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

Nuvola flags

These nuvole flags are gaining increased usage on wiki, This is quite worring for me as they are more decorative than standard flags. At Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#Nuvola_flags,i am proposing to strongly limit the usage of these flags, please comment if your interested .

Sign for archiving. Garion96 (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

When I place a reference to a website, I always link the dates in a specific manner: for example, if I placed such a reference today, I'd write

Accessed [[2008-09-19]]

. Today, however, I saw someone removing such a link with a script. Are links of this sort also prohibited now? Nyttend (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A group of people at WT:MOSDATE argued and fought over date linking until attrition left no objectors to changing date linking from "recommended" to "neither supported nor discouraged". Then they continued to argue and fight until no objectors were left to changing it to "deprecated". And they'll probably keep on it until their local consensus is to declare it "prohibited" so they can run scripts across Wikipedia en masse to unlink all dates. Personally I find quite a bit of it pointy but not worth fighting over. Anomie⚔ 21:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

They've also argued and fought to require dates to be in "international format" and to hell with Americans. Corvus cornix_talk 22:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The above rants are perhaps not quite fair. The move to deprecation came about because the arguments and consensus were overwhelming; such links are obviously undesirable (see WP:OVERLINK) and should be removed; editors shouldn't treat it as personal criticism to see scripts or bots make minor changes to their edits. There is indeed a poll ongoing on making "international format" the preferred format for dates, but it seems unlikely that the idea will gain consensus (in any case it's not the same "they" in the two cases).--Kotniski (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The arguments for deprecating date linking are pretty convincing. The whole thing has been the subject of discussion for months and years, and it boils down to the sole advantage of date autoformatting is that a few editors get to see dates in their preferred format. The disadvantages are that the other 99.9% of Wikipedia users gain no benefit from the date linking, and if they click on the date links, they get no benefit from doing so. Other links, you go to an article with more information, which makes clicking your way through Wikipedia such a pleasant exercise in serendipity. Click on a date (20 September), you get a page full of random stuff, mostly about birthdays. Date autoformatting was a programming kludge and good riddance to it.

The date format thing is quite different. The proposal is to use international format dates for international subjects and American dates for American subjects. We show Queen Margarethe's birthday as 16 April 1940 and George W Bush's birthday as July 6, 1946. Big deal. There's a poll here and far from "a group of people" imposing their will, I think the more editors who have their say, the better. --Pete (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the proposal is that American formatting may be only for articles which can be classified as American subjects. It used to be, that if the article was neutral as to whether it was an American subject or a European subject, then it would be in the format of that subject, but if it was not a particular subject, then it would be whatever format that it was originally created, but now, if it isn't American, then it is required to be in non-American format. So, in other words, "Fuck you, Americans." Corvus cornix_talk 04:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Corvus: this is punishment for Iraq. The ridiculous order of words in dates that is the preferred style in one (1) country out of the world's almost two hundred is completely irrelevant. Waltham, The Duke of 09:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The proposal has been rejected now anyway, so we can all calm down.--Kotniski (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a date, for heaven's sake. Judging by the reaction of some folk here, their weenie willies are being torn off and thrown to the ducks every time they see day-month-year. Perhaps I get far too much fun out of seeing these people squeal, but it's certainly going to be an interesting few months as the tide of date autoformatting recedes, exposing more and more editors to the horrible mess of date formats. --Pete (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If date linking hadn't been deprecated, so that people's Preferences no longer matter, none of this would be an issue. Corvus cornix_talk 20:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's always been an issue; our readers (99.9% of them at conservative estimate) don't have preferences.--Kotniski (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Try reading Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and then tell me it's been rejected. Corvus cornix_talk 20:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a poll and it lost. It's not in the guideline. It's been rejected. Calm down.--Kotniski (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's really bizarre that a web site based in the US should kowtow to this bizarre Euro date format. I say, take it all out and replace with "Sep 21 2008" and the like. I for one would love our Commonwealth editors to start up a "Wikipedia Brittanica" and leave us the hell alone. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I will try to use all my British reserve to respond. I am not one of the editors so desparate to see the changes to dates as argued elsewhere, but I do think we need to agree on some kind of standard as best as can be agreed. What I am unsure about at the moment is the Bot going around de-linking every date in every instance. What I would prefer is a standard which reflects the context of the article. What I do not want is the kind of uncivil "leave us the Hell alone" attitude of certain editors! doktorb _words^deeds 20:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The one thing yet to emerge out of the discussion is consensus. Feel free to tinker with the wording. I get the feeling that something simple and practical will get a sigh of relief and support from the regular editors there. --Pete (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, there has been a perpetual feature request to be able to auto-format dates without linking the dates (for example, by using <<Angle brackets>>). I don't know why, but the developers seem to be extremely reluctant to implement this feature. The change in policy at WP:MOS is simply due to having to work around this software limitation. Bluap (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

