc, which can be retrieved IF and WHEN needed. There are books in such libraries that have not been opened in hundreds of years, some will never be opened. Why not turf them out? Because no one knows when the data held there might be needed for some future purpose not now known. A good example is the daily flight data of the Viking space craft, held on floppy discs in “archives” and thought useless. Until someone noticed that the craft had travelled further than theory predicted. The daily data, which could have been turfed out, formed the basis of one of the most important cosmological theories of the last 30 years. Archives are there as a historical record, like Magna Carta, and the Domesday Book. They are not there to be edited and amended with a footnote to the “original version” elsewhere. No auditor, historian, or indeed any scholar would countenance such an outrage. Apart from opening the door to fraud, it makes it harder for some SERIOUS researcher down the track who is sifting thru an already Byzantine maze of info for what they need. Such researchers would not be best served by having to study copies of newspapers from 1879, which have been emended in 2007 by some wit who has replaced text with “I have a big donger” and a pointer to what the original was. And my overriding concern is with the intelligentsia and the researchers of the future. The Stuffymuffies of the present are not my top priority, and neither should they be yours. Myles325a 05:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't like a newspaper or some historical document. It's not something people can irreparably damage. They can be irritants, sure, but that is a non-issue. Regular users archive pages all the time, and not all archives use the same formatting. To expect admins to track down and semi/full protect every one is unfeasable, as well as completely unnecessary. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• I never understood this either. Surely it takes more time to keep a constant eye on such pages than perform a one time protection of such pages? The number of people who want to perform truly essential and non-destructive edits on such pages can be counted on a single hand. It might be largely a theoretical issue now, but I'd rather not see it become reality. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In many companies the backup system works as follows: A complete incremental backup of every harddisk on a central server is made every night, or every weekend. But most people don't know who to ask if they want to restore deleted data, or they know and it's a complicated process. Therefore, and to be on the safe side, they make their own backups.

It's a bit like that on Wikipedia. The history system is like the automatical centralized backup system. Everybody can use it, but it's not very convenient. If a talk page gets too long, one could just delete it, but then nobody would read the old data. That's why we have the manual archiving system. It's like a secretary saving her documents on a floppy disk.

I believe the answer to BanyanTree's question is: Contrary to appearances, archival material can not be deleted by ordinary users. On first sight it looks as if you could change history. But if you use the "Edit this page" button on a history page and save, the result seems to be exactly the same as if you copy the content of the old version, click "Edit this page" on the current version of the page, paste the content in, and save. The audit trail is not affected. Even though the wording on the history editing page suggests otherwise: "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed." In the context of just having browsed history in order to get there this seems to suggest that you can remove everything after a certain date from history. BanyanTree: Is that what you meant? This would really be unreasonable, and it doesn't happen, as I just checked.

But it would be equally unreasonable for a company to put a system in place to make sure that everybody make their personal backups only on CD-ROMs, and that they have to be archived, rather than safely disposed of. Similarly, it wouldn't make much sense to turn the current archiving practices into a second history system. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT

Recently WP:FICT has been changed and the following section has been added:

"To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons).[3] In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should still strive to provide real-world content."

I see a problem with this as it seems to potentially go against several other established guidelines and policies such as:

WP:NN

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

WP:WAF

"Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information."

WP:V

"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

WP:NOT

"Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot"

Personally I do not feel that the change in WP:FICT was correct - although it may well reflect the current state of Wikipedia - but if there is a consensus for this change it should be consistent accross Wikipedia. Having guidelines and policies that contradict each other will not help people to build and contribute to a high quality encyclopaedia and will hinder the processes that rely on these polcies and guidelines (WP:AFD, WP:FA, etc.)). [[Guest9999 11:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Um, WP:WAF is an manual of style, not a content or notability guideline. WP:WAF doesn't dictate who gets an article, but how you write about that article once you have created it. As for FICT, you pulled a single section, which is meant to incorporate the times when articles become too long and need to be split off. Secondly, the real world content still needs sourcing, which is the only thing the FICT section neglects to mention.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I acceptt that WP:WAF is a style guideline, however by creating articles on a purely fictional topics with no real world notability it will be impossible to write the article (about fiction) in the way that the guidline on writing about fiction recommends. The fact that such articles exist - and are accepetd - should require a rewrite of WP:WAF to take them into account (if there is an actual consensus for these articles to exist). Secondly, this type of sub article is not mentioned in any of the above guidelines or policies - if these exceptions are allowed then they should be. [[Guest9999 13:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Just to reiterate - may main point was not that the change to WP:FICT was a bad one (although I think it was) but that several other policies and guidelines (both content and style related) must be updated in order to take it into account due to the current contradictions. [[Guest9999 13:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

• The disputed section complies with all of the above to my eye, since it states Even these articles need real-world information.... How exactly does it not comply with the policies and guidance? I can't see any reason to change long-standing policies at this time. Steve block Talk 13:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Guest9999, it says in the section--"editors should still strive to provide real-world content"--it isn't saying you can split off a plot section that is too large, it's talking about sections that require real world information to begin with, just becoming too large for their parent article. Secondly, if every policy and guideline said the exact same thing, we wouldn't have a need for the plural, we'd have just one page that said everything that needed saying.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole problem of sub-articles is a bit vexed, since for a long time we, on a software level, pushed for 32kb articles. We don't do that anymore, but as a result sub-articles and breaking off articles took root in the culture. For the most part, I tend to think that the aforementioned change to WP:FICT is a poor decision because it spins off bad permastubs of articles, and that most of these minor characters would break off better to list articles. But I tend to think that this is often a good idea - sub-articles based not on topics but used more as figures and illustrations - split off large tables, large lists, etc. Ideally these would go into a separate project called something like WikiData that would exist to hold (sourced) data that is not quite appropriate for WikiSource. In practice, though, this is all a very big change, where as the change to WP:FICT seems to be an acknowledgement of reality and current practice. Phil Sandifer 13:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought we still enforced a 32k limit, for both technical, style and readability issues. Steve block Talk 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

But 32 kb isn't the recommended split line any longer, it's like closer to 50kb.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think there's also a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works as well. You write that "The fact that such articles (discussing fiction from an in-universe perspective) exist - and are accepetd". They aren't accepted as finished articles. They aren't approved, their status isn't affirmed, the way they are written is not locked in stone. Such articles do indeed exist, simply because people have created them. However, the goal of Wikipedia is to collaboratively create an encyclopedia, so the goal of Wikipedia is to write in an encyclopedic style. Therefore, part of the Wikipedia process is that we collaboratively edit such articles to better comply. Articles which do not currently comply with those standards should not be taken as evidence that the standards do not apply. They should be taken as evidence of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. Hope that clarifies. Steve block Talk 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• By that standard I do not think that any article is truely "finished" - I don't think that even the best featured articles can be considered perfect and may be improved by contributions from the community. My point is that articles which are to be "treated as a section of another article" - and rely on that article for their claim of notability - do not neccessarily have to show - in themsleves outwith of the "parent article" - any evidence that they will meet the current guidelines for article inclusion. If this is the case should the other policies and guidelines not be updated in order to take this into account? [[Guest9999 13:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

• • But, the way you are wording it sounds like the guideline is saying it's ok for anything to be split. This isn't the case. The section may need clarification, but it wasn't meant to advocate for those minor characters to be split off on their own. It was meant to advocate for entire sections to be split off on their own. Like, if for some reason a special effects sections becomes overly long, but contains all valid, encyclopedic information, then to save space in the parent article you would split off that section. The new sub-article still needs real world content--I think the guideline says "strive" and that makes it sound like it's ok if you don't have it at all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• The wording in the article states that in these articles editors should "should still strive to provide real-world content." - this clearly indicates that said sources whilst clearly highly prefrable are not a neccessity for this type of article. This contradicts with the polcies and guidelines listed and with the general principle that any article should be built around reliable sources. [[Guest9999 14:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]
  • That's what I just said, and I said "strive" gives a false impression and it should not do that. It shouldn't be there, and I will go remove it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You seem to have a different reading of the line Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability to me. That line makes it clear that all articles are expected to "meet the current guidelines for article inclusion." Hope that clarifies. Steve block Talk 14:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• What the sentence actually says is ""Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material" - this basicly says that either the real world content doesn't have to be contained within the (sub)article or it does not have to be directly about the contents of the (sub)article. Both of these go possibilities would go against other polcies and guidelines - [WP:NN]] in particular. [[Guest9999 14:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

• I don't agree with your reading at all. It reads to me that it has to show notability, although some evidence of its notability may be found in the parent article. Steve block Talk 15:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• I'm also not sure how it conflicts with WP:NN, which in some part defers to the subject notability guidance pages, and states that articles which do not meet the guidance outlined should perhaps be nominated for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for 5 days. I would suggest there and then you have your answer as to what to do with any articles you feel are affected by the contradiction you seem to be reading into the policies and guidance. I would suggest you not worry about it and trust the wiki process to sort it out. Steve block Talk 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons).[3] In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should still strive to provide real-world content."

• The concept in mind when we discussed that section was that presently, most in-universe fictional articles lacking sources are basically written from a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fancruft standpoint (the "other stuff" being most of sub-pages from The Simpsons which actually contain real-world notability information within the sub-articles). The goal is to try to instead of taking a few fictional media and immediately writing a new article for every character, setting, episode, object, and the like, is to try to help editor write articles from the outside-in: start with what is notable about the fictional work, including the reception, criticism, release information, and the like, that can be backed with sources, and then only delve into the plot as much as necessary to gain an appreciation of the work as to be able to understand those prior notable statement. As a result, it may be necessary to go into character details or other fictional elements which can only be provided by the primary source (in-universe), and even rarer still it may be appropriate, per summary style and WP:SIZE to consider making that section, with the acknowledgment that it is primarily in-universe, as standalone, though that editors should continue to strive to obtain notability that can be made for such sub-articles (such as what Characters of Final Fantasy VIII provides). This doesn't mean that by the guidelines people are free to write individual character articles for any old reason, and it puts onus on editors to take this as an absolutely last resort (to the point I suggest that we include a rationale template as one does with non-free images to explain why such an article should exist without out-of-world information). Mind you, there's still more we'd like to add, but between discussions at WP:N on notability guideline merges and WP:WAF on working in tandem with them on additional details. --MASEM 14:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• In this discussion so far a lot has been made of real world information, I think it is importnat to remember that real world information is not the same as "significant coverage by reliable, independant secondary sources" - which is required by WP:NN. The fact there might be a lot of real world information about a topic - say from fansites or the author - does not therefore confer notability (per the primary notability criteria). I think the current section is badly worded in that it is in some ways contradictory and doesn't really explain how these (sub)articles are diffferent from a typical article. [[Guest9999 15:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Fansites are not typically a reliable source. Anything sourced from them should generally be removed per WP:V. Steve block Talk 15:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • True, I know I that when I say "real world information" or "out-of-universe" I'm implying significant coverage by secondary sources. A list of characters supported only by citing who the actors/voice actors with the rest in-universe are is not significant coverage. --MASEM 15:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to keep bringing up the point but I'm still slightly confused; the crux of my arguement can be summed up in WP:V, which states - "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". To me it seems that going by the new wording of WP:FICT this will no longer be the case. Am I correct in interpreting the change this way? If so then I think either the changes to WP:FICT should be reverted or altered or changes could be made to other policy and guideline pages. This would be neccessary so that there are potentailly confusing contradictions between polciy pages. If this is not the case then I am sorry to have wasted your time by misunderstanding the rewrite. [[Guest9999 15:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

• You're dealing with "ifs buts and maybes". What the guidance and policies are stating is that on occasion sub-articles will be broken out of larger articles per Wikipedia:Summary style. These sub-articles should be built in such a way as to discuss an aspect of the larger article in keeping with WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and where applicable the WP:MOS and should be about WP:N|notable aspects. However, in certain circumstances the notability of the aspect may be ascertained more easily by referring back to the main article. I'd be encouraged to hear how you can summarise real world information without finding a third party source, by the way. Steve block Talk 16:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe you can't summarise real world information without a third party source but you can definately do it without a reliable, independant third party source. I think with fictional aspects it can sometimes be quite difficult to assertain what is a first, second, third party source but it is often easy to see what is an indepenedant source. There are many, many articles on fictional topics entirely sourced by fansites - which are not considered reliable sources and information and interviews with the auther or publisher - which cannot be considered independant. [[Guest9999 17:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

• Gald you agree that WP:V isn't invalidated. See below for more on how it all fits. Steve block Talk 11:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The real problem here is that WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Summary style (and WP:SIZE) are unaware of each others' existence. As a practical matter, we keep articles under 50K or so, and spin out large sections into their own articles. This is good. Then those articles get arbitrarily purged at AfD. This is bad. You are right that there's an unresolved conflict here, but it's in a different area from where you're focusing.--Father Goose 18:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the real problem is that articles have an excessive length due to sections full of non notable info (either in-universe or trivia), and people then decide to split this off into its own article instead of reducing the non notable stuff. It is only logical that such articles get deleted at AfD, and there is nothing arbitrary about it, it is the basic application of WP:NOTE and the fact that we are a tertiary source and need independent reliable secondary sources for all our articles, and that articles should not exist of plot summaries or other in-universe info only (or mainly). Fram 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Couldnt disagree more, its the overall subject which is notable, there is no such requirement for specific content. If the article needs to be split for convenience, then it should still be judged. The various conflicting WP policies are combined on the basis of reason and common sense. the very point of specific policies is to supplement the main policy, and when they exist, they are the authority for the subject. If wpedians in general think they are out of line, they should get interested in the specific discussion and try to change it. Why else would we have any policies more than a one line listing of each, for free interpretation. DGG (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I originally proposed the wording a little bit ago when WP:FICT was under some heavy fire from a lot of users (and not just your fly-by-night users, but even users like Radiant! had come to the talk page to question if the guideline had actual consensus.

The idea goes back to the whole concept of articles and sub-articles, and if it really matters if it's a separate document or not. We're talking about data here, and it's often an arbitrary definition about what is its own article or not. This is why the additional text specifically asks editors to treat a sub-article without real-world information as if it were a section in the main article (literally). If it is too much, or if that summary is simply not needed, then remove it and redirect the article.

(Sometimes we have a single "list of characters" for more than one book or show, presenting a situation where it would be practical to have a centralized list as a part of "basic info". But that's probably a lesser example. It's also, to a lesser extent, meant to look out for those weird articles like a list of episodes, which provide borderline "real-world" content, but seem to be considered basic information. These two examples are just my own thoughts, so I'm not sure if others would agree to that same thinking, but it is a small part of what I had in mind.)

So what we really have here is the debate about long articles vs short articles vs multi-articles, etc. I do fear the wording being mistaken, and that part of WP:FICT becoming a weak point, which is why I want to create a form of example table like the ones found on WP:CANVAS#Types of canvassing or WP:BADLINKS#Link assessment table, or something to that extent. -- Ned Scott 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Look, I think what we're dickering over here is a small subset of articles, for which the ultimate answer is to build a consensus case by case. Otherwise it is all "ifs buts and maybes". Here's how it is all supposed to work. A new editor wants to create an article, so they checks up on our guidance or they don't. If they do, they find out that the best thing to do is to be bold, or they don't and at any rate the article gets created or it doesn't.

• Are you still with me?

• So we have an article. Now, let's assume it doesn't need wikifying or anything else, let's assume it falls into the narrow band of articles we've got to worry about here. Here's the checklist:

• Is it all plot? If so, can it be rescued, merged or should it be prodded or deleted, or shall I do nothing? All based on editors judgement, but all will involve consensus through collaborative nature of Wikipedia. That's WP:NOT out of the way.

• Does it cite sources? If not, tag for clean up or prod or afd or do nothing. All based on editors judgement, but all will involve consensus through collaborative nature of Wikipedia. That's WP:V almost out of the way.

• Are the sources from a third party? If not, should the article exist? Either list for deletion, prod or check notability guidance or do nothing. All based on editors judgement, but all will involve consensus through collaborative nature of Wikipedia. That's WP:V completely out of the way.

• Are the sources from a reliable third party source independent of the topic itself? If not, either prod, afd or check through the specialist notability guidelines, to which WP:N bows or do nothing. All based on editors judgement, but all will involve consensus through collaborative nature of Wikipedia. That's WP:N out of the way.

• Is the article part of a chain of information which describes a smaller aspect of a larger work, and the smaller aspect, whilst discussed in very few sources, yet is still critical to the understanding of the larger work, and of such depth that it can't be merged elsewhere, and it's parent article demonstrates that this article is sufficiently sourced to delineate the crucial aspects of this article? If not, either prod or afd or do nothing. All based on editors judgement, but all will involve consensus through collaborative nature of Wikipedia. That's WP:N(WHATEVER) out of the way.

• How does doing nothing involve consensus? Well, someone else will do something eventually, and then consensus will emerge. So, to answer the question, does the new section invalidate WP:V. Nope, nothing in the new section states that third party sources are not required. Does the new section state that WP:NOT is invalidated. Nope, nowhere does this section state that an article can exist solely of plot. Does the new section invalidate WP:N. Nope, it can't since WP:N openly concedes more specific guidance in specialist areas can apply. Does it invalidate WP:WAF? It doesn't even come into conflict with it; they cover separate ground. Is there a specific article you have in mind here, or is this just a general point? If the latter, I'd advise you once again not to worry. The collaborative nature of Wikipedia will work it out. Steve block Talk 11:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Ultimately, the question is which policy or guidance is it which determines an article's right to exist. The answer is, funnily enough, usually WP:CONSENSUS, noting that consensus can change. Steve block Talk 11:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that we are not talking about a small sub-set of article, We are talking about tens of thousands if not more. Warcraft all on it's own has had over 50 articles deleted. If the logical progression of what been happening continues eventually all 140 entries in list of warcraft characters would probably have been given there own article. This affects groups of articles about every game, tv show, book. Ridernyc (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Even if sub-article are viewed as an extension of the parent article, the references in the parent article only apply to the sub-article if the references also are in the sub-article. And you know what happens to a sub-article for which there are no reliable source references. -- Jreferee t/c 17:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a matter of sourcing the article, but where we place the real-world information. Lets say we have a section that talks about how different characters of a book came about from a production standpoint, but that information is organized in a way that doesn't blend stylistically with a list of characters (for example, if it's information that's pretty mixed about production, perhaps organized chronologically, rather than by element of the fiction). The article starts to get long, splitting a list of characters off into it's own article could make sense, and it would have real-world information to justify the content. -- Ned Scott (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree to a certain extent, but not enough to argue over here. I can think of certain articles to which this might not apply, but I don't think it is worth worrying about, just as I do not think there are a large number of articles for which this issue will become problematic; most of the articles which fall into this grey area violate so many other policies and guidance that notability isn't the best stick to beat them with. If we applied WP:V with only a minimum of rigidity, say allowing a month to source information, we could clear a remarkable amount of articles from falling into this grey area. But I have faith that eventually the collaborative nature of Wikipedia will work out how to solve this mess. Most of the issues come from structural flaws; instead of splitting off a list of characters, it would be more encyclopaedic to split off an article discussing characters and concepts introduced within the work. So instead of list of New Bloods split from Bloodlines we have Characters and concepts introduced during the Bloodlines crossover. It may be a clunky title, but WP:SS makes allowances for that, and it demonstrates its claim to notability, its purpose and its parentage within the title. Anyway, that's my tuppence, Steve block Talk 15:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

is an anonymous user allowed to have a user page?

At the Dutch wikipedia we had one of our typical discussions about the question whether an anonymous user could have his own user page. It concerns users with a seemingly fixed address. Has the English wikipedia a policy on this subject? Ellywa 15:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It certainly happens, for example User:199.71.174.100 so I suppose it is allowed. This example shows how it can be helpful (on a shared but static IP address) but most people find it mysterious why folks like this don't register. Thincat 15:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That is clear. Some people apparently have their reasons, we cannot understand, as we are so used to our nicknames and additional nice things such as a watchlist. Anyway. Thank you for your quick response. Ellywa 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

IP editors cannot create new pages on English wikipedia, including user pages. This is one reason that very few IP editors have user pages. We expect long term contributors to register a user name, in any case; editors who don't want to do so have little room to argue about being deprived of benefits because of it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the policy was recently reversed and IP users can once again create pages. Sadly. --Kevin Murray 18:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed, but in the end it was not put into effect, because the developers didn't see consensus to do it See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anonymous page creation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Great news. I'm so glad to be wrong on this one. --Kevin Murray 18:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the better term is "unregistered", rather than "anonymous". Registering and then editing only when logged in actually preserves one's anonymity (since only a CU or Steward can see their IP address), unless you choose to provide personal info. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

user pages for IP editors

(undent) Returning to the question at hand - unregistered users could create pages until the policy was changed in December 2005; since then, they've not been able to. Regarding the page User:199.71.174.100, that was created by a registered editor on September 21, 2007; the edit summary says "Create per request from 199.71.174.100". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a silly idea to create user pages for IP editors. There's no reason not to get a username, and as a community we need to encourage it. Having a userpage is one of the benefits of having a username. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember the IP off-hand, but there's definitely at least one that refuses to get an account for whatever reason, and we should respect that. If the IP is static and can be consistently traced back to the same person or source, I see no reason why they shouldn't get a user page. GlassCobra 14:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

User:68.39.174.238. -- Corvus cornix (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of examples User talk:68.39.174.238 and User talk:218.101.117.208 [[-- Guest9999 (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]]

At NL wikipedia we have at least three users who do not want to register. I respect their stanpoint. Ellywa (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I regularly edited as an IP for years and have had several successive accounts now only because of peer pressure, as it were. I totally respect anyone who doesn't wish to create an identity here for themselves outside their contrib histories. Relata refero (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Title Possible Offense (Five pillars)

(note: I copied this discussion from the FP talk page, as I think it is important and not receiving notice there.) ---- Kevin Murray (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

To Whom it May Concern:

I represent the Islamic Information Center (IIC) on a volunteer basis, and they asked me to contact you (whoever that may be) as to a possible violation upon our principle religion regarding both the Quran and relation to the modern world today. Unfortunately, I didn't see any phone number to contact, so I wrote in discussion - as Jim Wales suggested on C-SPAN for independent organizations to contact Wikipedia. The problem is this articles (or policies) title as a basis of the five pillars of Islam. We don't consider such actions hostile towards the Muslim community, however we do ask it be changed to prevent any possible confusion in Muslims relations with Wikipedia - to something more neutral.

To discuss this further, please contact me at

jarmin@yahoo.com

Thanks,

Josh Armin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.111.65 (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If we went around changing every article that would/might offend Muslims then we would be in direct breach of the second pillar " Wikipedia has a neutral point of view," by submitting to one groups claim to offence not to mention we would lose all sense of accuracy and credibility to wikipedia. Its been argued over and over, especially on articles such as Aisha that wikipedia does not bend or change to Islam. Its about facts and knowledge and I highly doubt and unsigned comment by someone claiming to be from the IIC (even though you list a yahoo email address NOT an IIC one) is going to do anything constructive. Thats my two cents --Curuxz 10:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• In away I agree with Curuxc and we must be cautious about pandering to social pressures and special interest groups. However, I see legitimate concern in this case. Was it random chance that we named this policy the Five Pillars, or were we emulating Islam? I see no offense intended, rather I see a potential compliment. But if offense is being taken, why not modify our title. We are a young enough project that we can easily adapt. ---- Kevin Murray (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Islam lays no unique claim to the number five, or the idea of pillars supporting something. Their combination is rather natural, and the similarity a coincidence. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I can't agree. There is no special meaning to "ten", nor to "commandments" but the combination has a very specific meaning. ---- Kevin Murray (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Commandment" doesn't have a strong definition outside of "The Ten Commandments" or general orders; "pillar" has a more literal definition, which is what the symbolic meaning is derived from. See Five Pillars, Four Pillars, and Three Pillars. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good examples! Thanks. I'd like to find out more about the depth of concern. Perhaps someone should write to IIC, to see whether there is broad based concern. ---- Kevin Murray (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think a more interesting question is whether this page is needed at all. All our policies are important. SashaCall 21:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree. It's usually more usable and scalable to decide things based on general principles, rather than expecting people to memorize 27 different policy pages whose content may or may not be accurate at any given time. The principles and some intelligence are all you need; the details can be worked out as needed. Friday (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• The relevant question is whether we would change if it was the Ten Commandments of Wikipedia, and someone objected. I leave people to contemplate that. I'd also say that if it is the case that some people are being offended, we could perhaps leave it out of the welcome template, because that at least should be as anodyne as possible. Relata refero (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Internet pharmacy may be copying user pages and representing them as members

I’m fully aware that posts on Wikipedia go into the public domain. Nevertheless, I’ve just discovered that http://www.prescriptiondrug-info.com, a site I have never visited before finding my information there in a Google search for another purpose, has taken my user page, in its entirety, and represents me as a member of their site. If it’s happened to me, it has probably happened to others, especially people that have posted on pharmacology. Is there any policy on the large-scale use of Wiki userpages?

http://www.prescriptiondrug-info.com/drug_information_online.asp?title=User:Hcberkowitz

Thanks

Howard (user hcberkowitz)

• Userpages are necessarily licensed under the GFDL. So they can be reprinted. Best is to add to the page if it bugs you. WilyD 19:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI they have rather indiscriminately ported all articles and userpages from wikipedia. Here I am. —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 19:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

At the bottom of every page on the pharmacy's website it states "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License)". So they are abiding by all terms.
It annoys me because it messes up wiki mark up, but it is perfectly legal. However, enabling copying is one of the most prominent features of GFDL, and while it has some disadvantages, the free nature of Wikipedia is one of my primary motives for contributing. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I know GFDL, and I noticed the disclaimer; it's just rather strange, that's all. I wonder what their motivation is. —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 20:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Laziness. It's easier to copy everything than parse the database dump. WilyD 20:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably done in the hope to get higher Google ranking. It is frustrating if they end up selling cheap drugs, or related to some scam.YegLi (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I hope they like my list of insults.[4] :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm on there, weird. Maybe I should make a subpage on why their website sucks. SashaCall 21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Let's be clear about one thing. The GFDL is NOT Public domain. There are similarities, but the two are quite different. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• The site is a known live mirror, i.e. it mirrors anything and everything on Wikipedia, fetching the current version of each page when it is requested. It even "mirrors" special pages, such as Recent Changes. -- AJR | Talk 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• If I would add something like "Prescription Drug Info is a scam website trying to steal your money and murder your children. Don't buy from them, buy from <some competitor>." to my userpage, could they sue me? Olaus (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Unless the allegation is true, yes, it'd be libel. WilyD 22:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not really interested in waging a private war against some sleazy Viagra spammer, or whatever they are, but it seems like websites doing stuff like this leave themselves vulnerable to subversive campaigns from the users whose pages they copy. Olaus (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Science fiction groups I can sense might be immune to WP:RS

I get the sense that becaouse there are a lot of scifi fans amongst wikipedia admin/editors, even if they have no WP:RS they will be let off if it comes to a deletion debate and lack of notability to those who are not into it. I sense this because of the number of these groups who have an article, even with no WP:RS. If so, this should change, it's hardly NPOV of wikipedia as a whole to make special lack-of-rules for these groups. Merkinsmum 19:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If you see an article that doesn't appear to meet notability standards, feel free to nominate it for deletion. You can also tag articles with no reliable sources for cleanup. There is no all-seeing guru on Wikipedia to review every article, so it's up to the user community to enforce the standards. -- Karanacs (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know but I suspect there is a different rule for these type of articles, as so many of them have been here long-term and been allowed to stay.:) I may ask your opinion about one on your talk page.-- Merkinsmum (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen groups of article before that I wondered why they were still here, and I've usually concluded that they were of such narrow focus that no one had really noticed them before. I don't know if that's the case here, but it's a possibility. No one such be immune to the RS policy though. -- Karanacs (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy issue here? Because I'm not seeing it. Maybe if you provided some specific examples, this would be a more productive discussion. --- Chunky Rice (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoo. Surviving two AfDs. --MASEM 22:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Offhand, that article seems fine to me. I'm not seeing the problem. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Look through the sources - the bulk of the sources that attempt to cite the notability of Spoo are Usenet or other forum posts or from other primary sources (B5's Lurker Guide). There are no reliable secondary sources for that article (particularly of it's primary description as a term in the B5 mythos) --MASEM 22:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that the reason the article may have survived however is not so much because it is science fiction related but that it is related to a fairly active project. If one really wanted to help remove such articles, the best way might be to try to encourage the growth of broader projects which could eventually surplant these smaller scope projects. But I myself have seen the "History of As the World Turns" articles, currently in six articles, beginning with History of As the World Turns (1956-1959), which are soap-opera, not science-fiction, related, and I personally wonder whether they have even as much notability. -- John Carter (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but this doesn't really strike me as a policy issue. It sounds more like a content dispute. And I think that Spoo has gotten by on its status as a Featured Article more than because it's science fiction based. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much a content dispute because I meant is this what's happening in general, rather than on one particular article. There is a big Category:Science_fiction_organizations which seems a bit lengthy for them all to be notable for an encyclopedia. I'm not arguing for the category's deletion or anything, I came here to ask if having so many articles about these orgs is a matter of precedent/unwritten license, I can't think offhand but I know some types of articles are always kept at AfD.Merkinsmum (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, they've discovered the Wikipedia Science Fiction Cabal! Anomie⚔ 02:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

ROFL! Maybe I just need to prod some of these- but not too many at once because I'm already being threatened with being reported for harrassment, for questioning the notability of one of the groups.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• People simply have different interpretations on what constitutes a reliable source, some or too permitting, some are too stringent. Regardless, an issue with just a few sources, is hardly a reason to delete an entire article. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree absolutely with Merkinsmum that Wikipedia has a problem with admin-sanctioned fancruft. Spoo, whilst being especially egregious, may only be the tip of the iceberg. It's been said that someday, when all the *other* fancruft has been terminated, they will relent, but frankly I don't see it happening. In the meantime, our coverage of fiction becomes ever more slanted.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think many people with some history in SFF believe that usenet posts attributable to significant individuals count as reliable sources for articles strictly deealing with that subculture. I personally, as someone who remembers that moderated usenet groups did have considerable status at one point, believe that this is a reasonable expectation. Relata refero (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's special pleading. What's so special about sci-fi fandoms and usenet?--Nydas^(Talk) 15:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What about WP:N? I don't think that Usenet posts by the creator of an object can be considered independent sources as evidence of notability. Out of all the references, the only one which seems to possibly make the cut is the Dining on Babylon 5 book. But as the Amazon review by the author makes clear [5] the book idea and topic came from WB licensing, so it's not really an independent source either. (and the references to other uses of the word "spoo" in Beetle Bailey, etc., don't concern the main topic of the article). It does really look like Sci-Fi articles get a pass by WP. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• An article doesn't have to meet WP:N to be notable. An article has to be thought of as notable by a consensus of Wikipedians using WP:N as a guide. Spoo gets by because the current consensus of Wikipedians is that including the article improves the encyclopedia. If you don't think it does, this is the wrong arena for debate. Steve block Talk 21:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Really it's pathetic: In the fictional universe of Babylon 5, spoo is a valuable and highly desired food product. What does that article make in Wikipedia. I imagine Babylon 5 (whatever it is - book, film, game?) may deserve an aticle but "spoo"?!

It's like List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes (yes, each and every single Star Trek epysode has a full article or maybe even more). What the heck?! I agree that the series, the films, the books and even Klingon language (a freaky social phenomenon in some parts of the world, namely: the USA) may deserve articles... but each single epysode? No way! This is not a fanzine. The people so much interested in such matters should better work their own wikizine.

Speedy deletion for all! Guillotine! --Sugaar (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• It might be worth having an RfC about Wikipedia's bias in covering fiction.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Patrolled new pages

As you may or may not have noticed, a change has been made to Special:Newpages to enable patrolled edits there. This allows users to mark a newpage as reviewed. See full details here. However, for unknown reasons, it has been set so that only admins can patrol pages. I would request input on the poll on the talk page as to who should be given the ability to patrol, so that the developers can be assured they are implementing community consensus. Mr.Z-man 01:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: all editors can mark new pages as being "patrolled". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity -- & concern over a possible weakness in the process -- is it possible for someone to mark a page they created as "patrolled"? (If no one answers, I'll have to investigate this.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of "retrieved on" in citations?

Hi all. Is it just me or is anyone else annoyed by the "retrieved on" dates some editors keep adding to their citations. More specifically, I know there's a reason we have that option in the cite templates, because something on the web can change at any time. But I see that more for use with, say, an organization's web page as a primary source. On the other hand, if the article being cited is a newspaper or journal that's published in a serialized format, and it's available on paper, who cares what day the editor read it on? Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

An organization might change its web site so the old information has moved or is no longer there. The date can help find the original info, and sometimes helps find the new location. (SEWilco (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

Even newspapers that have a print edition have been known to edit their web version of articles post publication. Dsmdgold (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Many news org websites such as BBC News and CNN update their pages regularly to fix errors or review an already covered story for instance original page with headline - current page with headline. Also there are hundreds of thousands of broken links in article references, the cite date helps up replace these with copies from the wayback machine and other archive stores.

I agree that the usage of 'retrieved on' is not relevant for journals and print media, as the issue number or publishing date is more important, but if the citation includes a link to a web edition of the source then we would still like to know which web version you were looking at to get the info. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

However, I'm pretty sure news sites with articles that expire also prevent sites like archive.org from archiving... I've tried to find archive.org copies of stories purged from news sites and archive.org says archiving wasn't allowed. --W.marsh 14:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The retrieve date is still useful - assuming good faith and all, I can reconcile that the original article may be gone forever, or may be behind a pay window, but that the difference between the article publication date and the retrieve date is certainly within that window and thus likely a good source.--MASEM 14:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am slightly annoyed by the wikilinking of the retrieved date though. Seems weird to wikilink that, as the date retrieved hold little relevance for the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It allows for the date to be rendered per user preferences (see here). --MASEM 14:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm a little dim in setting my preferences, but I changed nothing so this is default behaviour for the template. It seems to go against the MOS, that says: Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. I don't think it will deepen the readers understanding of how I retrieved a link, or the articles subject. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The wikilinking is done automatically via the various citation templates - you enter the raw date into the template and the template does the rest. Wikilinking it seems to be the only way to achieve the date conversion even if it goes against MOS. --MASEM 14:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The very section you are quoting from MOS:DATE starts with the preference issue and supports it: "Full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted...This instructs the MediaWiki software to format the item according to the date preferences...". The language concerning "days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia", in the same section of that page, does not concern full dates: "days of the year"= [[January 1]]; "years"= [[1968]], [[1974]] etc.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Some more points: For wire services that update stories continuously, wouldn't it be more appropriate to cite the time of their update rather than the time we looked at it? For the case where a media organization moves its WWW archives, wouldn't it be more useful to have the date and page number so we can look it up in their archive search? Also, if we do need to look up a dead URL with no date in the Internet Archive, is it that much of a bother to look through the few times it might have been updated? ( And if the "retrieved on" date is for our benefit, isn't the edit history enough? ) Finally, I've only seen "retrieved on" used with things that are on the WWW for free. I never see people put "retrieved from paid-journal-subscription-service" in their articles; is there any reason why we only datestamp free URLs? Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the rules of academic citation, it's needed for everything. I agree that this can look a little excessive. Unfortunately, i think we're stuck with it. If there's a source where time of day matters, yes the time should go in also as well as the date. And yes, for any media organization, the actual internal page number and other citation information for the formal edition is necessary.

In most cases it adds clutter to the reference list, and I'm often tempted to delete it. When we read a journal article, we're supposed to cite the journal article with ISSN, issue date or volume, and page number. The link is just there for convenience. For wire service stories we'd use their timestamp as part of the date. The only time this "downloaded on" business is necessary is for a web site that's only a web site and doesn't publish in a serialized format. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we put this in the category "Editors do the oddest things" and move on? As long as editors include a date of a news or magazine article, separate from the retrieved on date, Wikipedia has what it needs. The retrieved on date is, arguably, unnecessary then, but a (re)education campaign for editors, on this subject, is not in any way a good use of time; nor is getting into fights with editors about their adding a field that is unnecessary but is an acceptable parameter. Yes, the extra date "clutters up" footnotes; when Wikipedia is so squeaky clean that this is the worst of our problems, then let's take it on. (Me, personally, I'm happy whenever an editor puts a footnote that has more than just a URL.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. schools)

We are currently having a discussion on this proposed naming conventions guideline for United States schools at WT:NC(USS) to see where consensus and problems are, please feel free to participate. Camaron1 | Chris 18:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How obvious is OBVIOUS?

WP:OBVIOUS: "State facts which may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader."

Based on this I started doing a bit of wikignoming by adding USA after Virginia to articles in Category:Registered Historic Places in Virginia (for instance this edit). I've done some 30 articles and have had a query about whether it is necessary. Now doing this seems to me to perfectly fit the example in WP:OBVIOUS and I do wonder if the average reader in, say India, knows where Virginia is. But I don't want to cause conflict, so before continuing I'm asking here for some more opinions. Thanks, Smalljim (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

On a tangent don't use [[USA]] use either [[United States|US]] or [[United States|U.S.]] depending on the result of the "dotting" discussion at WP:MoS or use United States. Rich Farmbrough, 13:03 18 November 2007 (GMT).

Noted, but I don't understand your objection to [[USA]]. It's short, commonly understood, and redirects to exactly the right place. --Smalljim (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a very sensible bit of wikignoming. Context and clarity are important. Adrian M. H. 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do that. If someone is looking up "Berry Hill Plantation" they're going to know which country it's in. I'd ask the same for people editing articles local to India. The state name should be enough. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that argument stands up. Many readers will not be looking up an article directly. What if our reader was researching agriculture, and came across the article from Category:Plantations? --Smalljim (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I always put the nation in an article; not everyone knows the state or county of a geographical area, so may use the country as a search parameter - i.e. London/United States (does anyone outside of the State know where London is in the USA). Primarily we are assisting search engines by including all relevant information. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked through your contributions. The specification of the country was, in my opinion, justified in all cases but one ("U.S. Route 17 in Virginia, USA" is overdoing it in my opinion). I'll remove it from the article soon, unless objections are raised.
Otherwise I agree that the country name should always be in an article about a place. Puchiko (Talk-email) 02:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Embarrassed grin. Of course that one's wrong! I'll remove it myself. Thanks for the comments. --Smalljim (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Let me add my query that sparked this discussion and elaborate on it:

QUERY: I just wonder if it is really necessary to add USA to every article relating to Virginia and other American states. I don't know that this is what WP:OBVIOUS is supposed to deal with. Most articles on Devon and other counties in England don't tell us that the place is in the UK. Should they? I can understand people outside the USA not understanding the postal abbreviations for state names. Many Americans don't even understand them all. I admit that using MA instead of Massachusetts in the name of an article is more common than it should be. That is something that really needs to be corrected. clariosophic (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Elaboration:

• If USA or the proper variant thereof should be added to every geographic place article in the US, then UK or the proper variant thereof should be added to every geographic place article in the UK. The main articles on England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland may state that they are in the UK, but very few if any subordinate articles do so. It seems to be assumed that everyone knows that England etc are in the UK and it's not necessary to tell the reader for instance that Devon is in the UK, only that it is in England.
• Time spent adding USA to place articles in the US could much better be spent eliminating the use of postal abbreviations for the states from article titles as well as the texts of articles. See Education in Framingham, MA and Government of Framingham, MA for examples. clariosophic (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the elaboration, clariosophic. Your first point addresses a separate question of "how obvious is obvious": would people who are likely to use WP know what and where England is without the clarifying UK? I think that they would - certainly more would than would know what and where Virginia is without the clarifying USA - but this is a different issue and I don't want to get sidetracked. // Your second point is a related issue that really reinforces my concern, which, in case I haven't made it clear, is about setting context and writing better articles generally, per WP:BETTER. I think these thought experiments in that guide are very useful, and with them in mind Government of Framingham, MA as it stands today is an awful article, isn't it? What would our reader from India make of that first para! // So, I think we agree that there are a lot of articles that need better context, though I still don't understand why you think I shouldn't be clarifying those Virginia articles. I'm sure you're not trying to tell me to spend my time here doing what you think is more important :) --Smalljim (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I was speaking rhetorically. I would never dream of telling another editor how to spend his or her time. Cheers. clariosophic (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I knew that, hence the smiley. Are we in broad agreement? Will you object if I continue? --Smalljim (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No objection. I would agree that adding United States is better than US or USA. clariosophic (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use illustrations of living people

While I am fairly sure there was some guideline on this specific point, I currently can't find it. However I also think it is over broad to de-illustrate articles on living people on the basis that, in theory, a wikipaparazzi could be out there photographing them. I would request two things:

1. More eyes on Wikipedia:Non-free content to review what if anything we should say about living people
2. Some thought to whether there should be a place where User:R. Baley/Acquire a free image could move which would also link to Wikipedia:Requested pictures/People.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:15 18 November 2007 (GMT).

I don't think you will get anywhere with that as I have seen articles on dead people de-illustrated on the basis that, in theory, a wiki user could be out there who would offer up a photograph. Garda40 (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem not to be aware of the March 2007 Licensing policy resolution of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia foundation. Quote:

...may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals.

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging RS and V

Plans are afoot to merge Wikipedia:Reliable sources back into Wikipedia:Verifiability. Relevant discussion here and in surrounding threads. Also see WT:V. About seven people have commented and it's 7-0 in favour. The basics:

• The content of RS generally sucks and has since it began; it's unstable and hasn't ever produced canonical, lasting language. Even the people who edit it heavily agree on that. At present, the page has little useful content that isn't redundant with V. What is of use is being shuffled out.
• Why on V? Because you can't define verifiability without defining reliable sources. What is verifiability but the state of being confirmed by reliable sources? as one editor put it. So why not have it in both places? The descriptions will be either a) redundant, which is pointless, or b) divergent, which is dangerous as it can create differing policy interpretations. There was divergence as of this morning: compare "If all the sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability, the material may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" (RS) to the much more emphatic and memorable "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" (V).
• RS was not started because of prompting from Jimbo or OFFICE but dumped in place as a kind of rambling essay. It's never been official policy.
• Is this Wikipedia:Attribution redux? Are we next going to merge in NOR? No. This is a separate issue. We've arrived organically at the point where there is no use to the page. The concept of reliable sources is, of course, here to stay; a rich description of it will remain on V. Marskell (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems well-thought out, and I see WP:RS has already been somewhat depopulated. As a suggestion to ease the transition, may I say that it would be convenient if someone set up a subpage which took what RS looked like a few months ago and indicated to which policy/guideline everything has been shifted and what has been deleted, to assist people in updating their mental bookmarks. Relata refero (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I gather the intent is to leave the detailed content of RS nowhere. If there are problems about getting agreed language on a guideline page, it will be even worse on a policy page. As mentioned, ATT was rejected. 19:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

DGG, I think you may be mistaken here: it seems to be claimed on the talkpage that most of the content has been moved elsewhere. In any case, it would be nice to have things absolutely clear as to what is moved, and what is no longer valid. Relata refero (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I will list where everything has gone. Basically, there were two descriptions of reliable sources, a weak one on RS and a strong one on V; the former is now gone. We don't need two. As I say, it's either redundant or divergent.

Most emphatically, this is not a redoing of ATT. The central feature of that was the V + NOR merger, which isn't happening. RS is a different beast. Because it was not created by Jimbo or OFFICE and has never been an official policy I think editors can organically merge it. Redirect it, more precisely. Marskell (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and re the "detailed content of RS", I must ask: what detailed content? It hasn't had any for some time and when it did, in '05 and '06, it was a bloated. Marskell (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Some history may be in order for those who don't know. WP:RS was originally split off from WP:V... for both negative and positive reasons. Negatively, it amounted to a POV fork. Positively, it was offered as a guidleline to explain what was meant by the term "reliable sources" (as used in three of our core policies). Unfortunately, It quickly became a sort of pseudo-policy, outlining what was reliable and what was not. Because of this, WP:RS has never been stable. I have personally been invovled in at least two complete re-write attempts, and there have been others. None have been satisfactory. One major problem has been that the Wikipedia community has never really reached consensus on what constitutes a reliable source and more importantly, what constitutes an unreliable source. Those who work on hard science topics have very different criteria than those who work on social science topics, and those who write articles on pop culture have yet a third concept of reliability. The guideline has been a constant debate... and what it said has swung between being seen as too strict and being seen as too loose like a pendulum.

For those who are fans of WP:RS, and are worried that this proposal means that the flood gates will open and we will get all sorts of unreliable sources being allowed in Wikipedia, fear not... It is very clear that the concept of requiring our editors to cite reliable sources to back what they say in our articles will remain sound. It is a concept that remains at the core of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. That concept is not going away. If anything, the proposal to merge promotes the concept. Things that had guideline status will now be part of Policy. In other words... while guideline page WP:RS will go, the concept of Reliable Sources is being stengthened. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I see nobody here has yet mentioned Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples. I imagine the intention is to keep it renamed somewhere. It's an odd page, being neither policy nor guideline, and probably nonetheless containing the actual real meaning. there are also the RS-like sections Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources and Wikipedia:No original research and others, which also contain a good deal of the material. Personally, I would like to see this all consolidated properly and consistently, and the place to do so would appear to be as a page called directly Wikipedia:Reliable sources--instead of trying to de-fuse the issue by diffusing the content.

But perhaps that's unrealistic--we seem to be dealing with the disagreements by deciding to not discuss them. Ignoring the need for consistent general statements will make discussions more difficult and results more variable. maybe that's the intent--everyone will try to interpret things as conducive to the favored result for their favored articles. I realized early on here that this is what is meant by discussing "policy"--that is why I stick to AfD by and large, where at least it's explicitly over the specific articles.DGG (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It is consolidated at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. That's our main RS wording. It's stable, tight, and has been gone over by a lot of our best editors. To repeat: Why on V? Because you can't define verifiability without defining reliable sources. The examples page is all the bloat that was left over from '05 and '06. I remember the first time I read RS (summer '05): it advised me to go to my local library, which I'd surely enjoy; I remember because I thought it so stupid. It was just a page to drop off mini-essays. V, of course, has changed over time but in a way that's made it steadily better. Marskell (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

well, that makes it an essay. i will be BOLD and rename and remark it accordingly. It is now Wikipedia:Reliable source examples At a quick reading, i see only one or two places where it does not in fact represent accurately what the consensus is in discussions of sources, but of course you or anyone is welcome to edit it. If you want to revert the move though, I would appreciate it if we discuss it first there. DGG (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The essay tag is fine. It's the meandering that bothers me more than points made themselves. Just from the TOC, I don't like it. Put one way, just because you can think of an example doesn't mean we have to talk about it. Brevity is the soul of policy. I think we should start again with a short and simple Verifiability/FAQ. Marskell (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Image fair use policy

How can I tell if an image I find online qualifies as "fair use" or not?--Miss Pussy Galore (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it meet all ten points of the non-free content criteria? Pay particular attention to #1: if it is possible to find or create a free-licensed replacement, then the non-free image does not meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Carnildo (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Radio and TV station notability

It recently came to my attention that TV and radio stations are exempt from the notability guideline that most other companies must satisfy. That is:

is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.

