Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Village pumps: Policy • Technical • Proposals (persistent) • Idea lab • Miscellaneous |
| Skip to: Table of contents | First discussion | Bottom of page |
| Village pump policy discussion 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 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. | | |
Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon:  in the edit toolbar). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. | ||
| « Older discussions | Archives: | [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 1}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|1]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 2}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|2]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 3}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|3]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 4}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|4]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 5}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|5]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 6}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|6]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 7}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|7]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 8}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|8]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 9}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|9]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 10}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|10]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 11}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|11]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 12}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|12]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 13}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|13]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 14}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|14]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 15}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|15]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 16}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|16]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 17}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|17]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 18}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|18]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 19}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|19]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 20}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|20]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 21}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|21]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 22}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|22]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 23}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|23]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 24}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|24]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 25}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|25]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 26}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|26]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 27}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|27]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 28}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|28]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 29}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|29]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 30}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|30]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 31}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|31]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 32}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|32]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 33}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|33]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 34}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|34]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 35}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|35]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 36}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|36]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 37}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|37]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 38}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|38]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 39}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|39]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 40}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|40]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 41}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|41]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 42}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|42]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 43}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|43]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 44}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|44]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 45}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|45]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 46}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|46]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 47}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|47]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 48}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|48]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 49}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|49]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 50}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|50]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 51}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|51]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 52}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|52]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 53}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|53]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 54}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|54]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 55}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|55]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 56}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|56]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 57}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|57]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 58}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|58]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 59}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|59]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 60}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|60]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 61}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|61]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 62}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|62]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 63}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|63]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 64}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|64]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 65}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|65]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 66}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|66]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 67}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|67]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 68}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|68]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 69}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|69]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 70}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|70]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 71}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|71]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 72}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|72]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 73}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|73]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 74}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|74]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 75}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|75]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 76}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|76]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 77}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|77]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 78}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|78]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 79}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|79]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 80}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|80]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 81}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|81]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 82}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|82]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 83}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|83]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 84}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|84]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 85}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|85]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 86}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|86]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 87}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|87]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 88}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|88]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 89}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|89]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 90}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|90]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 91}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|91]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 92}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|92]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 93}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|93]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 94}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|94]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 95}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|95]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 96}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|96]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 97}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|97]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 98}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|98]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 99}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|99]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 100}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|100]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 101}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|101]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 102}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|102]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 103}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|103]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 104}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|104]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 105}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|105]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 106}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|106]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 107}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|107]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 108}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|108]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 109}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|109]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 110}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|110]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 111}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|111]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 112}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|112]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 113}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|113]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 114}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|114]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 115}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|115]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 116}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|116]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 117}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|117]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 118}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|118]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 119}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|119]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 120}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|120]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 121}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|121]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 122}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|122]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 123}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|123]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 124}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|124]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 125}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|125]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 126}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|126]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 127}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|127]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 128}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|128]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 129}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|129]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 130}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|130]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 131}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|131]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 132}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|132]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 133}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|133]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 134}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|134]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 135}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|135]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 136}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|136]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 137}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|137]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 138}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|138]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 139}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|139]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 140}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|140]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 141}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|141]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 142}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|142]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 143}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|143]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 144}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|144]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 145}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|145]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 146}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|146]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 147}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|147]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 148}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|148]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 149}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|149]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 150}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|150]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 151}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|151]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 152}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|152]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 153}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|153]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 154}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|154]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 155}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|155]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 156}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|156]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 157}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|157]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 158}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|158]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 159}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|159]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 160}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|160]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 161}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|161]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 162}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|162]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 163}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|163]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 164}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|164]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 165}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|165]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 166}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|166]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 167}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|167]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 168}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|168]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 169}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|169]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 170}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|170]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 171}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|171]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 172}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|172]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 173}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|173]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 174}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|174]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 175}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|175]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 176}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|176]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 177}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|177]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 178}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|178]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 179}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|179]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 180}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|180]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 181}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|181]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 182}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|182]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 183}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|183]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 184}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|184]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 185}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|185]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 186}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|186]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 187}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|187]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 188}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|188]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 189}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|189]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 190}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|190]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 191}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|191]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 192}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|192]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 193}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|193]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 194}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|194]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 195}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|195]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 196}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|196]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 197}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|197]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 198}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|198]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 199}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|199]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 200}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|200]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 176}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|176]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 177}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|177]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 178}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|178]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 179}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|179]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 180}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|180]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 181}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|181]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 182}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|182]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 183}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|183]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 184}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|184]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 185}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|185]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 186}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|186]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 187}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|187]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 188}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|188]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 189}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|189]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 