To use a very British metaphor, the whole thing is a storm in a teacup. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The remedy: pour the teacup's contents onto the most annoying editor in the vicinity. (evil grin) Waltham, The Duke of 02:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, we need more teacups. Anomie⚔ 02:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to comment, but what about articles that are relevant to multiple regions? It still doesn't address the heavy edit warring (if I may use the word "war" without pissing off my international friends) that I see go on in many articles I come across regarding date format in those types of articles. I agree fully that dates should relate to the region's context, but it still leaves a lot left undone in regards to this heated "us vs. them" dispute. MuZemike (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Alert

People need to look at what has been happening to the civility policy. Hint: a lot. Before my recent revert, it was even downgraded into a guideline. This is part of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and no one is watching. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm. No it is not one of the five pillars. Risker (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. I said part WP:FIVE. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG! That policy was rewritten by a hand full of editors in just 5 days. Quite scary indeed!! Worse, not even your alert was noted.

Wikipedia is just too dam big, there isn't enough people to watch articles anymore. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 05:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

One side effect of it being so big is that it's got a lot of inertia. Simply re-writing policy isn't enough to change how things are done. --Carnildo (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, if a couple of random editors are allowed to in a couple of days rewrite a "policy" that governs the whole of Wikipedia we will have chaos, because something that wasn't agreed on is unenforceable and illegitimate. What if I prefer the old version better? ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 15:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you been here long enough to discover Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? "Policy" around here is mostly descriptive, rather than prescriptive. --Carnildo (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to me there are less editors around these days. But the alert does seem to have done the trick, at least in that the policy is still policy and not a guideline, and hasn't been watered down as of now. Thanks (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how many active editors there are, and also if that number is increasing or reducing. This information is vital for the health of Wikipedia but no one knows.

But it is telling the fact that your alert didn't even cause a ripple here. There is no alarm, no consternation...nothing. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 15:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There are currently 10623 active users. Algebraist 15:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks man! But where do you see that? 10,000 in a month or right now? That's a very significant number, we have a ratio of 250 articles per editor. Not a very good ratio IMO.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 17:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Special:Statistics. I can no longer recall the definition of 'active', but it's something like 'having edited in the last month'. Algebraist 17:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this is really great! The thing is, you can really watch lots of articles. I watch 779 without strain. That's because most articles almost never get edited- look at those stats, see the average edits per page is 17.26. On CIV, I think there might have been more response if the situation hadn't straightened out so fast. But one Arbitrator got involved, and it was quickly put right. I think people coming here might have checked the links and thought something was being done, so didn't respond. On the other hand, in other situations I've also seen little response from the wider community. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Deprecate this so-called guideline or policy immediately - until there is a stable version. Current version [1] even redefines five principles. Policy must be stable; right now, it's mayhem not policy. NVO (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, what is happening at the civility policy is ridiculous. There is no justification for the changes and the changes are being made without any oversight or discussion. Editor Martinphi alerted us about it but nothing was done. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 15:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