Radio and TV stations however apparantly only need to be licensed by the FCC or equivalent in other countries. However, the FCC requires TV and radio stations to have a license. "Fines and/or criminal prosecution may result from illegal operation of an unlicensed station." The content of many of these articles fails the main verifiability policy as the only sources they have are the FCC database and other such listings, which do little more than prove the existence and address of the station, a far cry from the substantial coverage required of every other company and the reliable sources guideline. What I saw from my attempt to nominate 2 stations for deletion (WRNY (AM) and WRRC (FM)) was completely shocking. First, someone removed the AFD tag from the article, saying that the radio project must be consulted before such nominations. Reasons for keeping the articles were absolutely ludicrous, saying that if we delete minor radio stations such as those, that we would have to delete every radio and TV station, including the BBC World Service. Since when are radio stations so special that they are exempt from the notability guideline and the verifiability policy? Mr.Z-man 18:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• ON the face of it, this looks wrong and an end-run round notability and verifiability policies. It also raises a systemic bias question; do non-American radio stations, without the free pass of the FCC, have to pass policy? This does need to be looked at. ELIMINATORJR 19:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Beeing licensed by FCC is for me not a sign of notabillity. otherwise someone need to go through http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/amq?state=&call=&arn=&city=&freq=530&fre2=1700&type=0&facid=&class=&list=1&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&NS=N&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&EW=W&size=9 and add all missing stations :) _→AzaToth 19:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I must say I'm puzzled by the AFD results. I find the argument that a radio station is notable simply because it is licensed utterly unconvincing. A license is simply an instrument all stations must have to operate, and doesn't imply any kind of notability. I have to join Mr.Z-man in asking why WP:N and WP:V shouldn't apply to radio stations? henrik•talk 19:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This [6] is also somewhat illuminating. ELIMINATORJR 19:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the keeps into account, but I hadn't though that having a FCC license wasn't a valid reference. I had trusted user opinion, especially some admins which had taken part, and some other pointers like "it's notable" and "Wikipedia should cover all radio stations". However, I would take concern with the latter, as it is not the right to have an article on a radio station that isn't verifiable through independent and reliable sourcing. In retrospect, would it be right of me to conclude that users may have just "piled on"? Rudget.talk 21:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And just saying "its notable" doesn't make it so. Mr.Z-man 21:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say the articles deserve a full discussion, either at deletion review or by reopening the AFDs, especially since the posting at the WP:WPRS was such a flagrant case of WP:CANVASS. henrik•talk 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Broadcast stations are inherently notable, and are part or a region's infrastructure just like highways, railroads, dams, etc. The language about being licensed is so we don't have people adding articles for every public access, closed-circuit cable station. I don't think that guideline was ever meant to be US-specific; broadcast stations in almost every country need to hold a license. It's just that most of the editors are in the US, and our FCC makes the license data accessible online. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And fictional characters are inherently notable, and are part of a culture's infrastructure just like songs, plays, television shows, etc. That's phenomenally bad reasoning, and I thought we'd been through this before with schools. Nothing is "inherently" notable, from the stars that shine upon us to the dust between our toes. Steve block Talk 22:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fictional characters aren't inherently notable and certainly aren't part of any infrastructure. Some things are inherently notable here on Wikipedia, cities being one example. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And inherently notable, even if it were true (is there a consensus somewhere for this, where is this all written down?), does not override WP:V. Every named, official street is a part of regional infrastructure too, but we only have articles about significant ones, not all of them. How is an article about a public access cable station any less notable than a college radio station with a coverage area of about 10 square miles? How is a radio station a public good like highways and dams? Why should they not should be treated like companies? A newspaper can serve about the same purpose, are they inherently notable? The argument: license = notable is completely contrary to the idea of notability on Wikipedia. Mr.Z-man 22:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The "inherently notable" idea came from some policy about place names. I think the standard was, if something was a Census-designated place name, it was deemed notable. Thousands of articles were robot-created from Census data, and there's remnants of this in many articles about small towns. There's also an element of practicality needed here, versus deducing from first principles: In a metro area, there can only be a dozen or so broadcast TV stations and maybe a couple dozen radio stations (including college stations). The same can not be said for every public-access feed. And while stations change hands from time to time, they tend to stay in operation for decades. This means a limited number of articles about stations. They are treated as part of the public good, for instance they are required to carry certain hours of news and educatonal programming, and they participate in emergency broadcast drills. I'd also like to point out that radio and TV stations are mentioned every week in a reliable secondary source; the newspaper listings and TV Guide. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I endore EliminatorJRs comments. I complied with all guidelines regarding non-admin closures. Rudget.talk 22:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Nielsen, the average Full Power or Class-A TV station in the U.S. broadcasts to a potential audience of more than a half a million homes (not viewers, households).[7] With the exception of one TV station in Glendive, Montana, FP and CA TV stations in the U.S. enjoy wide coverage (larger circulations than comparable newspapers). I can't speak for stations in other countries, but stations with audiences estimated at, on average, more than half a million homes are kinda inherently notable. I don't see why this fact needs to be included in each article, though: the policy is there to discourage non-notable subjects from being added to Wikipedia, not cause good-faith editors to spend extra time trying to "prove" the notability of something that is already very obvious to them, and something they think other editors should already be aware of, given the predominance of television in U.S. media. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that a TV station with an audience of 500,000 is non- notable. However, radio stations with much, much, smaller audiences may well be. ELIMINATORJR 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But Mr. Z-man is stating that a radio station with a potential audience of 313,000 persons (as linked in the article), on the air since 1962 (as linked in the article) isn't notable. Is 313,000 much, much smaller than 500,000? Firsfron of Ronchester 02:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Numbers don't matter, significant coverage in reliable sources does. Mr.Z-man 03:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Numbers don't matter"??? You were the one who pointed out that the station's coverage was only 10 square miles. Now that I have pointed out that that is clearly wrong, you have changed your argument to "Numbers don't matter." Please stop arguing in circles. I know you desperately want these articles deleted, and that you're willing to take this discussion to any forum you can in order to get them deleted (AFD, DRV, VP), but at least one of the articles has established clear notability (on the air for 45 years, audience of 313,000, all verifiable through independent links to reliable sources). Firsfron of Ronchester 03:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I was only using the numbers arguement to show how silly it is to compare a small station like that with the BBC World Service, not as a reason for deletion. The reason for deletion is still: Fails WP:CORP, no sources for the article content, so it also fails WP:V. Mr.Z-man 05:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope: clear notability (on the air for 45 years, audience of 313,000, all verifiable through independent links to reliable sources already present in the article). Firsfron of Ronchester 05:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If we are to even consider changing the notability for radio and TV stations then one could find that WABC, KDKA (the US's first broadcast station) or even BBC Radio fails notability. By the same token, it could be said that WRGB (the first broadcast television station) or even NBC fails notability.

If the "small" and "non-notable" stations were removed, where would it stop? Would we find reasons to eliminate all TV and Radio stations articles? Even all TV and Radio network articles? If one is removed, that would open up a can of worms that would make WP:WPRS, WP:TVS, and several other WikiProjects completely irrelavant, we would lose thousands of hours of tireless work by many, many editors, and set a precedent that if it is small and even remotely "non-notable" then it shouldn't be here, which would put the entire project, Wikipedia itself, in jeopardy.

Changing a notability standard isn't something that should be done on a whim and without thinking...or at all. These are rules that were set up long ago, have been here long before we showed up, and continue to be enforced. If the Wikipedians who started this project thought that radio and TV stations were not notable, they would never have allowed WP:WPRS and WP:TVS to be.

Mr.Z-man, this and this should be clear enough that even thinking about changing the notability standard is a really, really bad idea. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a very silly argument. Just because one or two minor radio stations would be deleted, why exactly do you think someone would go "zOMG! we must now delete BBC Radio"? We delete biographies all day long, that doesn't mean the articles on Winston Churchill or Michelangelo are going to be gone tomorrow. Radio- and TV-stations are mostly notable, but they're not inherently notable, and not all are notable. henrik•talk 23:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

All I see in those AfDs are lots of "Keep" votes with no rationale other than the station has got an FCC license, closed by a well-meaning non-admin who didn't realise that this isn't actually a notability guideline. (Note that I am not actually commenting on the notability or otherwise of those stations, merely that I am somewhat perturbed that those AfDs appeared to ride roughshod over our notability and verifiability policies). And User:henrik is exactly right in his comment above.ELIMINATORJR 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If one can argue that WRNY is not notable, I can argue that BBC Radio is not notable. Yeah, sure it's a world-wide radio network, but same with Voice of America. Do we need a massive article on each, no, hence it should be deleted. Not a perfect arguement, but neither is the one User:Mr.Z-man has given above either.

If the notability standard is changed, it will lead to a slippery slope for all radio and TV station articles, all radio and TV network articles and all radio and TV program articles at risk to deletion. Then the precedent set here will go to other WikiProjects...and then you have just eliminated Wikipedia. You open Pandora's Box, you ain't getting Pandora back in. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that non-notable radio stations should be kept, because then we'd have to delete every radio station article? The only factors in play here are notability and verifiability, just as they are with every single other article on Wikipedia. Notable and verifiable articles stay; those that aren't should be deleted. No category of article is exempt from that. ELIMINATORJR 00:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)Oh please, how on earth can you compare BBC Radio with worldwide coverage with some little college station with 10 square miles of coverage? I find it extremely hard to believe that there is no significant coverage in sources to establish notability for the BBC. That argument is absolutely ridiculous. My argument is that radio stations are no different from any other type of media or company, why do they need special rules? Where were these rules made up? Where is the wide consensus that would be needed to override the main notability criteria and WP:V? Mr.Z-man 00:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The station's coverage is closer to 350 square miles, not 10 square miles. The 10 mile measurement is the radius of coverage. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that we cannot, in advance, lay down a bright line rule about which items in some category are notable, and which are not, is not a real problem in practice. We don't have similar rules for many, many types of things. The "slippery slope" argument, also known as "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS/DOESNTEXIST", is not considered valid at AFD. Each is judged on its own merits, and whilst there may be some difficult choices at the borderline, in practical terms there is usually fairly clear consensus as you move away from it. Our solution is the one described - we set general principles, and allow the community to decide where different radio/TV stations fall within them. That's fine, and works. Some get deleted. Some get kept. WP:NOT is clear that we do not include all items indiscriminately, even if sources may exist. Perhaps some rules may apply that we will agree is a good indication a radio/TV station is notable, which might help, but often no such rule exists and it'll be down to sources, impressions and editor's views at AFD. In this context, FCC is "evidence" not "proof", and may be considered for some stations, insufficient evidence to compensate for smallness. In practice, it works. Wikipedia is non-deterministic that way, and both allows and is robust against inconsistency in its editorial AFD choices. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thought 2: I dont have a problem with discussing the concept "are all licenced radio stations notable" (or some large part of them excluding tiny ones). It principle we can make that decision on any subject - population settlements, rivers, countries, for example. But I'd want it decided by the community, not just asserted... and that decision would need to look at examples of what might be included under it. If it includes some tiny hospital radio thing, then my personal opinion is, no... because as a sample item I wouldn't think all hospital radios are automatically notable, licensed or not. But that'd be my own opinion..... others might disagree. But if the category was narrowed to something like: "Permanent, established, and legally operated radio stations that serve the general population of a significant geographical area" (as opposed to some campus, or other organization, a tiny settlement's radio, or a specialist function not of general interest), then I'd be more inclined to consider it. Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think low-power FM stations are notable. They serve maybe 3 miles from their transmitter, if that. Some don't even cover their community of license. These are not notable. But when a station covers their community of license (in WRNY's case, Rome, NY...which isn't college based) then it is notable. When a station covers a 75 miles radius, it is more than notable. I think we need to have a major consensus before changing anything. But if the box is open, any station or network is at risk. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not if they meet the WP:N guideline that every other comapny and media outlet has to meet. Mr.Z-man 00:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is being changed - no one has ever produced a policy that an FCC-licensed station is inherently notable (at least not to me) - it's just a guideline that's been followed, whether it's within the realm of policy or not. JPG-GR (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I share several of NH's concerns. A 45-year old, well-established radio station which began operations during radio's "golden age" was nominated for deletion. People aren't thinking these nominations through. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Its a college radio station, with a broadcast area of ~10sq mi. I stand by my statement that if it so special that there should be substantial coverage in reliable sources. Things don't become notable automatically after reaching a certain age, they still need sources. Mr.Z-man 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it not a radio station with a broadcast area of ~10 square miles. It is a radio station with a radius of ~10 miles: huge difference. Its coverage is around 350 quare miles, with a potential audience of around 313,000 persons,[8] as already linked in the article. Clearly, you made a mistake somewhere. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did make a mistake in the math, thank you for catching that. However, I'm not sure where 350 comes from, from that map, the radius appears to be more like 5 miles, which would give an area of about 78. But even then, a big number is not a substitute for a reliable source, which I still have yet to see for any of these articles. Mr.Z-man 02:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitron.com and the FCC's website aren't reliable sources?! *slaps forehead* The radius for local-distant-fringe coverage is 10 miles, as shown here. (radio-locator.com) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Math never was my strong suit :) Sorry about the radius goof. But Firs is right, the FCC and Aribtron.com are the best sources available. We also use Radio-Locator.com (for coverage maps). They are "standard operating procedure" when making articles. Make sure each has a {{FMQ|WXXX}}, {{FML|WXXX}}, and a {{FMARB|WXXX}} link at the bottom. (AMQ, AML and AMARB for AM stations). These give automatic links to that stations FCC licenese (via FMQ), the stations Radio-Locator page (via FML) and the stations page on the Arbitron website (via FMARB). We also make sure they are categorized by format and state or metro area if need be. There are plenty of people who are currently making sure that all articles have each of these tags on them. Also, we add websites (where available) for even further sources. If there are newspaper articles, we add those. We don't do this "half-assed", we make sure things are sourced beyond the point of necessary. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

None of that proves notability. JPG-GR (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)Significant coverage in reliable sources, as is required for every other company, including media outlets like newspapers and magazines would be nice. Mr.Z-man 03:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't consider the Federal Communications Commission, the governing body of all radio and television stations in these United States, a reliable source, then there is no source that will make you happy. What you are talking about is newspaper articles, TV station reports and the like on each and every radio station. Some stations go their entire "life" without so much as a mention in the local paper (unless a DJ does something stupid). With that said, we should have a TON on WXRK in NYC (former home of Howard Stern). But if you want true notability, then best place is the FCC, if that isn't a reliable source, then delete all radio and TV station articles now. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing terms. The FCC is a reliable source - no one is saying it isn't. However, it doesn't prove notability. Apples. Oranges. JPG-GR (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you show me something that proves a station notable. If the FCC, Radio-Locator, and Arbitron don't, then what does? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding notability. Have no books been written about these radio stations? Are there no independent websites that discuss them? From where did you get the information that is in the articles? Unless I'm mistaken, the reference in WRNY (AM) to the New Jersey AM Radio History website talks about a completely different station that closed in 1934. --Smalljim (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no "pandoras box" here, Homer. AFd and Wikipedia don't work that way. Since you can't readily argue from precedent at AFD (some very strong precedents and principles excepting), the "pandoras box" effect doesn't happen, and has singularly failed to happen on thousands of subjects to date. (It fails to happen roughly at the point someone tries to say "We have to keep/delete X because we have/don't have Y" and the AFD closer strikes that out saying "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS/DOESNTEXIST" is not valid here.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Change the notability standard for radio and TV stations and then start deleting them....and see what happens. See the precedent that will be set. If it will happen for radio and TV, it will happen for history, or towns in the US. Watch and see. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why, we require other companies and media outlets (newspapers, magazines, websites) to meet notability criteria that includes significant coverage in reliable sources and Wikipedia hasn't fallen apart. Mr.Z-man 03:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, change the standard (remember, you are asking for a notability standard change here) and watch what happens. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't. I just checked the articles of the USA's top 20 newspapers in terms of circulation. Only 11 of the 20 meet the standards you cite, and some of those are even suspect. So if you want to rigidly enforce those standards, you'll have to delete articles for top-10 newspapers The New York Daily News, The Washington Post, and The Arizona Republic. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What happens? This is a Secret ^account 04:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It will set a precedent where any article about any radio and television station, radio and television program, or radio and television network runs the risk of being deleted. You and Mr.Z-man are not seeing the big picture. You are not seeing the precedent this will set. If you change a notability standard, it will change the way any and all articles about any and all radio and TV stations, be it in Glendive, Montana or New York City are viewed. You are also not seeing that KDZN in Glendive is not less notable than WCBS in NYC and WCBS in NYC is no more notable than KDZN in Glendive.