190}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|190]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 191}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|191]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 192}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|192]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 193}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|193]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 194}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|194]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 195}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|195]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 196}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|196]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 197}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|197]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 198}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|198]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 199}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|199]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 200}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|200]]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 151}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|151]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 152}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|152]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 153}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|153]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 154}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|154]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 155}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|155]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 156}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|156]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 157}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|157]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 158}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|158]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 159}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|159]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 160}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|160]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 161}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|161]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 162}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|162]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 163}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|163]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 164}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|164]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 165}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|165]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 166}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|166]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 167}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|167]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 168}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|168]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 169}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|169]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 170}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|170]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 171}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|171]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 172}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|172]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 173}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|173]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 174}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|174]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 175}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|175]]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 126}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|126]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 127}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|127]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 128}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|128]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 129}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|129]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 130}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|130]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 131}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|131]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 132}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|132]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 133}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|133]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 134}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|134]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 135}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|135]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 136}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|136]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 137}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|137]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 138}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|138]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 139}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|139]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 140}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|140]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 141}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|141]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 142}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|142]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 143}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|143]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 144}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|144]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 145}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|145]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 146}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|146]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 147}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|147]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 148}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|148]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 149}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|149]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 150}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|150]]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 101}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|101]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 102}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|102]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 103}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|103]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 104}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|104]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 105}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|105]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 106}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|106]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 107}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|107]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 108}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|108]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 109}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|109]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 110}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|110]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 111}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|111]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 112}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|112]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 113}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|113]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 114}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|114]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 115}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|115]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 116}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|116]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 117}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|117]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 118}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|118]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 119}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|119]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 120}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|120]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 121}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|121]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 122}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|122]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 123}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|123]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 124}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|124]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 125}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|125]]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 76}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|76]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 77}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|77]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 78}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|78]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 79}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|79]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 80}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|80]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 81}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|81]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 82}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|82]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 83}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|83]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 84}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|84]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 85}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|85]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 86}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|86]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 87}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|87]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 88}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|88]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 89}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|89]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 90}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|90]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 91}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|91]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 92}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|92]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 93}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|93]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 94}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|94]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 95}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|95]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 96}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|96]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 97}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|97]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 98}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|98]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 99}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|99]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 100}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|100]]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 51}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|51]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 52}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|52]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 53}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|53]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 54}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|54]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 55}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|55]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 56}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|56]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 57}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|57]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 58}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|58]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 59}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|59]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 60}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|60]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 61}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|61]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 62}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|62]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 63}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|63]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 64}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|64]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 65}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|65]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 66}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|66]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 67}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|67]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 68}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|68]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 69}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|69]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 70}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|70]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 71}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|71]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 72}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|72]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 73}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|73]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 74}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|74]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 75}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|75]]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 26}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|26]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 27}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|27]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 28}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|28]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 29}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|29]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 30}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|30]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 31}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|31]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 32}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|32]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 33}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|33]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 34}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|34]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 35}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|35]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 36}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|36]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 37}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|37]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 38}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|38]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 39}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|39]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 40}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|40]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 41}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|41]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 42}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|42]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 43}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|43]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 44}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|44]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 45}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|45]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 46}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|46]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 47}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|47]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 48}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|48]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 49}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|49]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 50}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|50]]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|[[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 1}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|1]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 2}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|2]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 3}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|3]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 4}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|4]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 5}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|5]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 6}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|6]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 7}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|7]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 8}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|8]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 9}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|9]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 10}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|10]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 11}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|11]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 12}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|12]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 13}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|13]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 14}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|14]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 15}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|15]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 16}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|16]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 17}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|17]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 18}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|18]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 19}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|19]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 20}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|20]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 21}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|21]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 22}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|22]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 23}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|23]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 24}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|24]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 25}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|25]]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|no archives yet ([[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 1}}Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)}}|create]])}} | |
| <inputbox> type=fulltext prefix=Wikipedia:Village pump break=no width=30 searchbuttonlabel=Search all village pumps & archives </inputbox> |
| Centralized discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
 | ||
| Proposals | Discussions | Recurring proposals |
| ||
| archive • talk • edit • history • watch | ||
Restaurant Notability
As this seems to be a recurring phenomenon, I believe we need to create a separate, distinguished criteria for passing notability for restaurants. I would like this to go before a large audience and eventually have a proper vote on it. I stand on a more conservative side of this issue, leaning towards excluding restaurants that may meet general notability guidelines. I think that this is what has caused such a large divergence in opinion, simply because no specific set of rules exist for restaurants. It is my opinion that by following current rules for notability, we are allowing the insertion of unencyclopedic restaurants to pass through, and adherents to the general rules have something to lean on during a debate for deletion.A large supporting source is the New York Times, an obviously reputable source, which constantly reviews restaurants in its dining section. What this gives writers is a safe source for maintaining notability; one could potentially write an article for a restaurant on a weekly basis citing this source. There are certainly other highly used sources which weekly feature restaurants which can be used. It is my opinion that even though these are used countless times (by myself in many articles I've written), they do not give notability. Every restaurant has a history, and some may be certainly very interesting, but that does not make it remarkable. To quote myself from a related discussion:
"I worked at a restaurant as a cook for 8 years that was featured every year by the local news (nj news12) and the owner has gotten a ton of good reviews for it simply because he has connections and wanted the exposure. It is utterly unremarkable and does not belong in an encyclopedia, but if this is a trend, maybe I will someday write a fluffy article about the hardships he faced climbing up the ladder, sacrificing whatever it was he did."'
That is an empty threat, but my point is that if the owner had any interest in Wikipedia (yet he luckily doesn't even have an interest in the internet), he could probably meet general notability guidelines and have a very well referenced article. I do not wish for this to happen.
I have a general set of rules which I would like to propose to determine eligibility for notability for restaurants which I will list.
"A restaurant may be notable if it is independently sourced for something other than the fact that it's a restaurant that got good reviews, and has some sort of history."
- The owner is notable.
- The workers are notable, like a notable chef.
- Notable regulars, like if a celebrity frequents and supports the restaurant.
- Historical significance, like an old restaurant or site which has been or is currently a restaurant (a fictional example being... George Washington's house has been converted into a diner).
- If something notable happened there, maybe even one time event as the host article.
- Extraordinarily remarkable cuisine, like serving extremely exotic or unique food which no other, at least regionally, restaurants serve which is well sourced and noted just for that.
- Social significance for the community.
- As someone who isn't familiar with restaurant reviews as a journalistic practice, could you explain why reviews of a restaurant in multiple reliable sources shouldn't satisfy general notability requirements? