Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.197.19.228 (talk) at 16:44, 1 August 2010 (lack of big-media reference on security matters). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcut
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.

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


Nation specific MOS requirements

{{resolved}}This is one of wikipedia's long-running lame edit wars about ethnic and national feuds. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) is as good as we have on this issue. It will likely remain in dispute for years. Toddst1 (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not resolved, don't shut down debate by fiat, please. Fences&Windows 17:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain to me why Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) should trump what a source calls a town, especially in an article that is not directly related to Ireland itself. If the source calls a town by a name that is not the name commonly used by the political correct in Wikipedia today, but was the correct name back in the time period the source was written or the source is writing about then in my opinion the source should have precedence in a non-Ireland related article. Specifically I am referring to McKownville, New York, a suburban hamlet in upstate NY outside Albany, its founder is from what the source calls Londonderry, but the Wikipedia article is Derry (which also violates normal MOS conventions regarding what cities can have just the city name, but I guess Ireland/N. Ireland gets to be an exception due to international dispute). I would like to be loyal to the source since Wikipedia can only state what the source itself says, otherwise a slippery slope towards OR and SYNTH.Camelbinky (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because a Hamlet (place) is something else than a Administrative_divisions_of_New_York#Hamlet; where as far as I see the latter is mainly used colloquially (ie not even officially) within the state New York, with the former being used by the rest of the English speaing world. Arnoutf (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Arnoutf, but I think your answer has little to do with the original poster's question. He's not questioning the use of the term "hamlet", nor even the naming of that particular hamlet the article is about, but a totally unrelated naming issue that just happened to come up in that article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I thought it was about the first line where it is called hamlet within a town (which did strike me as odd), and I did not continued reading the question in detail. Never mind my remark. Arnoutf (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You seem to be making the common mistake of mixing up the sourcing of facts with the sourcing of names. We use individual sources (such as the one saying where a certain person came from) in order to back up an individual factual claim. This has nothing to do with our editorial decision in what terms we re-state that factual claim, when we speak about it in our own, Wikipedia's, editorial voice. That decision has to be made on the basis of Wikipedia's general naming policies, and on the basis of observing general practice across the English speech community. "X came from Londonderry" and "X came from Derry" are synonymous sentences; they have the same truth value, and exchanging the one for the other is no more "OR" or "SYNTH" than translating a text from one language to the other. It's our editorial decision, and it cannot be dictated by the coincidence of what naming convention was used in whatever source it was that happened to be used for a given factbite in a given article. (Besides, what would you do if you had two alternative sources, both supporting the same factual claim but using different naming?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and it is very convincing and makes logical sense, but I still have some questions- if at the time that the founder of McKownville came to the USA from Londonderry/Derry the community actually called itself Londonderry (officially) then shouldnt we too call it Londonderry when referring to it in non-Irish related articles? I have no problem with the Irish MOS when it comes to Irish related articles, but this article has NOTHING to do with Ireland. For example- The city of New York was called New Amsterdam prior to the English takeover, if in an article about a person or another place NYC prior to the take over (1664 I believe) then the name New Amsterdam is the correct name and NYC would be anachronistic; how is this case different other than both the Ireland and British/N. Ireland lobby is quite vocal due to a serious real-world dispute regarding boundaries in which Wikipedia strives to be as neutral and politically correct as possible. Real-world political disputes shouldnt cause undue bureaucracy regarding how we write articles that have nothing to do with Ireland.Camelbinky (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The historical argument, about preferring names current at a given historical period, certainly makes more sense than that of sticking to the accidental preferences of a given source. But the current naming convention is clearly intended to cover such cases too, and as it no doubt has been the result of much discussion, it's probably unwise to call it into question here. In any case, the historical argument hardly seems strong enough to force a divergent naming preference in this case, because "Derry" doubtless was an existing and common name even back at the time (so "he was from Derry" is in no way factually wrong). In any case, independently of the specific Wikipedia convention, the crucial criterion for deciding (in an ideal wiki world where everybody just followed WP:UE) would not be what the official English name of the place was back at the time, but what the majority of reliable sources use today when speaking of the place back in that historical context. But that would probably be all but impossible to find a clear solution for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same solution as Gdansk/Danzig. What a place was called at the time is what matters. If this Northern Irish town was called Londonderry at the time and was referred to as such by the founder of McKownville, then we should write Londonderry, possibly bracketing "now known as Derry" as we would do with any other place that has had its name change over time. Fences&Windows 17:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the only source I can find that makes this claim is [1]. Is it not odd that only a single source would mention this? Fences&Windows 17:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the name should be Londonderry in the reference in this context, though even then most people actually referred to it as Derry so the (now known as Derry) has a point. Are you sure they came from the city rather than the county which is still officially Londonderry? Actually I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage in the area calling the city Londonderry has gone up since it became a point of contention! Dmcq (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Fences- I would say it is not odd to have only one source stating this considering the size of McKownville and considering that there isnt much that would be published on this hamlet given it is only recently that this hamlet has become notable enough to merit anything written about it, most development has occurred since 1950 and it has been home to the third largest enclosed mall in the state of NY since 1994 (Crossgates Mall). So, basically we still dont have a consensus on what should be done...Camelbinky (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would draw you attention to WP:IMOS and Derry/Londonderry name dispute. The AGREED consensus on WP is to name the town Derry. McKownville is not a unique case which stands outside of the guidelines. Bjmullan (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derry and Londonderry are the same place, it is not OR or SYNTH to use the accepted alternate name. If you start the slippery slope of using the name used by the source, there are two problems. Firstly we lose consistency across articles, which is the opposite what the manual of style is there for in the first place. Secondly using the name in a source would just encourage edit warring using duelling source, someone would change the name and use a source saying "Londonderry", then someone would change it back and use a source saying "Derry". O Fenian (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the link to go to the county, therefore actually the correct name IS Londonderry. This discussion is now purely academic and Dmcq and Fences have given perfectly valid responses regarding the IMOS guidelines. It is a guideline, not a law, IAR and common sense apply and a consensus on a guideline is not an absolute that all must apply across all of Wikipedia for all time. The Derry/Londonderry dispute regards consistency across Irish related articles, this is not an Irish related article in any way. The common sense rule of thumb to go by what the place in mention was called at the historical time being referred to trumps a guideline that was set up primarily to end edit warring on the title of the article of the Derry/Londonderry city article and secondarily main Irish/N. Ireland articles that would link to it, it was not intended to ripple through to such a periphery article such as this.
  • Fences gave a prime example with Danzing/Gdansk in Poland (and at one time Germany, and as a Free State). If every nation got a MOS and treated it fundamentalist style like this then whenever I refer to Strasbourg, France in any time period I would have to say its in France even if it was in Germany at the time. St. Petersburg would be that name whether it was really Petrograd or Leningrad at the time period. It isnt McKownville that we are giving special treatment to, it is you that is giving special treatment to Irish naming conventions. POLICY is to use English naming conventions by the way, English meaning the national version of English predominant in the article's topic- in this case American English, it is not policy to use Irish naming convention anywhere. Using the guideline in this manner on McKownville violates policy.Camelbinky (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst i agree with Camelbinky there is little point i argueing as the anti-Londonderry brigade that has appeared here will pursue preventing the usage of Londonderry for the city. If you want to get Londonderry mentioned your better going for the county.
On the name - the city has been officially and legally called Londonderry since 1613. Before it was built there was once a settlement called Derry however it was situated across the other side of the river Foyle and was destroyed by the Irish hence the need for the new city to be built. This Derry and the city of Londonderry are NOT one and the same, they are two different settlements that just happen to exist now on the same site (due to Londonderry expanding across both sides of the Foyle). Mabuska (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the history lesson Mabuska I didn't know that... Bjmullan (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm? ;-) Mabuska (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moi :-) Bjmullan (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With that information is the ability for us to follow what the source says and keep Londonderry acceptable now?Camelbinky (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol if only it was that simple this issue would never have had to have been brought up. You'd need to get the consent of nationalist editors to say its acceptable for the city before you could use it. I find it funny though that Irish nationalists are a minority (albiet a large one) in terms of population in Northern Ireland and the UK but we have to go against legal and official UK names on Wikipedia to cater their POV. Mabuska (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as I remember it the majority parties in Derry are republican - hence the use of that name. --Snowded TALK 15:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that some effort to recognize historical names makes sense. We'd hardly want to say that "In the fifth century, the Roman capitol was located at Istanbul, and named in honor of Constantine the Great"; it makes far more sense to say that the city was named Constantinople during the fifth century. Additionally, if the sources are using the then-accurate names, and we follow the sources, it makes it easier for future editors to verify that the facts in the article match the facts presented by the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LAME. Toddst1 (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Todd, since more and more people, including a well-respected authority on Wikipedia policy User:Kotniski, have joined this discussion I would say it isnt lame. Your continued attempts to stifle discussion, and this unnecessary snide comment shows you have no intention of contributing to this discussion other than to be a disruption. Please just dont follow the discussion if it bothers you so much and let those of us (on both sides) who find this important to improving Wikipedia discuss this issue in peace; and for the record I do believe those who disagree with me passionately do believe they are working in the best interest of Wikipedia, I just think they are wrong, and there is nothing wrong with that. Acknowledging there are two sides to a debate doesnt make someone a "battleground"er, debate and various positions and discussions like this lead to a better Wikipedia. Being on the losing side is not a bad thing, it can lead to good compromises and a minority idea that may be useful in certain special cases in the future.Camelbinky (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Toddst1 is wrong about this: the MOS agreement for this is implicitly about the current name, not historical names. If we ignore historical names, we'll get anachronisms like calling Leningrad under the Soviets "Saint Petersburg". How we deal with historical names is straightforward with other places - we use what they were called at the time - so why should Derry/Londonderry get special treatment? Fences&Windows 17:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PLACE says 'Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around'. I believe this give the go ahead to use Londonderry especially since the sources use that name. Dmcq (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change the guideline, you do it at the guideline's talk page. Until it is changed, we refer to the city as Derry. O Fenian (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are applied much more flexibly than that (as I believe you will find written in the banner at the top of the guideline page itself). If there's a good reason to deviate from what the guideline says, then no problem, we do so. Particularly when another guideline implies the reverse (as Dmcq has noted).--Kotniski (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in the Ireland Manual of Style overriding the general handling of historical names. Have you really considered the implications of such an extension to historical articles about Ireland? I don't think many people would agree with you! In this context the city should be referred to as something like Londonderry (now Derry). Dmcq (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not the last part (it hasn't stopped being Londonderry and started being Derry). But I do think this guideline needs more sophistication than it currently seems to have - more like the Gdańsk/Danzig guidance, where the name you choose depends on the historical context - and indeed who you're writing about. For example, I would expect that, broadly speaking, if you were talking about a Unionist or Unionists then you would want to say Londonderry and County Londonderry, but if you were talking about a Republican or Republicans you'd want to say Derry and County Derry. Has that sort of thing never been suggested?--Kotniski (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you propose lumping people from Derry into Unionist or Republican and then decide when to use Derry or LDerry. That will never work. Mo ainm~Talk 21:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Works all right with Gdańsk. (Obviously not everyone falls into one of the two categories, and not every article concerns just people from one of the two categories; in that case the general rule - the present rule - would apply.)--Kotniski (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the editors who wrote the Ireland related manual of style know nothing about Ireland, any historical implications. Perhaps as you seem so informed, you could tell me exactly when the name of the city was changed from Londonderry to Derry? Your entire suggestion would appear to hinge on you knowing the answer to that question. O Fenian (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would put the de facto change to 1984 when the council changed its name. I really can't see the British government trying to override them. And whoever controls something determines it as far as I'm concerned. However I can see the problem though so perhaps (see Derry) might be better. Dmcq (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, perpetual nationalist disputes over placenames may be tiresome, but they aren't lame; in the sense that the world outside of Wikipedia very much does take them seriously. What they are is reflections. You want a lame dispute? Try the year-and-a-bit-long edit war at Gregory Watson between Gregory Watson (talk · contribs) and … well … everyone else over whether a direct comparison should be made by Wikipedia between the United States Constitution and M. Watson's school grades (example edit). Uncle G (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any dispute is lame because of what it concerns (it's worth trying to get every detail right, including the apparently trivial ones), but they become tiresome when people don't work them towards a conclusion, or when individuals ignore the conclusion reached by the majority and keep on fighting.--Kotniski (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Londonderry isn't a historical name, Derry is. Only one has official and legal status in the country that the city belongs to and that is the name Londonderry. Derry is unofficial. The name change from Londonderry City Council to Derry City Council isn't a legal or official change of the citys name in any respects, only the name used by the council. In a recent judicial statement it doesn't have any official status in regards to what the city is actually called.
Londonderry is relevant from 1613 onwards, whilst Derry is only relevant in terms of the actual settlement prior to 1613. But oh wait thats right, ancient Derry prior to 1613 and the city of Londonderry built in 1613 were both initially different settlements on different sides of the Foyle. Mabuska (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because Londonderry is still the official name does not mean it is not also the historic name at some time in the past. Dmcq (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for another history lesson Mabuska, but tell me do you honestly think that if we scrap the IMOS on this naming issue that it is good for the encyclopedia? It will create tons of edit wars from drive by editors adding their preferred name as it stands now this stops that. Mo ainm~Talk 13:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll quote 'Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400'. That is irrespective of whether it is the same name or different or what has happened to it in the meanwhile. Dmcq (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat this discussion is in the wrong place. The guideline is to use Derry for the name of the city generally without exception. Should editors wish to change that to only use Derry for 1984 onwards, then consensus on the guideline talk page would be needed. O Fenian (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at the archives of IMoS and the question has been raised before. There was no firm consensus but it looks like people agreed they should just use Londonderry in historical articles if citing a document that refers to Londonderry. You can always start up a new discussion but for the moment referring to Londonderry and just linking to Derry looks fine. Dmcq (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no consensus you refer to. O Fenian (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is covered at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)#Derry_/_Londonderry - Derry is a city in County Londonderry ϢereSpielChequers 20:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was at WT:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Archive_1#Historical_references_to_City_of_Londonderry.2FDerry. Dmcq (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion has nothing to do with the current guideline, I suggest looking at the history to see how it was worded at a time. O Fenian (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead to IMOS states quite clearly this is for Ireland-related articles. McKownville, New York is not an Ireland-related article and does not fall under IMOS at all for any reason. Plus there is IAR and the fact that local consensus on an issue in any particular article trumps general consensus on a guideline. Perhaps what is required at this point is for an RfC to be set up where the Community-at-large should decide the scope and extent of IMOS and perhaps if it even still deserves to be a guideline. IMOS apparently was constructed by compromise between Republican and Unionist editors who had a great interest in Irish/Northern Ireland politics and some had agendas. We open this up to ALL of Wikipedia and perhaps the majority will see IMOS as unneeded nationalism that gets completely rewritten and/or demoted.Camelbinky (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All because you cannot get your own way over whether it is called Derry or Londonderry? Lame.. O Fenian (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are the one shouting to everyone that if they want Londonderry then they should go and change the IMOS! I'm doing as you suggested. What you are upset about is that we all refuse to play on your home turf at the talk page of IMOS where COI editors who spend all their time there will possibly outnumber and badger us into leaving. Sucks when you cant play in a playground where all your friends have your back, you decided to leave the small pond of Irish-related articles to bring this IMOS decision to Wikipedia-at-large, well you fell into the small pond where I play and now we're in the big ocean and the big fish have told you repeatedly you are wrong. Your last resort apparently is to tarnish my reputation with repeated accusations that you didnt even come up with yourself. Yes, call me names and repeat false accusations about me here and at the article talk page... yes, that's a good tactic.Camelbinky (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI thread on this was closed with a recommendation that you take a break on this subject. I really think it makes sense. --Snowded TALK 14:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the context of Ireland related articles it doesn't determine historical cases. The discussion in the IMoS archive was after the decision on the Derry talk page referenced in the IMoS. If required a decision can be made here with a larger consensus but I really don't see it as necessary. The reading by O Fenian is simply wrong and not the generally agreed one even for Ireland related articles. Dmcq (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how those who attempt to stiffle the issue keep returning to statements such as "no concensus for change" and "lets go on a break" in the hope people don't return to the topic and let it fizzle out once again. The calls to take it to the Ireland MOS also seems like an attempt to keep the issue primarily with Ireland editors and keep outsider opinions out especially as most may disagree with the system in place.
Seeing as many things here don't seem to need a unilateral concensus but an overall concensus it doesn't matter if a few irredentists object if a vast majority agree. There is only one official use of Derry in the British Isles and thats in the neighbouring foreign state, the Republic of Ireland. Should we call all places in Northern Ireland primarily what a minor foreign state does just because its nationalist supporters demand so? Mabuska (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI recommendation was from the closing admin who has nothing to do with Irish pages Mabuska. WP:COMMONNAME legitimizes the use of Derry even before we take into account that its elected council has chosen to use that name. The actual standard, Derry for the City & Londonderry for the county has been stable for some time and avoids conflict. Phrases like "minor foreign state" are unnecessarily provocative, especially when Derry is used by a substantial proportion of the people of Northern Ireland. --Snowded TALK 15:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see Dmcq is now resorting to outright fabrications. At the time of the discussion he falsely alleges means there is consensus for historical names, the manual of style looked like this, the text saying "Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county for article titles", with no mention of in-article use. The manual of style currently reads "Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles". A four year old discussion from when the guideline had an entirely different wording is of no relevance to the current wording of the guideline, or its current implementation. I would really, really enjoy an explanation as to how my stance of "we use Derry for the city" is possibly wrong when the guideline says "Use Derry for the city . . . in articles", it would require a basic failing of understanding English to argue that. O Fenian (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notice at the top of the guideline that says "it will have occasional exceptions" is also written in clear English. Anyway, I see no evidence that this rule ever had consensus; as far as I can see it was introduced by this edit without any discussion, and although we can assume (since it has stood since then) that it has the agreement of those with a particular interest in Ireland-related articles, it can hardly be claimed to have been accepted by the community as a whole for all articles (not particularly Ireland-related) where these places might happen to be mentioned. --Kotniski (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just trawled the archives that supposedly establish this consensus (which are at Talk:Derry/Archive 1), and I'd say "weak and disputed" pretty much characterizes it. Applying a decision made by a handful of editors at Derry to three million articles in Wikipedia would be a serious stretch, and this claim that consensus can't change (that a decision made at Derry is permanently binding on editors at another article, no matter what is best for the other article) is silly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great input WhatamIdoing, can you go and change the MOS to say that it's silly and doesn't apply to 3m articles. When you are at it maybe you could list the articles where it does apply. Bjmullan (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would completely agree and support if What did explicitly change the IMOS to say that, but What does not need to do that because IAR already says it for him plus WP:policies and guidelines. I'm sorry Bj but you are putting IMOS in a vacuum and saying it alone decides the manner in which we edit. It does not. Nor is it infalliable. What, Kotniski, Dmcq, myself we all have argued and fought (in fact on separate sides at one point) to define exactly the role that guidelines and policies should have over each other and over editors in disputes exactly like this. Many uninvolved editors whom I have never heard of have even come here and to the article to tell you that you are wrong about the IMOS being preeminent over everything and everyone else. It really is looking like an RfC on the status and scope of the IMOS is the next step, since you have decided that we must change the IMOS in order to do anything please dont complain that we are now going to change the IMOS. It just wont be on your turf, the decision to have IMOS as a guideline is decided by the community, not by those interested in Irish turf wars, and given what What discovered and the WP:snowball going on in this discussion that there isnt a snowball's chance in hell that IMOS will remain a guideline with its current scope intact. You can always drop this and walk away and keep the IMOS intact for Irish-related articlesm, instead of gambling it on a community-wide decision, however.Camelbinky (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the above concensus that there is no such binding agreement in relation to the use of the name. In any event canvassing by users to attract artificial support on this issue is contrary to WP policy. --87.115.163.55 (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning anon. whose IP changes constantly?

Hello, on List of Warriors characters outside Clans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an anonymous user has repeatedly changed a section about a character called "Jake". The novel series describes him as being "fat", however, the user repeatedly changes it back to "muscular". Even after leaving a hidden comment explaining to the user where to find the mention of "Jake" being "fat", the user has continued to change it to "fat", in addition to blanking the hidden comment. I am not aware of how else I can notify/discuss this with the anon. user, since my guess is that if I warned the editing IP, their IP will have changed already, and they will not see the message. Is there anything I can do in order to contact this user? Brambleclawx 23:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the anon changing the description to "fat" or "muscular"? Your comment refers to one, then the other. SMP0328. (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's kind of irrelevant to Brambleclawx's question. You can always look through the history if you want to know.
The answer to the question, as far as I'm aware, is "no, there is really nothing you can do to contact the contributor in that case". If he's interested in being contacted, he has the necessary info to contact you. If he's only interested in edit warring, it's possible you may ultimately have to ask for semi-protection on the article. --Trovatore (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's been semi-protected. Luckily, the article won't lose out too much, since not many non-autoconfirmed users edit there anyways. Brambleclawx 23:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For a determined editor at a single article, I've occasionally left <!-- hidden text comments --> in the affected section. (Make a note to remove the text after you think s/he's seen it, of course.)
In another instance, I just chased the IPs: it was a person who edited from a new IP, but basically the same time every day, and whose patterns weren't too hard to spot. I spammed the same text to IP after IP for a while, and eventually I (apparently) managed to get a message to him/her at the right time, because the (clearly good-faith) disruption stopped. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read Brambleclawx's original post, he did leave hidden comments. The IP is blanking them as well. I would simply suggest a request at WP:RPP if attempts at communication via the talk page(s) of the single purpose accounts are failing. Airplaneman ✈ 02:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: My point is that sometimes they work. In other instances, we've used it as a weird sort of talk page, and in one case, the uncommunicative newbie changed the comments to say the opposite (basically like changing Template:No more links to say that lots more external links were needed). So it's not perfect, but it does get information in front of the editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More permissive licenses?