Somehow, you and Mr.Z-man are trying to tell me that WRNY is Rome, NY (the article that Mr.Z-man is on a 3-day mission to get deleted) is notable. Let's see....founded and launched: 1959...that's some 48 years ago. WRNY covers some 250,000 to 300,000 people. The station is also heard on two other, co-owned stations, in Utica and Little Falls (both in New York). So that grows the station's coverage even more. So...say about 500,000 people are able to hear the station....how is that station less notable than say KDZN which covers about the same area but only serves about 6,000 people and maybe 25,000 cows? You can't argue it. You would have to argue each and every single station. You would have to compare them to each other to see which is notable to which one....which is what you are doing now.

Here's the problem with this -- all that you just said - not mentioned in the article, and therefore unsourced. And, for that reason, the article does not assert the station's notability. JPG-GR (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So you are trying to change the rules...and that will open the box for each and every single station, program, network to be at risk for deletion. The precedent will be set and other WikiProjects will say, "hey, if they can do it, so can we"....the pages for the smallest towns in the Union will be up for deletion because they aren't notable...the smallest rodent or the smallest bug will be up for deletion because it isn't notable and it will go to the big things. Hey, we all know about elephants, do we need a full article on it, nah, deletion. It's a precedent that will be set and a box you will not be able to close and it will, mark my words, will lead to the downfall of Wikipedia itself....because someone will go "hey, we can find all this stuff on other websites, why do we need an online encyclopedia about it". Think about it. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No one is "trying to change the rules" - they are trying to enforce the policy which has been neglected. The implication that the deletion of a single/pair of radio station articles will bring the "downfall of Wikipedia itself" is amusing at best. JPG-GR (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does it always have to be black and white? The argument I have seen a lot is: "Delete this and you have to delete them all." -- Um, why? Why is it not possible for some stations to be notable but not others? That system works perfectly well for every other type of company, for newspapers, magazines, websites, etc. and Wikipedia has yet to implode as a result. There are plenty of potential substantial sources for WCBS, not so many for KDZN - perhaps it would be better in a "List of Montana radio stations" until it becomes more notable. Mr.Z-man 05:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an advocate of inherent notability for all licensed broadcast television and radio stations. However, if that station originates content, it is notable in my estimation. As I've mentioned in previous notability arguments, if a broadcast station reports on an issue and meets the standard of a reliable source, that report is considered a reliable source and is used in establishing the subject's notability. How then is a broadcast station a reliable source and a provider of notability, but not be notable itself? It is ludicrous to compare fictional characters with broadcast stations; fictional characters do not establish notability. The standard currently in use in the Television Stations Project is that mere translators are non-notable and do not have articles, or even article stubs. They do, however, get a redirect that links to the primary station's article. Stations that originate content are considered notable just from the broadcast licensing authority's information, although any statements beyond such information are free to be challenged as with any other article.

Many try to apply the standards of WP:COMP WP:CORP to broadcast stations, but I believe that's a bad idea. There is usually a conflict of interest with broadcast stations that doesn't exist with companies in other industries. I wish that I could find more independently-sourced information about stations, besides licensing authority material, and I do try to provide them whenever possible, but a newspaper is not likely to cover a broadcast station, unless that station screws up somehow. The same goes for radio or television stations in the market - why advertise your competitor? About the only time a station would get independent press is if it were to be sold, and even then, some have challenged such references as insubstantial. The only source that can be cited in many cases to establish notability is a station's own material, or material from a partner station, but those fail the independence test.

As for verifiability, one only needs to go to the licensing authority to see if the station exists; information from the authority used in the article is verified. If there are statements in the article that cannot be verified following a challenge, then remove the statements, not the article. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Dhett. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well-stated. Certain arguments supporting the deletion proposal reflect a flaw in the manner in which notability is established on Wikipedia. Whether it's because of the competition factor between differing corporations, or just because we tend to take them for granted, radio and television stations generally don't get a lot of press. With the exception of the occasional note about ratings, I can't think of the last time I saw independent coverage of CBC, or CKNW, or any of the other stations in my market. It doesn't affect how important they are, or how much people rely on them on a day-to-day basis. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference from schools? Over the years a school will educate -and that's something important- thousands of people. They just go about their business year after year. They have to be registered with your Government, here's one such database, just like the FCC list of radio stations. Yet many schools are found not notable. What's the difference? --Smalljim (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Big difference. Using the example of the smallest TV DMA, Glendive, Montana, the television station there potentially reaches 5,000 households daily, which translates to roughly 15,000 persons. Any school that reaches 15,000 persons daily would be considered notable. Further, that television station would be cited as a reliable source to help establish notability; not so with a school. If that's not enough, anything newsworthy that a school does would be covered in the local media, adding to its notability. TV and radio stations, as well as newspapers, don't get covered by each other unless they do something bad, or, in the case of KTVK and KNXV-TV, something happens to them so horrific that it transcends competition, such as a mid-air helicopter collision. Unlike a school, the media's basic responsibility actually works against notability as defined in WP:CORP: it's their job to cover news, not to make it. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that's an interesting argument - that we should compare the number of pupils in a school with the number of people listening daily to a radio or TV station to determine relative notability. OK, if you want to make a comparison like that, I can assert that a day spent educating one child is about 1,000 times more meaningful than a day spent listening to the average content of a local radio station, so the school is therefore 1,000 x (number of pupils) / (daily listening figure) as notable as the radio station. And no, of course I'm not claiming that, I'm just pointing out the fallacy of such comparisons. // All I was saying -and it's a just a small simple point- is that both schools and radio stations are government-registered and both have online databases that list those registrations. And it was claimed earlier (not by you, I think) that all radio stations are notable because they appear on the FCC list, yet consensus now is that all schools are not considered so despite appearing on an equivalent list. Consensus can change. // The question of notability being reflected back to the source may be worth exploring further, if it hasn't already. If I understand correctly, you're saying that a radio station is sometimes cited as a reliable source for another article here (presumably most often for news reports that it has produced); and when this happens that station must therefore be notable itself. Well that doesn't sound unreasonable to me in principle, though I think it would only be likely to happen with the larger stations, and proof/verifiability would be a problem unless it had a website (e.g. BBC News, widely cited here). What do others think: it's different from WP:NOTINHERITED, but not a new concept, surely? --Smalljim (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My numbers point was simply an answer to your assertion that a school educates thousands of people. It does, and high schools seem to have an inherent notability to them, whether in policy, or simply in practice. The point was made first because it was a direct response to yours, not because it was the principal point of my argument. My principle point is that WP:CORP puts media outlets at a distinct disadvantage, due to the competition issue. Because of that, many articles about U.S. broadcast stations rely heavily on FCC information, as the FCC is both independent and reliable. Assertions beyond that should be reliably sourced, just as with any other article. You are correct: I oppose blanket inherent notability for radio and TV, but if a station is producing its own content, and not merely repeating a satellite feed or the over-the-air signal of another station, then that should be sufficient to establish notability, due to the number of people served by the stations. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a proposal to define notability for broadcast stations, which I find to be well-reasoned. It addresses the particular needs that broadcast stations have that WP:CORP does not address. I try to follow this standard myself when determining broadcast station notability, and I hope all here will give it serious consideration as a guideline. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to just improve the articles?

Instead of complaining about the "changing of a notability standard" (completely untrue, because there isn't any special notability standard for radio stations), why not concentrate on making the articles on those that are notable conform to Wikipedia standards? Because at the moment, there are frankly a lot of radio station stubs that are not only non-notable, but don't even assert notability and could be speedy deleted on the spot under {{db-corp}}. For example, look at KAWO (FM) or indeed most of the other stations on that template - all they say is "This station exists. It transmits on X frequency and plays Y type of music". Now, I'm not going to delete them en masse under CSD, and I doubt if anyone else is either, but the fact that an administrator would be perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy if they were to do so should surely be a matter of concern. Obviously, such articles would not (or should not) pass AfD either - unless they're improved to meet WP:N and WP:V. ELIMINATORJR 07:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am all for improving on these articles. But sometimes it is hard to find information on some of these stations. They "live quiet lives", if you will. In my time living near Winchester, Virginia, I have seen 8 newspaper articles about the local radio stations. That's not alot to work with. Then you have to source them. Sometimes all you have is the article in your hand. You can't link to it, because it isn't on a website, it is in front of you on paper. So, sometimes, it is hard to source information.

Doesn't mean it can't be done though. Take WTVR or WTOP for instance...great histories written. Now, WINC-FM has a history, but it needs work. 1947 to the Mid-70s are missing (just don't have the information). Again, doesn't mean it can't be done.

If I may pose an idea....would it be possible for members of WP:WPRS to call these stations and see if they can send them history information about their stations? With many people in many parts of the country, this shouldn't be hard and shouldn't cost anyone any long distance charges :). It's an idea.

We can sit here all night and bicker about it, or we can come up with an idea on how to get the information and make these damned things notable. Personally, if I had to choose, I would take making a phone call and getting a history than bicker and get a migraine. What do you all think? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're exactly right! We should look at KAWO (FM), an article that was a bare stub that could be improved to a fuller article with multiple independent references. This radio station article, and many just like it, needed to be expanded, not deleted. (So I've done just that, or at least made a good start of it.) Would Wikipedia be best served if the WikiProject Radio Stations editors were able to devote all of their time to such articles in need of attention or would it really be better if instead we had to spend hours each day arguing about the "notability" of each of thousands of stations at the whim of anybody who would rather devote all their energy to getting articles they don't like deleted? - Dravecky (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say if you have 8 citable references, that is more than enough to establish Notability. Most stations that have been on the air for more than a few years probably have long histories that are not available on-line, but could be dug out with some shoe-leather type research. It's pointless to delete these if there is sufficient verifiable content for a stub. I'd say that a stub that says "This station exists. It transmits on X frequency and plays Y type of music" is fine as long as it is verifiable. We could also get the transmitter power and geographic coordinates of the transmitter from the government database, along with the license history. That would provide encyclopedic information on geography and history, and should be sufficient for inclusion. Even if the article were merged, we would still leave the redirect, so it is not a candidate for deletion. Dhaluza (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes all you have is the article in your hand. You can't link to it, because it isn't on a website, it is in front of you on paper. So, sometimes, it is hard to source information. - Just to make perfectly clear: sources do not have to be on-line in order to be acceptable. On-line sources are easier to check, but Sophie Blanchard, today's main page article, for example, contains all of two footnotes citing on-line sources. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I heartily support article improvement, and have added reliably-sourced information whenever I have found it. I have also been challenged on how substantial the sourced information is, so I try to ensure that the information is substantial, not just a passing reference, and independent. In researching the top-20 U.S. newspapers by circulation, I was appalled at the references posted. So many were nothing more than self-references. The notability policy clearly instructs editors to first try to improve non-compliant articles, but instead, the AfD nominator chose to dispute the guideline. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable potential

I can't help but think that people are just mad that it's easier to make an article about some stuff over other stuff. Notability is nothing more than our inclusion guidelines to keep us from having everything under the sun have an article, and turning this place into a real mess. If you really want to get worked up on the details and start comparing any two given articles for inclusion, go ahead, but that's totally missing the point. Personally, I think it sucks that I can't find sources to make an article for the wildly inappropriate Pedobear meme, but that's just how things go sometimes. Most, if not all, of these articles have high potentials to find all the sources we need, simply because of the nature of radio stations. It's not so hard to believe that we have an easy inclusion rule for them because there's almost always more sources to be found. -- Ned Scott (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there are plenty of infrastructure-type things for which we have to go to the basic premise of notability, that something is notable if it is worth knowing about. Having significant mentions in independent reliable sources, or whatever the particular standard may be, is not the same as notability, it is a presumptive test for establishing notability. But a number of things like roads, media outlets, authors, experts, lobbying groups, etc., do not get press in proportion to their notability. In some cases we have specialized guidelines; in other places we don't and we have to use common sense instead. Setting aside the question of whether a licensed broadcast station is inherently notable, if it has been around for a while, has a large prospective audience, has been owned by a major media company, has produced its own material, etc., those are arguments for notability. There is truly nothing gained by trying to delete this kind of content from Wikipedia. It is not spam or cruft, and it clearly enhances our mission of creating a body of encyclopedic knowledge. Wikidemo (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's right. And comic books and television shows have been around a while, they have a large prospective audience and are owned by major media companies, and so they're all inherently notable too. Steve block Talk 10:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Show me a comic book or TV show that has been in continuous daily operation since 1962, and I'd say it was notable. One of the reasons I'm pretty upset about the radio station deletion nomination is that one of the stations has been in continuous operation for 45 years. A TV program that was in its 45th season would be notable by anyone's measure, I'd think. A comic book that just went into its 45th volume would probably be notable, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

They are not infrastructure. The brick-and-mortar type of things that are limited by available capital, and are long-lasting, semi-permanent things that affect the everyday life of people are worthy of note, and usually are noted by RS. Television shows also get coverage in RS, and become notable for that reason (they are also limited by available capital). Individual comic books, on the other hand, do not require a large capital investment, and probably don't get a lot of coverage unless they are special in some way. But a successful series of comic books probably is notable.Dhaluza (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles about the shows themselves, yes. We're not talking about fictional characters. And my point is that these radio stations are something that, far more often than not, can be shown to be notable via our guidelines, even if that information hasn't been added yet. (like, realistically can be added, not just speculated about, which is often done for fictional character articles). -- Ned Scott (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that inherent notability is inherently flawed. Nothing is built with notability alone, there's no packet of notability mixed into the cement that built the White House for example. Already Dhaluza has noted these types of things are usually covered by reliable soirces, so I fail at some level to see why we bandy around the term "inherently notable". I am attempting, however, to show that on some levels all things are equal. We don't treat bricks and mortar as of more value in our lives, so why should Wikipedia. Humanity is built of more than just the roof over our heads, we're built of dreams and loves too, and I'm trying to cut through some of the systemic boas involved in this debate which seems to be stating that some things are good and can therefore rely on certain arguments, but other things are bad and can't. I'm not arguing that fictional characters should be included, but I'm arguing you can't declare certain concepts as of more weight than others. That's a POV, and we don't do that. Oh, and as to comic books not getting much coverage, if some of the people in this debate are right and some radio stations aren't covered in any sources, then I'm afraid that even minor characters get more coverage; there are more than a couple of encyclopaedias out there on them. Think through your arguments is all I'm asking. If you can substitute another term for radio station and the argument would still have merit, even though it might not come from your lips, then think of a better argument, because the one you have is flawed. Steve block Talk 14:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I never argued that there is inherent notability. What are you going off about? I said that there is often reasonable potential, meaning that there are sources to allow these articles to exist without an inherent notability argument. The success rate of finding sources for these articles is very high, something that cannot be said for articles on fiction. We don't actually disagree, because you're not understanding what I'm trying to say. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not merely addressing points you raise, Ned, but ones raised throughout the debate. Steve block Talk 09:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the concept of "inherent notability" raises hackles among some editors, particularly deltionists who don't want whole classes of articles put out of their reach. But there is a practical concern that needs to be considered. Some topics, particularly those relating to basic infrastructure, are better given comprehensive coverage. When the vast majority of possible articles in a subject area are Notable, then it really does no good to argue over the few that may not be. Notability is a valid concern where the potential number of articles is huge, like people, or fictional characters. Where the number is limited by practical constraints, there is no real problem. This was the wisdom behind allowing articles on verifiable populated places, regardless of size. It would be pointless to try to argue the relative notability of a village in Africa vs. a suburb in North America. A similar case applies to telephone area codes. How can you judge which are notable and which are not? All are verifiable with multiple sources, so why stop editors who are willing to research and write about them? The same is true for licensed public broadcast stations. Most are notable, and we don't have to fret over the ones that may not be, because they are limited by pracitcal considerations. Who is to say that a not-for-profit college station with a 10 mile coverage radius is more or less notable than a rural commericial station with a 50 mile coverage radius. Does it really matter? Really? Dhaluza (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is labelling people as "inclusionist" or "deletionist". You'll find most editors actually look at AfDs with a neutral eye; naturally, there are bound to be lots of WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT comments from editors who don't really understand the AfD process, but in general admins are quite good at ignoring such rationales. Personally, I'm in favour of merging a lot of the time; keeping content without having the bloat of dozens of stub articles. However, very few things are "inherently notable". Obviously some are; countries, settlements, geographical features, elements, etc. As for other subjects, TV shows, comic books or even radio stations - are often (but not always) notable. In other areas many subjects may be individually non-notable (this especially applies to fictional characters). It all depends, in the end, on the basics of verifiability and notability. ELIMINATORJR 12:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have stated before my reasons why articles for radio and television articles are notable before and don't wish to repeat myself. However, with consensus going as it is, I think we are going to see the scenario of all the radio and television stations being transwikied to another Wiki specifically for TV and Radio stations. If things are as they are (considering the deletion review of the two articles), we can kiss goodbye to 99% of UK radio articles, where sources, even for the European stations (I have had two nominated for deletion, another merged into another article - and they were significant national/European radio stations - only saved by quoting WP:WPRS guidelines) are hard to come by and would fail WP:NOTE and WP:V by definition. The definition of the original deletion nominations mean that there are a lot of articles, even for stations up to a million listeners, and even the BBC World Service, because of the constant conflicts of accuracy and sources, could be according to Wikipedia policy, be up for deletion. I think that, considering notability for other things (ie. towns with one resident are notable) doesn't add up.