1800s

After notifying the usual suspects (WT:MOSNUM, WT:YEARS, and more), we seem to have consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(numbers_and_dates)#Decades to make at least one change: 1800s and similar pages will become a disambiguation page saying:

{{seealso|19th century}}

1800s may refer to:

• The period from 1800 to 1899
• 1800–1809, rarely

The current 1800s page refers to the period from 1800 to 1809, which means that all the people who link to 1800s and think that it means 1800-1899 are confusing people with the link. Wikipedians chose this usage because it's convenient in some infoboxes, for instance this one, and we don't want to change that infobox. But policy seems to require that we have pagenames that mean what English speakers expect them to mean: per WP:NOT#OR, some things that aren't allowed: "proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, et cetera". Also, here are the first two sentences in the first section of WP:NAME, also policy: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." I've gone through 300 Google hits at this point, and all of them not coming from Wikipedia think that 1800s means 1800 to 1899. So feel free to complain here or on the page where we had the discussion; otherwise we'll take some kind of action after a few days; perhaps a trip to WP:RM. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully support the above suggested change. Common usage of X hundreds (1700s, 1800s, 1900s, etc.) is that the X is referring to an entire century, not merely the first decade of that century. SMP0328. (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a solution begging from a problem. I don't see what the deal is. Bilodeauzx (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The deal is that a whole series of WP articles are seriously misnamed. It hasn't been put right for a long time because doing so would be quite complicated (involving changes to templates, categories and so on) and the articles aren't exactly high-visibility, but it undoubtedly is something that needs to be done.--Kotniski (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

How is the decade "1800-1809" normally called, as in "the turnpike was built in the mid-1810s"? --NE2 11:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In my experience people get round it by saying "the first decade of the 19th century", though technically that's 1801-1810. --Kotniski (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite protection? AfD? Let's make it more clear

I understand and have, on multiple occasions (lolcode and Superhero Movie, among others), worked with admins and Deletion Review to restore previous versions of articles for topics that gained notability after deletion. I've got damned near 10k edits under my belt, though, and probably had 1-2k down before I knew the process. Can we get the "This page has been deleted. The deletion log for the page is provided below for reference." text on deleted articles expanded to include the bottom text, which reads "# If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was my page deleted?." 'Note the typo "?.", too - That needs a quick fix regardless - Just strike the period. The blue linked text in the link is equivalent to quotation marks, for all intents and purposes - Nothin' wrong with ending that sentence with a question mark, as a result.

I would argue that all text pertaining to recreating deleted content should be moved into the This-page-got-popped-off-before text, as it is irrelevant without it. It should also be expanded shortly to include some of the Why? text, such as "Do not despair: none of the information on a "deleted" page has actually been lost." Include some basic coverage as to how a user can get page protection lifted and articles restored if sources arise. Doesn't have to be long - You could pack a lot into two sentences. Please also expand the text to make it clear that an article is protected - That is the most important place to say it, but there's no mention whatsoever of protection on the deletion warning at SwiftIRC.

On a related note, indefinite protection of articles that may conceivably reach the level where the above is necessary is always unwarranted. SwiftIRC, for instance, would have been fine with 6-12 months. CsD exists, and is a cleaner solution than ignoring the fact that a topic may achieve notability after deletion. MrZaius^talk 13:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is new notability that did not exist at the time, an article can be created in User space which contains evidence of current notability, and the article listed at WP:DRV for community discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 21:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree with Corvus cornix, maybe we should encourage admins to protect repeatedly recreated non-notable articles for six-month periods of time if it seems like notability could be established in the future. Judgment call. Darkspots (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In the case of SwiftIRC, it was deleted 5 times over the course of more than a year and a half including 2 AFDs. I don't see why it would be expected to be notable any time soon. And given the spammy/COI nature of some of the recreations, a DRV before recreating would certainly be appropriate. Mr.Z-man 22:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A year, as I suggested, is hardly "soon" - That said, the concept of having to go to DRV first is a pretty obvious example of WP:BITE. The level of arcana that a newb or occasional editor must learn to go through DRV is, IMHO, excessive. I have no objection to doing it myself, but I object to the notion that popping off a quick CsD and re-protecting an article once a year when notability may feasibly arise is somehow too much of a hassle. Weigh the five minutes it would take of an admin and new-pages patroller against the harm done to potential new editors.

That said, this isn't part of the Notability RfD - I'm much more interested in getting the language clarified and cleaned up in the default "I've been deleted before warning" - If the page is protected, it should be clearly stated right there, in that same box. It should also contain a link to the Why? article linked above and, to lessen the WP:BITE burden, a clear link to DRV. MrZaius^talk 05:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Honesty

I'd like to see Wikipedia:Honesty upgraded to guideline. Assume good faith is a guideline. This is the flip side of the same coin. Thoughts? Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

AGF's a guideline. Also, I say no because making a universal principle like honesty into just a community rule cheapens the entire concept. It would also be unlikely to have any positive results: if a person hasn't learned to be honest in their real life, a Wikipedia rule isn't going to change that. --erachima talk 14:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

personally, I would support such a change --UltraMagnus (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The essay isn't polished or flexible enough to be a guideline here. There are a number of points that lack nuanced understandings of the notability guidelines and undermines AGF. While I'll not argue for its deletion I certainly oppose the work becoming a guideline. We have enuogh wikilawyering out there as it is without giving people one more bat to club the newbies with. MrZaius^talk 03:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

First admin bot to go through BFRA

As you may or may not know, the Bots request for approval policy was recently changed to permit the members of the Bot Approval Group to grant sysop bits to bots without the necessity of going through a Request for adminship. No one has yet attempted to do this ... until now. I'm putting Cydebot through the process for a task which it has been performing for over a year now (on my personal sysop account), so hopefully this is as non-controversial as possible. However, so far everyone that has commented on the bot has been a BAG regular, so it will help to get some wider discussion. The last thing I want to have happen is for someone to say after-the-fact that this was sneaked through the back door, so let this serve as a public notice to the community regarding the issue. If you have any feelings on this subject, please join the discussion. --Cyde Weys 20:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Then it should be mentioned at WT:RfA too; I don't see it. (I also don't have any real complaints about CydeBot.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Towards New proposal policy

Many community members strongly disagree with the current policy. We are proposing a modification of languages criteria to star a wikimedia project, with a community draft]. feel free to contribute with your opinion:

thak you, very much. — Crazymadlover —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

Using less jargon, renaming Wikipedia lingo

On instruction by Lifebaka (but you probably should head over to WP:VPP for things like this. You'll get a much wider group of editors there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)), I present the following, which was originally made during a discussion of oversighting a suicide threat on AN.

Why do we call it oversight? Oversight usually means some sort of independent review or process, often to try to keep people honest. Wikipedia usage of oversight really means "Removal", "Content deletion" or "Censor" (censorship doesn't need to be bad; some countries have a censorship board). Propose making Wikipedia more user friendly and less jargon by renaming the term "oversight" to "content removal" or "remove". So the first sentence of this section would read "I have been asked to do content removal of the revision concerned here" or "I have been asked to remove the revision concerned here". 903M (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, the following terms seem best. "Special removal" or "Removal". Special in that only a few people can do it. Removing is the acting that is being done here. Oversight people are not auditors who determine if people are using their powers correctly. 903M (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If you were going to focus on jargon to rename, why would you pick "oversight" and not our dozens of our jargon terms and acronyms, many of them used more frequently? I wouldn't complain about calling it something else; I believe the term was invented by developers. My best guess is that the concept was that someone responsible for seeking out and removing this type of information would be characterized as an "overseer." Dcoetzee 09:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll for "view-deleted activation" now open

In June 2008 the Arbitration Committee announced a request that the English Wikipedia consider allowing some non-administrators the ability to view deleted material. The summary of the announcement was

The activation of the passive "can view deleted" right, and a policy allowing its grant for good cause, would allow non-administrator users to gain wider participation in the English Wikipedia community. For details and discussion, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Activation of view-deleted-pages