I am simply reposting a question I found on Wikipedia_talk:Donating_copyrighted_materials. —mono 04:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More permissive licenses?

I have a number of websites at which I release all content under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver (CC0). My intuition is that this material really ought to be available for use on Wikipedia, but this page doesn't mention anything about more permissive licenses. So my questions are:

  • Is CC0 an acceptable license (or waiver statement, rather) for text to be used by Wikipedia?
  • Is CC-BY (without multilicensing under GFDL) an acceptable license for text to be used by Wikipedia?
  • What other licenses might qualify?
  • Should these be listed as alternative options on this page?

Thanks for any input. Dcoetzee 23:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but: CC0 is essentially public domain, so Yes, Compatible. CC-BY: Unequivocally Yes, Compatible. See also: meta:Licensing_update/Outreach#Importing_and_exporting_text_from_Wikimedia_projects, which mentions some GFDL/CC subtleties and addresses CC-BY explicitly. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is from 5mos ago. Why are you reposting this? --Cybercobra (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never got a response; thought it was a worthy question. —mono 00:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think of it this way: anything more permissive than cc-by-sa is fine. I can't remember where I saw it, but Creative Commons has produced a chart showing which licenses can be merged with which licenses. Consider the four possible provisions (by, sa, nc, nd) of CC licenses: as long as work Y has all the provisions of work X, you can merge work X into work Y. Obviously the nc and nd works aren't allowed here, but this means that anything with no provisions other than by and sa can be put into by-sa text such as ours. Since cc-0 lacks all four terms, you can merge it into anything. It's the same as US government text or PD-old text, which is never prohibited on copyright grounds. Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

publishing or linking to "classified" material

Wikimedia Commons has a well developed system for precluding the upload of copyrighted materials. But what about materials that are "classified"? Someone has claimed that the War Logs leaked to Wikileaks are "public domain" because they originate with the US government but that is surely debatable. The New York Times says ""We have not linked to the archives of raw material" in this case yet Wikipedia does. I suggest Wikipedia should not be directly linking to or publishing material designated confidential or classified since public knowledge needs could be served by a source with editorial control repeating the content, which Wikipedia could then link to. The general philosophy of a lot of Wiki philosophy is to follow stories, as opposed to trail blazing on its own. If there is no policy here, then the standards of Wikipedia and Wikileaks are indistinguishable and will that always be appropriate?Bdell555 (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They probably shouldn't be used as WP:PRIMARY sources, but I'm not sure that we want to head in the direction of banning WP:External links that might interest some of our readers 'for their own good'. On those paternalistic grounds, we might remove all sorts of factually verifiable information. There are, for example, doubtless a few fools in the world who, if they learned that a single act of unprotected anal intercourse with an HIV+ person has a >99% chance of not transmitting HIV, would actually manage to die as a result. But I still don't see any particular need to remove that information from HIV#Transmission.
Having said that, you might consider what WP:EL says about the importance of links being "justifiable" (according to common sense as well as the guideline). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline does say that we generally try not to link to materials that are illegal. As far as I know, only the actual publishing (leaking) of the classified material is illegal. Now that the material is out there, it de-facto is no longer a state secret. The material itself is not illegal and due to it being federal works, there is also no copyright concern as far as I can see. I think the journalistic value outweighs the cautionary principle here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TheDJ is right. Per the Pentagon Papers case, it is indeed not illegal for a private entity located in the US (as the WMF servers are) to disseminate or republish leaked US Government material that happens to be classified; it's only illegal for the original leaker (some person who has gained access to the material by agreeing not to disseminate it) to perform the original leak. Having said that, it's perfectly true that these are primary sources, and even then we have only the word of Wikileaks that the material is accurate. Uncritical promotion of this material might not be warranted. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the EL would only inconvenience our readers, and TheDJ's arguments of legality and copyright seem to be correct. The link is not presented "uncritically", it is within the context of an article that discusses this leak using reliable sources and presenting the responses of various governments. Fences&Windows 17:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with TheDJ's arguments as well. --Cyclopiatalk 17:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to Wikilinks is an offence in Australia, punishable by fines of up to A$11000 per day. Wikipedia has generally pursued a maximally legal worldwide objective, as opposed to minimally legal, in that I have seen Jimbo Wales' contention that "this is legal under US law, so let's do it" is not a very compelling argument" cited by Wikipedia as a justification for deeming material to not be public domain even when it is so in the US.Bdell555 (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright is a seperate issue. Wikipedia probably already breaks Australian law in a number of places and has ignored both british and candian court orders. That is before you consider how many laws in the islamic world we probably break.©Geni 23:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia followed every asinine law every country in the world has, it would be censored worse than your typical de-classified document. Being "maximally legal worldwide" is a noble objective, but also one that is logically impossible. As Wikimedia is not obligated to follow Australian law, the obvious value of the EL supercedes that nation's wishes, IMNSHO. And, as noted by Geni, Wikimedia has in the past ignored publication bans placed by Canadian courts on some of our more infamous cases as they are not enforceable outside of Canada's borders. As such, I would be obligated not to break that ban, but there is no issue if someone not limited by it does. Resolute 23:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Censorship is bad, m'kay? We should comply with censorship laws to the minimum extent we can get away with, not the maximum we can imagine. --Trovatore (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's a non-neutral value judgment. Wikipedia should not be crusading for an agenda. The New York Times can act reflectively and decline to link but Wikipedia just barrels ahead? Wikipedia could be a lot more challenging on copyright than it is so why so aggressive on this particular issue? It strikes me as partiality to the Wikileaks project vis-à-vis the indicated wishes of democratic governments.Bdell555 (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're damn right it's a non-neutral value judgment. --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur: WP:AMORAL (shameless plug) --Cybercobra (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I don't mean. The Australian government's position here is morally reprehensible. Our moral imperative is to oppose it. --Trovatore (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you. We (as an organization) don't have any moral imperative to resist censorship. We only have a moral imperative to produce the best encyclopedia that can be produced. So far as attempted censorship gets in the way of that goal, we should resist censorship. Where it does not, we as an organization should not. It does work out to the same thing in this particular case, but we should choose being the best possible encyclopedia over being the encyclopedia that resists censorship the most. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I basically agree with that. I'm not suggesting we should gratuitously go looking for fights, just to tweak governments. But when there's a good reason to do it, the fact that at the same time we get to tweak a government is if anything a bonus, not a detriment. --Trovatore (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I was agreeing with Resolute's comment. Note the threading. Although I agree with your comments, just instead from the approach of "we're not here to enforce Australia's laws/morality". --Cybercobra (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Australia prohibits nude photos of small-breasted women in their late twenties as "child pornography",[2] has prohibited access to anti-abortion sites (see Internet censorship in Australia), and enforces prior restraint of various films and video games under an official Refused Classification scheme (taking up to five years to decide whether to allow them). It is obvious that a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit is utterly inconsistent with a country that believes in prior restraint and extensive censorship of communications.
I think we would substantially benefit by templating every last page of Wikipedia to contain some URL banned in Australia, because if their national censorware prevents any Australian from opening the page, it would be damned hard for libel tourists to attack Wikipedia from that direction.
Whether media sources link directly to Wikileaks' page or not, the mere word "Wikileaks" leads anyone doing a Google search, or who can find the site URL here or elsewhere, directly to those documents. Since newspapers routinely fail to provide useful links let alone inline references to anything (e.g. primary scientific papers for breaking medical news) I don't think their actions can possibly guide us. Wnt (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute

I'd never heard of this page till someone mentioned it at meta. What is it for? It seems totally stale, so I propose that we mark it as historical. The Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN etc. cover this ground adequately. Fences&Windows 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use...

I have a question. If all content on Wikipedia is fair-use by the GNU License, what does fair-use mean? AirplaneProRadioChecklist 18:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question. GNU content is not "fair use" content. For the meaning, in general, see fair use. --Cyclopiatalk 18:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikipedia content is licensed as CC-BY-SA, not GFDL (as it used to be). OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the text immediately below any window, you'll see that everything is dual-licensed: Wikipedia is both GFDL and CC-by-sa. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia text is entirely CC-BY-SA. In addition, most but not all Wikipedia text is also GFDL. Editors are required to dual license their original contributions, but they are also permitted to import third party text that is CC-BY-SA only (and not GFDL). Any content derived from such imports would then be CC-BY-SA alone. Dragons flight (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but OrangeDog's comments made it sound as if you weren't allowed to use anything on Wikipedia under GFDL terms anymore. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another nitpick is that the fair-use doctrine certainly applies to WP content; a re-user who doesn't want to accept the license could instead, in jurisdictions where the doctrine applies, rely on a fair-use claim instead. The claim might or might not hold up. For example, you might want to quote a paragraph from WP in a book that you published and sold without free-licensing it. In my non-lawyer opinion you'd probably be OK. Quote a whole article, and again in my non-professional understanding, you'd be at a lot more risk. --Trovatore (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really correct on a technical level. Editors aren't "required" to dual license "their original contributions" except as it currently allows and only applies to current contributions, not stuff in the past. The Wikimedia Foundation pulled off a really cool hat trick on the licensing front by re-writing the GFDL to become the CC-by-SA 3.0 license and getting the Free Software Foundation to go along with the deal. Still, as it currently stands, GFDL-only content does have to be included on Wikipedia only under terms of fair use and not under the much more free license of the GFDL itself (unless you can prove it dates from before the WMF did the hat trick or during the "grace" period of the transition). In that regard this is a relevant topic, and something to be very much concerned about even though it doesn't apply to any content on the other language Wikipedia projects or any of the sister projects (or Wikia for that matter which also switched from GFDL to CC-by-SA). Concerns about treating GFDL'd content as something to worry about in terms of copyright violations are legitimate, and the GFDL isn't compatible with the CC-by-SA license or the current dual-licensing arrangement. On the other hand, somebody who is creating GFDL'd content and incorporates major sections from Wikipedia can do so legally under the current dual-licensing arrangement... other than those parts explicitly CC-by-SA alone. Hopefully those exceptions are clearly marked. I'm not really sure how "legal" including CC-by-SA-only content into a Wikipedia entry might be if the licenses technically are required to be dual-licensed. That seems a bit weird to me. It can be used in CC-by-SA content by simply selecting that license. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong

List of medical schools in Asia#Hong_Kong - Should Hong Kong gets its own section, as it is the case on almost all other lists? 119.237.153.224 (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feed the troll/sock... SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocking of socks of non-indef-banned editors

Occasionally we'll see someone who's banned for a specific period of time who socks before the expiration of that ban; the sock is generally caught and indef blocked. It seems that these socks aren't unblocked, even after the expiration of the ban, and even if the formerly-banned editor isn't restricted to a single account. Why do we keep these socks blocked, if their owners are allowed to edit? I don't see why these accounts can't be useful; for example, if I'd once been banned (which I've not) but decided to behave properly after the expiration, I could quite properly use the sock when I was on public computers. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone really and truly wants to use one of their blocked socks for activity described in WP:SOCK#LEGIT, they can always request an unblock. Whether the request will be granted is (of course) a separate question. Anomie⚔ 15:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And anyway using socks during blocks is a reason for extending the original block, possibly to indef on the main account. Wikipedia:Block_evasion#Evasion_of_blocks Arnoutf (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something doesn't work

I'm throwing this here with the thought that this isn't the right place. That's fine, just point this discussion to the correct place.

I see lots of new pages created like this: 

'''New article name''' is Ferdinand Gomis


== References ==

<!--- See [[Wikipedia:Footnotes]] on how to create references using <ref></ref> tags which will then appear here automatically -->
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==

* [http://www.example.com/ example.com] 


<!--- Categories --->
[[Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard]]

(In this recent example, Ferdinand Gomis was the article title.) Why do pages get created like this? Is the wizard not working? User error? Something else? Note: I don't much about the wizard.— Timneu22 · talk 15:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the template someone gets when they use the Article Wizard. If they leave the standard text in place, they are not following the instructions: Wikipedia:Article wizard/Wizard-New edit instructions D (these are the instructions show above the edit window when you use the wizard). Fences&Windows 15:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: victim list on an aircrash article

See here. MickMacNee (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history) has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Arbitration policy

The latest draft of the proposed update to the Arbitration policy is here with discussion of the draft here. All editors are cordially invited to participate.  Roger Davies talk 03:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of big-media reference on security matters

I made some points regarding media, references-to, secrecy and security in Talk:7_July_2005_London_bombings. The gist of it is that BBC is regarded as reliable media, but this cannot be so when (state) security is the subject at hand. The point is, that BBC/big-media silence or downplaying of security issues is taken too literally here and that contrary opinions -- even those that make sense and are pure fact -- are maligned as conspiracy theories dismissed wholesale without a whimper. Conspiracy Theories are a) not a heresy per se and b) need to be equally treated as any other topic otherwise a NPOV (the highest wikipedia moral) is violated. An adjustment of NPOV is necessary because currently the word conspiracy theory alone is often used to dismiss a subject without discussion and subsequently moderators still have negative attitudes (violating NPOV). The perfect example happened to me 4 days ago at Peter_Power_(crisis_management_specialist) when I just wanted to insert a one-line (pure fact) that the moderator first dismissed as a conspiracy theory (without even perfunctory grounds), then deemed it not notable, and now has taken over the wording himself, omitting the crux of the matter and the essential references (to youtube recordings, the only source, but indirectly corroborated by BBC article and Peter Power's own statements.) 85.197.19.228 (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=376611742"