Frankly, I'm suprised that there hasn't been any significant bannings as a result of this sorry state. As for me, I would prepare to mass transit any TV and radio article on Wikipedia to another Wiki, should the deletion review and subsequent deletion succeed, because it will open the floodgates for other stations to be deleted. --tgheretford (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to misunderstand the deletion review. It is not a discussion as to whether the articles should be deleted or not, but whether the AfD was run correctly (which it probably wasn't). Also, these type of comments are just silly - radio stations with a million listeners are obviously going to be notable and are obviously going to be sourceable. We are talking about a minority of articles here, not 99%. ELIMINATORJR 14:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think you are being overly fatalistic to the extreme, to be perfectly honest. You've already pre-judged the deletion debate before we've even assessed whether it needs to be re-opened, and I fail to see how on earth anyone could be thinking the article on the BBC World Service could in any way be deleted; on a quick library search I count 94 mentions in The Guardian this year alone. The problem is with the level of debate, not with the articles or the guidance. So far the level of debate is sitting somewhere in the region of not fair because I like it. After all, what is "inherent notability"? How is it built into something? The quick rule of thumb, and it is a rule of thumb no matter what anyone says, since consensus can change and we can ignore all rules and policy trumps guidance, is that topics are presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It does not say they are presumed no notable if they fail, but that they may not be notable and certain avenues should be considered by editors, one of which is listing for deletion where "the merits will be debated and deliberated for 5 days." Now I think rather than arguing for inherent notability, people concentrate on arguing the merits to Wikipedia of inclusion of articles on licensed radio stations, as well as demonstrating the vast quantity of arguably "trivial" coverage in numerous sources. I should think every licensed radio station has been mentioned somewhere within a local newspaper a certain number of times a year, as well as elsewhere, and I should think that company accounts are filed etc etc, and I should think that at a deletion debate it would be possible to present the case that these amount to significant coverage through weight alone. I would think there would also be other sources to be found. I would also point out that nowhere does it state the independent coverage has to be examined or presented; a consensus of wikipedians only has to be satisfied that it likely exists. I hope that helps focus the minds of all in this debate. Steve block Talk 14:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone above finally gave a good reason why the general WP:CORP doesn't really work well for radio and TV stations (and most forms of media for that matter) - and that is basically because many reliable sources come from the media. CNN isn't going to do a whole story on Fox News unless Fox screws up. However, just creating a blanket guideline that basically says anything larger than an amateur radio station is automatically notable really doesn't work either, it assures we have articles on all the important things, but also opens Wikipedia up to articles that contain no more verifiable info than the FCC and radio-locater, which could be argued is a violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. I've started work on a new notability guideline proposal for media outlets in my userspace that I will move into project-space and ask for opinions when I'm done. Believe it or not, I'm not out to destroy Wikipedia one radio station at a time. I just don't see why radio/TV stations are so special as to be inherently notable. And I do not believe all infrastructure is inherently notable either. Local roads don't get articles, they have to be historic or at least a state highway. City water systems don't get articles, they're all pretty much the same. Few things are truly inherently notable, that is usually reserved for things that would be, to some extent, in paper encyclopedias: Cities, and most other populated places, major geographical features, historic persons, etc. Mr.Z-man 15:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I was interested in this debate so I visited the articles for the two stations I listen to most (KKBQ and KILT-FM). The articles as they were written would have failed the notability guidelines, so I did some google searching. In a short amount of time, I discovered that both of the stations had been nominated for awards (although in one case a decade or more ago), and there was a lot more information than I had expected about them in the local newspaper. Voila, I've now fixed the articles to clearly meet the notability guidelines and have much of the information sourced to a reliable source. Reliable sources should not be impossible to find. No, CNN is not going to do a story on Fox News, but USAToday (which has no television component) might. Likewise, a radio station or television station might not discuss another radio station, but check newspaper archives and I'll bet you can find some information abou them. In the US, at least, you can also check Billboard Magazine and Radio and Records - they have lots of articles about radio stations. Karanacs (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at your KKBQ references, specifically the five you cited in the Growth section, and commend you for them. However, I have defended TV station articles where every one of those references would have been rejected out of hand because not one article cited gives significant treatment to the radio station. The closest is the first, but it is about the Lander, not KKBQ. The station is only mentioned in passing as his employer. The others are passing references at best; in no way do the articles give significant coverage to the station. That's what I've been dealing with and why I contend that WP:CORP does not apply well to media. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that when people discuss "inherent notability", they often present examples that would pass the standard notability guideline with flying colours anyway. That is presumably because it's easier to bring up a big example that everyone's heard of, but it doesn't add as much to their argument as it could. (Not targeting any particular person mentioning "inherent notability", although there are probably some examples in this thread.) Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just stumbled across this thread, & have two comments:

1. I find it odd that no one here has thought of turning to the industry publications to help establish notability -- or at least provide sources for facts. (A person known as a librarian, usually found at your local library, ought to be able to help you identify these publications.) There's more information out there than is available on the Internet.
2. I think the problem this thread is struggling with is that many articles (not only about radio stations) are written from the premise of "Here's some information -- so how do I add it to Wikipedia?" rather than from the premise "If I wrote about this subject, what would a reader want to know about it -- & why?" No matter what objective criteria are set for notability of radio stations (e.g. audience size, age, market, etc.), there will be some excluded that shouldn't be, & vice versa. If these articles were written with the reader's interests in mind -- explaining why the radio station is notable -- we wouldn't need to establish a standard of notability. -- llywrch (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I have created a proposal for a notability guideline for media outlets (newspaper, magazine, radio, TV). See Wikipedia:Notability (media) and please discuss it on the talk page. Mr.Z-man 00:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Re-confirmation en masse

Before you jump all over my humble suggestion, let me assure you I'm no crank and am saying this with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. However, the spate of wheel-warring, direct overruling of James Wales by that one admin, admins with mental disturbances ..., and blatant admin vandalism and deletion sprees in the last year really have cast disrepute on the current corpus of sysops and stewards.

Therefore I propose that on Christmas Day 2007 (25 December), ALL admins and stewards have their access removed and are immediately put up again for re-nomination and discussion. That way the 'bad apples' can be easily removed without incident whilst the bulk of decent admins and stewards will be re-confirmed, likewise uneventfully. I hope this proposal helps. Thanks, BradTimlin (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're prepared to hear the myriad reasons why that idea is beyond foolish. Aside from the massive problems removing all access would cause, renomming would take too long and what can only be described as a train full of crap will rush onto Wikipedia like the plague in the meantime. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There are 1400 administrators on the English Wikipedia. The time cost alone of "reconfirmation" proceedings would make this an impossible exercise. With respect to stewards, they are elected on Meta-wiki, not on English Wikipedia, and I believe that most of them are being put up for reconfirmation in December. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you have some examples in mind - a spate of wheel wars that the community has not addressed, or 'blatent bad adminship' causing admin vandalism and deletion sprees likewise needing exceptional handling? The thing is, as with articles, admins are given trust to use admin tools, and this is removed or cautioned if they later fail to use them well. So what I'd need to see is evidence that there are significant cases where 1/ this stuff has gone on, but 2/ the specific individuals responsible have not been censured by the community, and 3/ it happens often enough with enough (hundreds of?) current admins are implicated, that we're better off renominating all 1400 or so admins, rather than dealing with these cases as/when they arise. I'd need to see significant advantage or need, in the cost-benefit scale. I don't see the relevance of "stewards", since non-admin stewards will not be "wheel warring" or doing "blatent" admin disruption as asserted -- they can't. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is such a horrible idea for admins (not stewards though, they have been multiply-vetted already), but removing the bit on all admins at once would leave the project in a tight spot. I think that an organized and gradual reconfirmation of admins in groups, perhaps after one year of service, might not be a bad idea. I don't think removing their bit beforehand would be necessary either. - Crockspot (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to punish admins for having the guts to make tough decisions, this is one way to do it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There aren't enough admins to handle the load. Admins are getting burned out, that's a bigger problem than the admins who leave messes and create embarassing drama.Professor marginalia (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked this user following discussion, as a disruption-only account, see User talk:BradTimlin. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good move. A look at his contribs shows charming edits such as this. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And on Christmas Day of all things. As if nobody could see right through this. - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading through his contribs, can I be the first to say I hope he eats them. Happy Thanksgiving! _(Sasha) 07:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Granted it's pretty much a given this guy is just trolling, I'm a little surprised at how quick people are to block. I can't but help but feel that this block is emotionally driven, simply because he choose a controversial subject to troll. What ever happened to at least giving a warning, letting the user know that we're serious, etc. ? -- Ned Scott (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: The above user has been indefinitely blocked for trolling ;-) --Carnildo (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Although the proposal is clearly unworkable in its current form, it does not reflect well that administrators are so hasty to make and maintain indefinite block on a new user, citing a proposal to reconfirm administrators as one of the reasons for the block. His short career on Wikipedia is nothing to be proud of, but no worse than many others who are given warnings before blocking and an opportunity to promise to be constructive editors. The claim that he has not tried to make any constructive edits to the project is clearly untrue.[9] Unless this is a sockpuppet account (quite possible given that he seems to have appeared here new with a chip on his shoulder and more than a passing familiarity with Wikipedia, in which case this is as likely an obtuse attempt to make fun of anti-administrator sentiment as it is a genuine complaint about administrators) the motivation looks a touch vindictive even if the result may be correct. Wikidemo (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an indefinite block does seem rather over-the-top, and counter-productive, since the user can just create a new account and start over. It would be better to use progressive discipline, rather than go straight to the nuclear option. Ironically, taking the bait, hook, line and sinker, only supports the user's WP:POINT. Dhaluza (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, please see the user's talk page. It is clear that the user is 1/ almost certainly not in fact a "new user" at all, and 2/ using this account purely so far for disruptive purposes and non-encyclopedic posts, not just this one post. Nonetheless, the block post clearly explains: "An indefinite block exists to protect the wiki against activity of a disruptive nature, either indefinitely or until it is confirmed the behavior will cease", and explains how to request unblocking if this will be the case.

"Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption ... an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion ... the more usual desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and – if unblocked – to refrain from the problematic conduct in future." (WP:INDEF)

This is neither hasty, nor particularly unusual. It's a neutral and appropriate application of an indefinite block, which is not the same as a "ban". The entire editing history was discussed before placing, and so far the decision (which took the user's entire editing history into account) has been independently reconfirmed twice on unblock request [10] [11] and by several further admins and reputable users here [12] [13] [14] etc. The user, who is almost certainly not a new user (as Wikidemo notes) and has created this new account which is presently used purely for disruptive edits (it's made only unconstructive edits to date), needs to confirm the account will be used constructively, before normal access can be re-allowed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

let me assure you I'm ... saying this with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind - I think it's fair that someone who starts a post off with what turns out to be a blatant lie (based on the prior record of edits) should be ignored. If someone who is a responsible editor here wants to restart this discussion (at a separate section, please), fine; that's the right way to consider this proposal. (Personally, I think it's a stupid idea, but different editors see things differently; I'd certainly support the right of an editor with a history of constructive edits to make such a proposal.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Contact us/Article problem

OTRS regularly gets emails from people who are told that in many cases (unless something exceptional's up), that OTRS team members cannot override community consensus, and that they need to edit the wiki themselves, or seek dispute resolution.

However, a user with a concern who sees "contact us" is presently directed to OTRS at the first resort, and a fair number of OTRS replies therefore say "we can't help, it's the editorial community" or "you can edit it yourself if you like". It's not the best communication we could have. We could explain the basics before pointing them to email.

I have added a short introduction to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem, so that users at least are clued in about community v. OTRS and how we handle problems, before clicking through to "What's the problem".

Can others review or improve this, as its a major page by which people contact us?

Thanks!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of this, I like your text. Only the page structure seems problematic, though I am not sure how it can be fixed. I had not seen the pages before, so looking at them was a little usability test. (A site like Wikipedia should really have a proper one.) While the overall experience with the page is probably very good for most users, I am not sure about those who are on an adrenaline trip because they have just read some bizarre claims about themselves on their biography page:

• Wikipedia:Contact us has a very visible link labelled "Report a problem". That's obviously for me. Good.
• Why does the writing suddenly get smaller?
• "Editorial community"? I am not going to read this. I want this server taken down. Immediately. Who can I yell at?
• Three lines about some "OTRS email system". No need to read that either, because I can see at a glance that there is no [imagine an expletive] email address there! They are hiding from me!
• At the bottom of the page it says I get priority with this "OTRS" nonsense, or something like this, but again no email address.
• I call my lawyer.

I hope that my imaginary user is very rare in the real world, although his lawyer is unlikely to make us much trouble. With this user we have no chance to get it exactly right, but some of his concerns are actually valid. BTW, the bit about the green box was a lie. In reality I can't even see that without using the scroll bar. (Let alone the list below. Configuration: 1024x768, Windows XP+Firefox.) And I heard it's surprising how many users have never used a scroll bar.

Perhaps the structure of the contact page(s) should be designed by someone who does it commercially for big companies and gets truckloads of money for that. One could even think about stepping out of the usual Wikipedia frame, to make it absolutely clear that Wikipedia takes the user's concern very seriously. It would look as if we were stopping all other activities to accomodate and pacify them. Most will be prepared to learn a few things about Wikipedia after they have calmed down.

On second thought, perhaps it would be enough to have a kind of panic button on Wikipedia:Contact_us that leads to a very small and simple page like this one. The text of the link going there should of course make it clear that it is for exceptional cases like libel only.

Also, I suspect that the information about OTRS people being ordinary editors and having to build consensus first is even more likely to be read if it comes in an automatic reply from OTRS.

I hope some of this makes sense, otherwise just ignore it. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

---

What _is_ the email address for OTRS? I went to add it (since it seems obvious it should be there), and I can't find it anywhere. —Random832 21:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind - I found it, it's just not obvious that the email address given is, in fact, OTRS. —Random832 21:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Esskater11/Dirty images

Is that link acceptable in our encyclopedia? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 16:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright vs. Trademark

There seems to be a big issue here on both Wikipedia and Commons, where users are confusing copyright versus trademark. This has been an issue with many logos, which cannot be copyrighted due to their simplicity, but are subject to trademark laws. For example, Image:Mbta-logo.svg cannot be copyrighted because it merely consists of the letter "T" inside a circle. An editor has been confusing copyright with trademark, and has since added a copyright image tag (in addition to the public domain tag), and now the image is listed for deletion. I don't want to start an edit war over this, or any other image, but it is certain that editors need to establish the difference between copyright and trademark, and know when to use {{Trademark}} and {{PD-ineligible}} on image pages. There is no detailed explanation about this at WP:LOGOS, and I think that a statement should be instated somewhere. I also think that a {{PD-logo}} should be created to help users understand this concept a little bit better. NOTE: This message was previously posted at Wikipedia talk:Logos on 2007-11-07 with no replies. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea to me. -- Ned Scott (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats: Instant, auto and permanent block.

"Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding."

The problem is, there is no one to follow-up so...

Making legal threats is automatic, instant, and permanent block that will remove yourself from Wikipedia with no chance of unblock. Thoughts?SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts with the general principle that (almost) anyone is capable of reform. For example, statements made in anger or immaturity should not always be held against people for the rest of their lives, so to speak. We remove them for specific reasons, not just because "it's a legal threat": -

• Because it reduces scope for escalation of a bad situation,
• It reduces stress and administrative burden on the wiki,
• It reduces disruption to articles and the editorial environment,
• It prevents the difficult situation where a person is both seeking to be collaborative partner and also setting themselves up as litigatious adversary (in general those two roles are mutually exclusive).

But... if those conflicts are in fact resolved (or the decision's made to test if they are resolved), then in fact there may be no current issue to protect the project against. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the point of no legal threats is not to prevent people from suing Wikimedia, its to prevent idiots like myself with no legal knowledge from handling the legal issues, and making things stickier by letting someone be both the plaintiff and the defendant. Let User:Mike Godwin handle any lawsuits. Once lawsuits are resolved, there's no reason to maintain a block. But letting the person be on boths sides of a lawsuit is a terribly stupid idea. WilyD 18:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Generally, if someone says "Hey, I'm sorry, I said that in anger, I'm not really going to sue anyone", they'll be unblocked, since at that point the threat has been withdrawn and is no longer outstanding. If they persist in threatening that, though, they shouldn't be participating in the project at the same time they're threatening to sue it or someone else participating in it. Once the legal action is complete or they decide not to pursue it (and make that decision known), they can edit again, but we just can't have people running around threatening to sic lawyers on those who disagree with them. An indefinite block is not necessarily permanent, it just means there is not a fixed date set for it to expire. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"The problem is, there is no one to follow-up so..." is not really true. If they post an {{unblock}} request where they sincerely withdraw the threat (as opposed to just saying "threat withdrawn, now unblock me"), an admin will review the situation and they may be unblocked. Mr.Z-man 18:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

how can you prove that intent, may I ask? SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen people get unblocked from making legal threats once they retract them. The legal threat block is not punitive, but rather a device to ensure that all legal proceedings happen off-wiki and does not effect NPOV through intimidation. I think the current wording is very effective. 1 != 2 19:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I recently gave one of these out: [15] and if the user makes any indication they don't intend to follow through, that would be enough to lift the block as far as I am concerned. Regarding:"how can you prove that intent, may I ask?" ..."Intent" may not need to be evaluated, I think what is meant by "sincerely" in the above is that a reasonable person reading the text they post would believe they've taken the threat back per their wording. Also, if someone thinks I could have made my wording to the blocked user clearer I'd love to hear about it. ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Trying to find a policy

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I've been trying to find a policy that basically says "Don't take an editor's word for it." I'm positive it exists, as I'm fairly certain I've seen it mentioned before. For example, just because someone says that they work at Disney, and therefore know something about upcoming projects doesn't mean that they do, as there is no way of knowing for sure, and as such anything they add based on their own knowledge cannot be accepted as fact. I'm not talking about WP:OR, but mainly for discussion pages on attempting to get a consensus on something. On an article on my watchlist, there is an IP editor who claims to have background on copyright and trademark laws. Is there a policy that would justify my skepticism that he does have such background? I'm fairly sure there is one, but I've been unable to find it. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't know where that policy might be. On the one hand one should assume good faith, including taking people's claims about who they are at face value and not accusing them of lying or misleading. On the other hand, on most matters we are a meritocracy where everyone's participation and views are important, and professionals are accorded no special status. We do our best not to have policies where specialized legal knowledge is necessary. Claiming in article space that one's opinions have special weight due to extra learning and expertise is seen by many as rude and improper; whatever one's credentials one's contributions to Wikipedia are only as good as the quality of the edits, and the appropriateness of edits is decided by consensus, adherence to policy, and verifiability, not by assertions of entitlement. In a few specialized areas such as policy arguments on non-free use policy or BLP defamation issues, certain editors are recognized by others as having some extra credibility but as a convention I think that extra respect is a personal decision by the audience, and has to be earned through reputation, not resume. An IP editor would have a hard time earning that credibility if nobody knows their edit history. It's not a matter of assuming bad faith, it's simply that you have to prove yourself to be taken seriously. Wikidemo (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are looking for WP:VERIFY? If someone adds something to an article and you "don't buy it", the best option might be to add {{fact}}. If it's someone on a talk page and you think something fishy if going on, maybe list at WP:RFC to get some experienced editors involved. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not WP:VERIFY. I'm not exactly talking about good faith. More like, on a discussion page, someone says "No, it's right because I have a degree in this, and so I know." I don't think that's part of Verify. I'm certain there was some policy. Maybe it was an essay. I'll keep RFC in mind. Thanks anyways for your help. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like part of WP:NOR and/or WP:CITE: You can't just claim something, you have to prove that someone else has proved it. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, you're thinking of Wikipedia:Original research ("WP:OR") and Wikipedia:Citing sources ("WP:CITE"). OR covers that an editors own view or say-so, is never support for a challenged statement, however skilled and experienced that editor may be. We need actual published sources, not "hearsay". The term "original research" means "work that one has done oneself that hasnt been independently published" but also covers all forms of personal view, opinion, statement, deduction, or belief that aren't based upon independent sources if required. WP:CITE then says that if asked or needed, you must name the sources so others can check them too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That might be it. I might have combined the two, although now that I think about it, it seems to me what I'm thinking of also said something along the line of "Just because this editor SAYS they're this person doesn't mean they are." Other than that, I think I did pretty much combine the two (which, makes sense, as the two go together very well). Thanks again for your help! Anakinjmt (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, can't point to it directly, but there is a policy/guideline that says that editor X claims to be person Y in real life, an admin is to contact the editor (by email, I think) to confirm the identity. (Perhaps someone else can point more directly to this?) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User accounts that claim to be, or are the names of, well known people are usually blocked and the claimed "owner" contacted to see if they're real. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of NFC in BLP articles - Please weigh in.

Note - for those, like me, not yet fully conversant with all the acronyms in use on Wikipedia, NFC stands for Non-free content and BLP is Biographies of living persons. Hope this helps,  —SMALLJIM  09:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you people please weigh in here here. The issue at hand has to do with use of fair-use/non-free images on wikipedia and particularly on BLPs. I removed three fair use images from the Cillian Murphy article and it has set off a storm. Both sides are arguing their POVs with equal conviction and it seems to be raising tempers. Could somebody here please step in and settle this once and for all.

If memory serves me right, I have been prevented from using such screenshots from movies in the same manner as Cillian Murphy in the past. I cant find the diffs now, but I believe, I was told that such used didnt constitute fair use.. especially when the subject was alive.

So please address the core issues.

1) Are the fair use rationales used on for the three images (of which one got deleted and i believe is now in del review) on Cillian Murphy valid? 2) Is there a limit to how many fair-use/non-free images can be used on an article? Or is it simply, 'more the merrier'?

Please settle this once and for all and etch it into our policy. Because, if use of non-free content in the manner being used on Cillian Murphy or Preity Zinta is valid, there are hundreds of articles that are waiting to be 'improved' with such images. Really, how difficult is it to create screenshots from movies. If otoh, such use is not allowed, please let people know and stop them from attacking me. Thanks. Sarvagnya 22:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, for being frank about your involvement, and for laying this out neutrally for the most part. The counterargument is that there is no image use policy against using screen shots of an actor's performances in their bio article, no BLP problem or concern, it already passed muster in featured article review, and unilaterally deleting approved images from featured articles without so much as a speedy deletion notice is disruptive to the project.Wikidemo (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo, we've already heard your views over there. What is the point in repeating it here? My note was only an invitation to folks here to weigh in on the issue. The idea wasnt to repeat all our arguments here. Peace. Sarvagnya 01:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you want a discussion here or there? If you want to start a discussion here, great, and I'm entitled to contribute here just like anyone else. If you want everyone to go over there, perhaps that could be more clear and without advocacy of what people should say over there. Cheerio. Wikidemo (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would say that BLP is irrelevant. The question hinges on the fair use of the pictures. If there is a concern, then the best option is to nominate the pictures for deletion and see what consensus is reached. Personally, I see no problem here and no reason to (a) remove the pictures and (b) take any further steps. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Kevin-- I do not see any reason why BLP has the least to do with it; it goes under the same copyright practices as anything else. DGG (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Kevin and DGG, although, do you really need 3 fair-use pictures depicting him in roles? That just seems to me to be a bit much, possibly breaking fair-use policy. If so, I'd make them some of the more prominent ones, such as his role as Scarecrow in Batman Begins. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

From the guideline Wikipedia:Non-free content:

• Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
• Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The question however is, what constitutes critical commentary? Is there a good example of one? Does the manner in which it is used in Cillian Murphy constitute "critical commentary"? Sarvagnya 21:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, are you working on your Wiki-law-degree? --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on, that's not civil, especially as he made a perfectly relevant remark. It's a long-established principle that "Here is X in role Y" does not count as critical commentary for FU purposes. Relata refero (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Relata refero here, that comment was out of line, and Sarvagnya did give a very good summary of the key points. The issue with fair use images of living people is their replaceability--that it that anyone could take another picture and use it, rather than make fair use of an existing one. It is a copyright issue that has nothing to do with slander or libel that is the basis of BLP. The exception for fair use images of living people is when a new image would be out-of-date and therefore the older image is no longer replaceable. For an actor who played a roll (and where the role is a defining characteristic) an image of them in that role would be irreplaceable, and could qualify for fair use. My suggestion would be to simply add some sourced commentary on them in that roll to support the fair use of the image. As for how many images to include, use good judgment on text content to avoid undue weight, and add images to support the text. Dhaluza (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My comment was meant to be humorous not to give offense, but after reading the section on wikilawyering, I see the error as it is considered pejorative and uncivil. I do think that there is a lot of hairsplitting here and on the related various discussion pages. This discussion is spread over multiple pages. I don't dispute that Sarvagnya makes some good academic points here and elsewhere, but practically speaking it's a no harm no foul in my mind. The holders of the copyright are the indirect beneficiaries of the extra exposure for their product. As is frequent, Dhaluza offers a good solution. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I read an interesting passage at the WP article on Fair use:

The four factors of analysis for fair use set forth above derive from the classic opinion of Joseph Story in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (1841), in which the defendant had copied 353 pages from the plaintiff's 12-volume biography of George Washington in order to produce a separate two-volume work of his own. The court rejected the defendant's fair use defense with the following explanation:

[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy....

In short, we must often... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.

I see the bolded phrase to be most critical in our assessment. These images while loosely defined as criticism, certainly do not supersede the use of the original work, nor do they: prejudice the sale, diminish the profits, or supersede the objects of the original work. To the contrary these uses probably enhance the sales and profits for the original works -- free advertising! --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability Question

If someone can cite an article using a specific word or phrase about a notable person, is that word or phrase automatically notable such that it should reasonably have its own article? Are some venues for publication considered more notable than others? In general, how do you determine if an article should exist on its own, or be merged into another article? See the talk page of Putinisms for more info on the situation. Cromulent (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing false allegations from talk pages

A user recently used his talk page to allege that I and another user were sockpuppets. The "evidence" posted to this talk page has now been discredited and the user has been banned for disruption by ArbCom. Is it acceptible for me to remove this material from the talk page, or is there an appropriate procedure for requesting that it be removed permanently by an administrator? Thin Arthur (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Banned users usually don't get user pages. There's a blocked indef template you could replace it with. Always good to ask the blocking admin, though. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Confidential evidence

Following certain recent events where editors believed by many to be of good conduct were indef blocked on the basis of "secret evidence", a number of editors proposed an addition to WP:BLOCK covering confidential evidence. The section gained a strong positive response.

The issues related to confidential evidence are too large for a subsection, and in any event, they extend outside the narrow limits of blocking policy. So a proposal emerged organically, for a separate policy page covering cases when misconduct may be alleged on the basis of evidence of a confidential, secret, or similar nature.

• Proposed policy: Wikipedia:Confidential evidence (provisional title)
• Comments and discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Confidential evidence

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Reguarding publication of WWE match results and reliablility of broadcast episodes

An RfC was initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#RfC: Publishing embargo on televised WWE match results? regarding two separate issues, but somewhat related issues. That is whether there should be a publication embargo on the outcome of wrestling matches between the broadcast of a taping of Smackdown! in Australia and the rebroadcast of the same taping in the United States. The second issue of whether television broadcasts can be cited as a reliable source, particularly in reference to the broadcast of Smackdown!, or if most television broadcasts are considered "unreliable". --Farix (Talk) 23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems pretty cut and dry to me. Unless the events are done live for both locations, any television broadcast would be inherently reliable in regards to its content. I can't comment on wrestling specifically, but I can't see how it's different. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

To you man me, i tis pretty cut and dry. But to those who want to keep match results off Wikipedia until at least the US airing, then the Australian broadcast is unreliable because someone could be lying about it. Of course, it is WP:ABF to assume that a person is lying about a broadcast. --Farix (Talk) 00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No offense to the US fans, but they could just as easily be lying when it hits the US. I can't imagine a quick confirmation is all that difficult (TV.com, any WWE fansite), and to say that a broadcast is unreliable just because it's in a different country doesn't work. I'll admit I've cleared episodes that broadcast in different countries before, usually when the info is poorly written by IP editors, but I can confirm it fairly quickly. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, I encourage you to add your 2¢ to the RfC discussion. --Farix (Talk) 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources at No original research

After many months of discussing the applicability of WP:PSTS section at WP:NOR, a yes-or-no question on its future has been posted to the talk page at WT:NOR#Let's find Waldo. Please feel free to comment on the inclusion of the Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources definitions in that policy. Dhaluza (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for protecting pages

I asked for a partial protection of the sodomy page. As you can probably guess, it's a big magnet for vandals. I was surprised that the proposal was rejected. At first a false reason was given (no vandalism?), and then later it was said by another admin or editor that it was not vandalized often enough. That article is a clear example of a page that needs protection. It could not be any clearer. There are very few anonymous IP users who have ever contributed anything that doesn't constitute vandalism on the page, if any. This is yet another example of being lenient to a fault on Wikipedia. - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

By my count, it has been vandalized twice in the past two weeks, and both times were reverted within a minute or two. That's hardly serious enough to justify protecting the page. If you want a page that's being vandalized enough to justify protection, look at the edit history of George W. Bush. --Carnildo (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "Not enough recent vandalism to justify protection". Protecting pages that do not need protection is just against what Wikipedia is. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As a recent changes patroller and AIV-active admin, I can certainly appreciate the frustration that stems from having certain articles that are vandalized on a regular basis, essentially in perpetuity. But the general community consensus is that we are willing to accept a certain amount of such vandalism in order to keep the open nature of the Wiki. It's certainly a tradeoff, but one that most of us are comfortable with.