Note that this is a request that the idea be considered, nothing stronger. The announcement led to this proposal. As this conversation has gone on for several months, the proposal has shifted around quite a bit. This makes it very unclear where editors are currently giving their support or opposition. For the sake of clarity, I am attempting to pick out the main proposals, and create a straw poll around them. Please share your opinion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals/Straw poll for view-deleted. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Proposal has been marked as a policy

Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Proposal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This was a result of vandalism to the article. Restored.Kww (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the Arbitration Policy

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Policy Changes

The recent RFC on the Arbitration Committee ended with various proposals for changes to the Arbitration Committee's form and practice. It is now proposed that the upcoming elections for the Committee be expanded to encompass a vote to ratify/choose these changes.

There is currently a certain amount of disagreement on the talk page about the exact form that these proposals should take. It would be useful to have more eyes to consider, firstly, whether a ratification should take place and, secondly, exactly how these proposed changes should be phrased and presented.

Some more eyes would be greatly appreciated.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Some are good. Proposals 8 and 10 suck, as it means that ArbCom can never in the future take certain steps it thinks necessary, whatever they might be. Proposal 11 is nice for those who hate Latin- otherwise sucks. It's something that doesn't need to be voted on. Proposal 13 should be, that the community may, by a 3/4 vote at an RfC, cause an arbitrator to stand for re-election. Otherwise, it's just big drama. When has the community ever decided anything "categorically?" ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for any confusion that Sam Korn might have caused by this post. No, voting is not open yet. This is also not a call to start editing the proposals already up, since the ones up there right now are the ones that had significant consensus support on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee, if you can find or generate similar consensus support for adding alternative proposals please do so, but do not edit or remove existing proposals without overwhelming consensus to override that generated in the RfC. It's probably not the time for advocacy or nitpicking over why you disagree or agree with one proposal over another, there will be plenty of time for that during the nomination process of the main election. Sam shot the gun a little early in announcing this, and the discussion pages and information pages are not there yet. --Barberio (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a more detailed comments on the talk page. With all due respect, I feel the approach proposed is not helpful. Martinp (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, some of them might pass, and some are good. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• How to proceed: -I thik we have always asked for more than a simple majority for fundamental policy changes. I'd suggest either 6/10 or 2/3. The main thing, though, that actually does need decision right now is the terms., and , obviously, the length of term one is a little more complicated than just a majority given the multiple choices. If one is added saying "no changes", I suppose it would be rational eiher to select whichever is highest--alternatively, a run off between the highest one and no changes. DGG (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

CSD A7 and schools

in the notes for a7 it says... "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." is there an archived discussion or policy or something which details why schools are controversial? thanks Mission Fleg (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

the practical reason is that someone or other with good standing here always challenges them. Consensus on what to do with schools has flip-flopped so frequently that there's no point trying to decide it by fiat--it always ends up causing drama. At present I think the usual practice is to keep secondary schools, merge most lower) (FWIW, my own view on what it is best to do has flip-flopped once or twice myself)--I note they can be still speedied, if empty or vandalism or copyvio--and indeed they are. DGG (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the information. Mission Fleg (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Please take a look on my proposal for restructuring the deletion policy. The readers of this policy is often non-administrators. For them the information on alternatives to deletion is more important that the deletion rules. I also think it should be more important to try to improve the article than to try to delete it. -- Hogne (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

When is foreign material copyrighted?

I'm not really sure if this is the correct place to ask, but from anything that I found this came the most close to what I was looking for. My question is: Are sheer "technical specification"-tables that are copypasted from another website copyrighted material and therefore a reason to delete the article? I'm asking because in the article FNSS Pars this is exactly what happened. 90% of the article are a direct copypaste of the manufacturers website linked at the end of the article. Yet it is not any real text that was copypasted, but rather the tech specs, which in my eyes are not really any "creative work" but rather a collection of facts. So I don't know whether they are copyrighted and all and I'm not sure what to do now. A speedy deletion cause of copyvio? A deletion discussion? Reverting to earlier versions? --DavidDCM (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(IANAL) Individual facts are not copyrighted. A collection of facts presented in a certain way sometimes can be. I'm really not sure about that page, it could be a borderline violation. There is also the issue of database rights which I know virtually nothing about so I have no idea if they apply (probably not, though). --Tango (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

regardless of whether this is a copyright violation, this probably falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Ludwigs2 06:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That said, it is a common practice. What I would suggest is that a copy-and-paste job, regardless of whether it is a copyvio or not, is lazy and unprofessional. Just rewrite and paraphrase the most important portions of the list, carefully citing your sources along the way. Doing so allows for comparison between multiple versions of the product, if they exist. Go down that route, if you can't work the specs into the prose for some reason. MrZaius^talk 08:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC now open on linking dates of birth and death

Is it desirable or is it undesirable for dates of birth and death at the top of a biography article to be linked? Recent bot-driven delinking and the decision to end date linking for autoformatting have brought this question to a head.

An RfC is now open at WT:MOSNUM#RfC: Linking of dates of birth and death -- Jheald (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Drawings based on (presumably copyrighted) photos

Are drawings based on copyrighted photos derivative works? If so, aren't these drawings made by User:Simonfieldhouse copyright infringement?

• Image:Allen Ginsberg Simon Fieldhouse.jpg from http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/fwm-ginsbergtophat325.jpg
• Image:Robert Lowell Simon Fieldhouse.jpg from http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/lowell.jpg
• Image:David Hockney Simon Fieldhouse.jpg from http://bp2.blogger.com/_XbBXKRgC7B4/RvgMYFQQ0oI/AAAAAAAACFI/Gu4ogLkDKxU/s400/David+Hockney.jpg
• Image:Bernard Shaw Simon Fieldhouse.jpg from http://johnfenzel.typepad.com/john_fenzels_blog/images/2007/09/16/george_bernard_shaw_2.jpg
• Image:Sartre Simon Fieldhouse.jpg from http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5582/sartre2tk2.jpg

etc. bogdan (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• As for the first question, clearly yes, they are. I know it when I see it. NVO (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. He copied the figures from those images—the composition, pose, clothing, and expression. The drawings therefore indisputably make use of copyrighted elements from the original photographs, which is what makes them derivatives. At least some of these were previously uploaded to Commons by the same uploader; I raised the issue with him and tagged them for speedy deletion as derivatives, which are not permitted on Commons, and posted a notice on the admin notice board there. Ultimately all of them were deleted except for one that was based on a public domain photograph. Any derivative on Wikipedia would require a fair use rationale for the use of the underlying original work, and I can't think of one that would apply here. If we can't use the original photographs, we can't use drawings that are effectively just tracings of those photographs. Postdlf (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This is my understanding as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding Professional Reviews For Albums

I have noticed that various websites have added their review ratings accompanied by links to the right hand column of many album article pages. I wanted to know the conditions of this. I have colleagues at Clash Magazine and Drowned In Sound, yet both have had their link and rating removed yet others (NME, Pitchfork, Absolute Punk, Observer) left up? Is there some sort of limit to how many rating reviews can be there?

If anybody can shed light on this grey matter I would be very grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirty Volvic (talk • contribs) 10:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Unless they were spamming in a manner that clearly indicated a conflict of interest, there shouldn't be a problem. That said, though, the infobox isn't the article. They may have had their additions removed from excessively long infoboxes to avoid it dwarfing & drowning out the article's nigh-infinitely more important prose. Try introducing mention of the reviews as cited text, and I'd be shocked if it was removed. That said, we can't tell you much without specific examples. Click on the History link at the top of the pages impacted by the removals mentioned above and grab links to the last edit prior to the new text's removal. Post 'em here, and I'd happy to review the issue, as would plenty of others. MrZaius^talk 13:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I posted some ratings and relevant articles for a handful of artists. For instance in the Keane external links I added their most recent interview, for music artist Rodriguez I placed an external link to his album review. As the album has been re released after its original release 30 years ago.

Yet an oddball administrator has decided to erase all of my contributions in some sort of spamming accusation. He has also accused me of working for a magazine, simply because I know people who work at two magazines. I many cases the ratings from Clash Magazine have been removed from ratings boxes even though a variety of other magazines have theirs left alone. I am beginning to think this is actual victimization and considering a report to a policy dispute team. - Dirty Volvic (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception of motion pictures

I have noticed that in articles for movies, especially those made before the 1990's and whice are especially notable, there will be a section near the end of that article which notes how critics rated the film. More than once I have seen an immediate reference to the website Rotten Tomatoes which seems weird, because that website didn't even exist until at the latest 2002. Shouldn't these articles emphasize the critical reaction that occurred at the very same time period of the film's release? It doesn't take that much effort to dig up old issues of the New York Times for a classic Vincent Canby review, or TIME Magazine or Daily Variety; just go to most public and/or university libraries or even online in some cases. I noticed this tonight on the article for the James Bond movie You Only Live Twice.--Msr69er (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No - It shouldn't be removed. Rotten Tomatoes aggregates reviews that are often older than 2002. That said, it certainly shouldn't be allowed to dominate these sections, as it can lend undue weight to later reviews for DVD releases and the like, as well as other trite crap that was published well after the cinematic release (as I understand it). You're correct that covering specific sources such as the NYTimes and TIME results in higher quality prose and, as you say, they certainly are more relevant for films that predate Rotten Tomatoes. That's a valid rationale for expansion and using better sources, but not necessarily a valid rationale for removing mention of review aggregators entirely. MrZaius^talk 13:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The manual of style for films recently underwent a slight rewrite with regard to "Reception" sections (here). What we (at WP:FILM) advise is certainly to cite Rotten Tomatoes where appropriate, but during the discussions that led to the rewrite, it was noted that the site's coverage of older films tends to skew disproportionately towards the positive for films that are now considered classics, but which were met with disdain or apathy upon their original release. So, for example, Fight Club, which polarised critics in 1999, now has an entry at Rotten Tomatoes that looks as if it was acclaimed all this time. Where possible, the critical consensus from the time the film was released should be noted, as well as any reappraisal that has occurred in the intervening years. Steve ^{T • C} 22:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

NOR

Alert on WP:NOR. I just restored it, but don't have time for a lot of arguing. The policy was recently changed to allow OR in certain circumstances, which would destroy controversial articles, at least. Current change, includes my revert and an edit by Kenosis. Please watch the article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are the administrators? Ask one to block the article. This is unacceptable. EconomistBR 00:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Athlete: 1,712 soccer player articles created in 2 months

• Average of 28 new low quality soccer player articles every day.
• 32,094 low quality soccer player articles on Wikipedia.

Number of articles about soccer players per nationality

Date	England	Scotland	Brazil	Italy	Argentina	France	Germany	Spain	Netherlands	Serbia	Others	TOTAL
07/30/08	6,695	2,253	2,413	1,379	1,337	1,572	1,155	1,087	933	635	10,923	30,382
09/30/08	7,021	2,353	2,478	1,408	1,387	1,672	1,296	1,142	963	674	11,700	32,094

Notes:

• Over 100,000 retired and active professional athletes from various sports are entitled to a low quality Wikipedia article.
• 33 countries monitored for only soccer. Other countries and other sports not included.

EconomistBR 00:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not this crusade of yours again, Economist. Stop trying to make a WP:POINT. SirFozzie (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be a crusade, but he's far from wrong. WP:ATHLETE perverts the concept of a sub-notability guideline by simply decreeing that every professional athlete in the world is notable enough for an independent article, even if there are no third-party sources about that athlete to allow anyone to build a decent article.Kww (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing. If you used WP:N instead of WP:ATHLETE, there'd be MORE articles, not less. Are you forgetting that every time a player is sold/traded, there's a news article about it? I'm not just talking about Top leagues.. I'm talking about FIFTH DIVISION teams. It's been brought up to him before on his talk page before (it's there now, in fact), and he's exercising WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. SirFozzie (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely support Sir Fozzie here. It is WP:POINT-level disruption to reintroduce this thread. Throwing meat in front of the dogs. Darkspots (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

First, since when discussion is disruption?

Second, I just want to realease the results of the monitoring initiative and the results are worthy of notice. That can't possibly cause disruption or violate WP:point

Third, WP:N refers to notability and not to being mentioned repeatedly on News articles. Those players don't meet WP:N.

Also, I am not merely repeating old and tired arguments, I am presenting numbers from this study.

Lastly I don't expect proposals to emerge, all I want is to publish the numbers. All that said I am not violating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:Point, you simply want me to shut up. EconomistBR 03:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The basic problem here is that there are many athletes whose "notability" covers their career and nothing else about them, so unless their career was itself exceptional, there's effectively nothing to put in their article except some raw stats and a couple sentences of "signed in year X, played there for 3 years, swapped a couple more times, and retired due to an injury after seven seasons". In those cases, it's rather hard to argue that the athlete is notable in their own right rather than just as part of the team. To make an analogy with coverage of fiction, professional athletes are the "characters" of sports: they're an important aspect of the teams they play in, but they really shouldn't have their own articles unless there's enough actual coverage to write a decent page on them. --erachima talk 02:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While we are far from a full resolution at the RFC for WP:N, I've written User:Masem/Inclusion Guideline based on the current input that suggests that while we want to include, say, every professional player, we need to be practical and consider to listify those elements when there are no sources. This is exactly the case here: I see no problem having rosters of teams and providing redirs to all the names, but individual articles until further sourcing is found is unnecessary. --MASEM 03:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Adminbot to undelete a bunch of image talk pages

Per the new adminbot approval policy, I'd like to announce that I'm seeking approval for a simple one-time adminbot run to undelete a bunch of image talk pages which were incorrectly deleted under CSD G8 despite not being eligible for it. Discussion on both the appropriateness of the task and on the proposed technical implementation are welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ilmari Karonen's adminbot. Feel free to copy this announcement to any other fora that you feel should be notified. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you get silly articles deleted?

Is Chappa'Hai an article that should be in Wikipedia? It looks like some character that somebody made up and dressed up as. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Eliminating Vandalism: An Economic Perspective

I just read a book by Richard Posner that got me thinking. We could apply an economic model with incentives to be a good wikipedia citizen and disincentives to vandalize. My proposal is this: Each user, upon registering for the first time, has to put a small sum of money (let's say $10) in an interest-bearing trust account managed by the Wikipedia foundation. After a small amount of time (let's say 90 days), this money is returned to the user in whole. However, for each edit the user makes that is legitimately identified as "vandalism," the user forfeits a small sum (let's say 50 cents or a dollar) to the Wikipedia foundation. If the user's amount in the trust account drops to a certain level (maybe $5), the user is kicked off wikipedia and the money (minus the amount forfeited) would be returned to the user. As for the interest earned on the money in trust, the Wikipedia foundation would keep that. (which would be a substantial sum).

This plan would create a strong disincentive to vandalize, as it would cost the user money. This plan also has very low barriers to entry for new users, for the only cost would be the use of loss of a small sum of money (like $10) for a small amount of time (90 days), which, at the current market interest rate (compouned daily), would only be a little over five cents.

An obvious drawback to this plan is that it would require all users to register an account in order to identify the user's money in trust. Maybe however, we could get around this somehow, if there is a way to track the contributions of IPs to the money the IP inititally deposited in trust. The money wikipedia would make from the interest in trust, also, would help it expand and increase the ability to stave off the temptation to raise revenue in other ways, like selling advertising space, etc.

Low barriers and high disincentives...sounds like a good (and more importantly, rational) plan! Bilodeauzx (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)