There's also the honeypot theory: Some people are intent on vandalizing Wikipedia, and if the first article they come to is protected, they simply find another. Leaving those heavily vandalized articles unprotected and listed on numerous editor's watchlists actually allows us to detect and block IP vandals faster. (If anyone ever saw my watchlist, they'd think I was some kind of raging pervert who's really into politicians and celebrities!) — Satori Son 15:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking large IP ranges on request owner IP

Hi, a large Dutch government agency (Ministry of Justice) blocked all access to Wikipedia. 30,000 government officials are unable to see any content. The Ministry did this because of some vandalism from their IP adresses which was noticed by journalists. The Ministry is probably (from inside sources) going to ask us to block their entire range from editing so that they can restore access to Wikipedia. My question: is their a policy on the English Wikipedia about this kind of requests and/or do these kinds of requests occur often? I would appreciate your help. Thanks! .Koen (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

this over-reaction of theirs was presumably because the event involved a member of the royal family. I think it is very strongly against the spirit of WP to help any government or anyone else censor our content or participation. We block ip ranges according to our own independent standards. That vandalism once occurred from an ip address is not cause to block a large range like that. DGG (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is actualy a different situation then the royalty scandal. For as far as I can tell, it is just about plain pure vandalism. Anyway, if the Dutch Ministry of Justice wants to block access to Wikipedia for their employees, that is their problem. If Wikipedia sees the range as a blockable range, we should block it, but not by request. It might be a good idea to keep them on the list of organisations to send abuse reports to if annons are behaving badly. As long as they disallow access to Wikipedia, it's not a problem, but when they do start to allow it again, at least they will be listed. Maybe some wiki bigwig could contact them, seeing if a proper solution can be worked out together? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My employer briefly blocked the ability to edit wikipedia. We could read the content, but not edit. (This was done, I think, on the theory that reading WPs content may be have a useful business purpose, but editing is just playing on company time, get back to work dammit.) The Dutch, I assume can do the same. Dsmdgold (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This occasionally comes up with schools as well.[16] I agree that we should leave this up to their IT staff and not block preemptively if so requested. — Satori Son 15:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly legitimate to block a range at the request of the owner of the range, if we can clearly establish the bonafides of the request. (I strongly suggest that the request be sent to OTRS and tracked that way, with a ticket number given to reference it) We have done this for school districts in the past. There is no way to block editing at the other end that doesn't also block some other useful non editing things, as far as I currently understand things. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Would the same argument apply to such a request from a totalitarian government, rather than the Dutch government or a school? Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Good counterexample. I'd say that if the People's Republic of China government asked for a ban of the IPs that the PRC themselves owned, to prevent their employees from posting, it should be taken under advisement, but if the PRC asked for a ban of all IPs that were assigned to, for instance, an IP in the PRC, we should say no. But ya, maybe your counter shows why bans might not be good, as doing them for the Podunk School District starts you on a slippery slope. If so, maybe we have some bans we ought to consider lifting? ++Lar: t/c 01:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's anything like here (Canada) this smells like political ass covering. Some journalist write a quick paper on 'bad government employee behavior' and every political enemy jumps in to create a scandal to make to government look bad. WP should not get involved. What if a month later some totalitarian regime ask the same thing just days before a purge?YegLi (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Our Blocking policy provides for blocking for damage to Wikipedia. There is no other policy basis for blocking users. I believe we would need to change the policy to authorize administrators to perform their functions in the interests of anyone other than Wikipedia. And I wouldn't support such a change. The general thrust of Wikipedia is to encourage and support open access to information as a general public good. Our rules of veracity and civil conduct that are the basis of the blocking policy are intended to be in support of this thrust. The fact that other people may have different interests and views does not require us to change this thrust. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Romanization of Russian

This is a formal announcement to inform the community that a proposal to redefine the criteria of conventionality in the Russian language romanization guideline has been submitted and to solicit the community to review the said proposal and vote on it. The proposal is available at Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian#Proposal to re-define the criteria of conventionality. Thank you for your attention.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Celebrities myspace accounts

I keep seeing these when I read articles about various celebrities. Most of the accounts look very fake and I don't know whether I should remove them or not. Many of them claim to be the "official myspace page of X", but their offical website has no mention about the myspace page. For example the page on Leila K contains an "official Myspace page" that seems to not be official and the artist herself is completely broke and lives on the streets. -Lapinmies 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why we would use Myspace as a source for anything, not to mention that it is not reliable in the slightest. You're right, a lot of them are hoaxes (the "Official page of X" garbage). Myspace pages are like blogs, not reliable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• At best I can see these in a See Also section, but have mixed feelings about including even a link to something where the info is not verifiable. The term "official site" has always seemed odd to me. What does official mean? It seems to be an over used ambiguity. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It all boils down to verifiability. Anybody can make a myspace page, and claim it is X's "Official" page (I guess it is supposed to mean that it actually is X's page, although I don't buy it). - 05:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Rjd0060 (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible major re-interpretatation of the use of fair use images

There is a discussion here which has implications for major re-interpretatation of the use of fair use images. Please provide input. Corvus cornix_talk 00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is already being discussed above. -- 68.156.149.62 (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to some forks it's being discussed in about four places at once now. The most extensive, and central (in my opinion), discussion is at WT:NFC, via the link above.Wikidemo (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI and AN

So I just read the history of the "Community Sanction Noticeboard" that was deleted earlier this month. That made me wonder exactly what is the distinction between the "administrator's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard/incidents" ? Don't the two overlap entirely? Shouldn't they be merged or one deleted? What actions or remedies should we seek? Belicia (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The way I've always thought of the two: AN for basic "FYI" stuff, while ANI is for things that need administrator attention, somewhat urgent. By the looks of things right now, things on the AN, IMO, should be on ANI instead. I guess some people don't make any distinction between the two though. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Consistency in Sanctions

Shortly after I first registered on Wikipedia I was blocked indefinately with no warning (and with no complaints against me from any users) for being a sock puppet because I had engaged in a (civil on my part) argument with User Porcupine. (I was eventually unblocked after a more reasonable Administrator reviewed the case). Today another newbie engaged in an argument with User Porcupine - and at one point began a message with "Listen pig" (albeit written in Romanian). That user has received a gentle warning for the offence. I realise that these decisions were taken by different Admins and so there are bound to be differences in the sanctions that each feels is appropriate but quite frankly in this instance the disparity is a joke. There needs to be some guidance given to ensure more consistency in these cases. For the record I actually believe both Admins were wrong - the one who blocked me was wrong to do so - blocks should not be handed down when no one has complained about a users behaviour, and someone who calls another user a "pig" should at the very least get a 24 hour block. Kelpin (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What does being a sockpuppet have to do with a dispute? If you were a sockpuppet, then the block was completely justified, and the cases would be extremely different. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 06:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't a sockpuppet though. The fact that I had had an arguement with an experienced user was used as evidence that I was a sockpuppet by some twisted logic. (Even the user who I was arguing with - said he knew I wasn't a sock). Kelpin (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The argument that "blocks should not be handed down when no one has complained about a users behaviour" is utterly specious. For example, if I encounter a user in the midst of a vandalism spree or campaign of racist harassment I'm going to block him to prevent further damage rather than waiting to see if anyone complains. Note that I'm commenting on a general principle here; I haven't looked into the particulars of your case. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair point - in that instance I'd agree but this case was different. User Porcupine had complained about another user who was using socks, my name wasn't on the complaint, but I got blocked because I was arguing with Porcupine - even though Porcupine later said he knew I wasn't a sock. Kelpin (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. That problem was the same in the criminal justice system before sentencing guidelines, with judges giving totally disparate punishments for the same offenses. Belicia (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

but what was the result: rigid guidelines prohibiting the use of discretion and enshrining harsh standardized punishments--equal justice, by rejecting mercy. DGG (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If he was not a sockpuppet, and only had a dispute, he shouldn't have been blocked, and less indefinetly. He should've been requested at WP:RFCC &/or the ArbCom and the consensus would have brought a definite solution. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 06:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC) I think its high time to go back to the days where you could not be banned by the "community," only by ArbCom after a full hearing. (like 2 years ago). Belicia (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I know who you are talking about - that other user was a newcomer who is obviously new to things like WP:CIVIL. The other user, on the other hand, had been blocked for a similar offence before (and see his/her block log). The newcomer has the equivalent of a level 4 warning on his/her talk page now, anyway - and I happen to think the punishments are justified. (Non-admin) x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion amendment

I am so tired of individual users, often the most uncivil ones or the ones with agendas, putting up articles for deletion with no previous discussion or involvement. I am not talking about speedy deletions.

My proposal: An established article (i.e. an article that has been present for a long time and with numerous editors) may not be put up for deletion without first discussing it on the article's talk page. If after discussion on the talk page there is no consensus (to keep or delete it), then the nominator may open an AFD.

To me this seems like nothing more than common courtesy, though in all the AFD's I've witnessed I've never actually seen it done. What do others think of the proposal? Dovi (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm in support of this. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying amounts to WP:PROD, a very useful method. But I've not seen that may article put up for AfD where a discussion would have made much of a difference. Maybe 10% would be improved, and another 10% agreed on deletion or merge. Of course, even that 20% might be worthwhile. DGG (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, doesn't look like WP:PROD, which is for "uncontroversially a deletion candidate." Rather, I am talking about things which are not self-evident, like where a user questions an article's quality, neutrality, notability, etc. and then simply goes ahead and slaps on an AFD template. I also mean it especially for established articles (that have been around for months or years and been edited by numerous respected contributors).

I am not saying that articles should be given automatic "tenure" or that established editors should be given a veto regarding AFD. But I am saying that these two factors should at least be taken into account by discussing questions about the article's suitability to Wikipedia on the talk page before actually doing an AFD. That is a reasonable courtesy to expect, and it does not prevent the individual AFD nominator from going ahead with the nomination if he isn't convinced on the talk page. It does, however, obligate him to consult with others first, making AFD less of a haphazard and annoying experience for others. Dovi (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in this. You are just turning it into two discussions instead of one. AfD should not be an annoying experience, if the article is good enough then the AfD will soon be snowed and the only one who has had an annoying experience will be the nominator. If there are serious problems with an article, despite it being "established", then the editors should rethink why those problems were there in the first place. An established article with numerous editors which is unverifiable, original research, a POV fork, or (the most probable) fancruft, is the problem of those editors, not of the nominator, and making it a lot harder to put up an AfD for such articles will not be a net benefit for Wikipedia. If editors want to discuss it before nominating, that's obviously fine, but it should in no way become a requirement. Fram (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Harder"? It is not hard at all, anyone can do it at any time for any reason, including people with agendas (and there are lots of those). They can also do this as many times as they want! It is simply far too easy to be a pain in the neck with an immediate, undiscussed AFD. "If the article is good enough then the AfD will soon be snowed..." -- why should that happen at AFD with an annoying notice on the page and an immediate deadline for deletion discussion to finish? Why not make an initial good faith effort on the talk page?

Rather, put an least a bit of onus on the nominator, not just those who oppose it. Let him raise the problem on the talk page, and see how discussion goes for a limited time. Perhaps 2 days? If he is still unconvinced, and still determined to delete the article, then let him file an AFD. What's the big rush to add a disturbing template and open an immediate AFD page? Yes indeed, two stages: first a "local" discussion at the talk page and then only if necessary an AFD. Yes, require (or at least very strongly suggest within the policy page) a basic courtesy on the part of the nominator. Have a good weekend all, Dovi (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We do need to give some deference to established articles that are either clearly notable or well-written. Deletion of established articles can be awfully contentious and disruptive, and when articles keep getting attacked on second, third, and fourth deletion nominations because somebody did not like the result of the last one, even when the proposal gets turned down yet again it ends up wasting a lot of time. If the goal is a better encyclopedia, that effort would be better spent working on truly pointless new articles, or else improving what we have. I'm not sure whether requiring a discussion before a deletion proposal is best, or a higher standard, or a longer period, or giving some weight for prior consensus to keep. We ought to do something. Wikidemo (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it's just too easy to slap an AfD template on a perfectly good article (ugly, sits there misinforming readers) without any real consequences (if you expect WP:SNOW, that's hardly a disincentive). On the other hand, it's difficult to come up with rules about AfDs, to solve the problem, that don't get into significant instruction creep.

So, an alternative: Either a separate section on the AfD page (e.g., "Established articles") for articles over X months age and/or Y edits, or some other way for editors to find these easily (template that generates searchable text?). That way, if there really is going to be WP:SNOW, it will happen a lot quicker, since a lot of folks interested in AfDs might head directly for such easy pickings. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I just don't think this is necessary. I'm seeing more and more "bad faith" AfD nominations being rapidly closed per WP:SNOW lately. Obviously some people will feel that an article should be nominated, and some people do not. It would be like a pre-AfD discussion? Seems pointless. Why have 2 of the same discussions? First, we'll talk about it on the talk page, which will be just like an AfD discussion, and then, we'll do it all over again on the official AfD discusssion? No need, in my opinion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no way a policy change like this will work. You can't segregate discussion about the encylopedic merits about an article to that article's talk page, since the whole point of the AFD process is to get a broad community consensus about the topic. All that's going to happen is two discussions; one of which will be totally pointless, because no matter what the "losing" side will say that consensus was broad enough, and take it to AfD instead. It's not going to work — I also frankly don't much care for the idea of segregating articles based on "age" or "number of edits to them". A two minute old article can be vastly superior to a months ago article and deserves the same respect and consideration. --Haemo (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Chick ?

Why is one of the skins called "chick" ? I see nothing relating to baby birds of girls in it. Jackaranga (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because the Chick skin was made for mobile devices. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

please let the world know about wikipedia!

Dear Friends Wikipedia is a philosophy, so don't let people to just silently donate and go away, give something back to them to show that they are part of this philosophy, something like a logo for their personal web logs saying " I love giving to wiki" or some badge to put on their bag or t-shirt some thing to be like a motivation for them and others who see them. Some thing to spread this beautiful way of thinking and living. Please let wiki philosophy became a way of living for us in this new age. I feel it's much much more than a great encyclopedia , I feel it can be the meaning of humanity in the future century . Please don't miss this great chance. We don't have any credit card here in Iran, if we had donating wikipedia would became one of my hobbies.

Best regards J.Anvar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.46.164 (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Pet names

• On a number of pet related articles I've seen, (Cat for instance) I've noticed that many have images have captions with the names of the actual pets. Does WP have any policy about this or relating to this? I just think it's a bit unencyclopedic to have actual names of pets in their images. Jedibob5 (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked through Cat and did not see any names in the captions. Anyways, while I don't think there are any policies of guidelines specifically prohibiting this, but it just makes sense to omit those from encyclopedic articles. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The only names I found were names of breeds and they belong there. Can you give an example of what you call a pet name in cat? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Knowledge Disclaimer

A user has raised an interesting point regarding the "traditional ownership" of knowledge, with the particular case of Aboriginal Australian place names, lore, and the like, and how it relates to the licence and general disclaimer of the site. I was hoping some Wikipedians with a better knowledge of legal matters would be able to have a look at [[17]], and offer a learned opinion on the matter. Lankiveil (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedians by contact information

I was surprised that there wasn't any categories that showed Wikipedians that could be contacted via means like IRC or AIM, so I decided to hunt down some userboxes and populate some. My thinking was that this is useful for collaboration. There are many times where I jump on #wikipedia to ask a quick silly question, like a naming convention, or to see if anyone remembered where a template was that could be used for format some external link. I've listed my own AIM screen name on my userpage and user talk page also as a method of collaboration. I created three categories at this point, Category:Wikipedians by contact information, Category:Wikipedians available through AIM, and Category:Wikipedians available through Jabber, using only templates that actually listed a contactable ID. I got to a template for MSN and saw that a similar category had been removed via CfD here, where it was deleted under the argument that Wikipedia wasn't a social networking site. While I agree with that general idea, I don't think this considered the categories as helping with collaboration in relation to Wikipedia. Before I continue I figured I should get more feedback about this (especially given only five editors were involved in the CfD). -- Ned Scott 06:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The argument that we're not a social networking site is spurious if applied to categorizing information already here. I'm not entirely sure what purpose the category would have but offhand I see no reason why it's inappropriate to gather information people have chosen to include about themselves.Wikidemo (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)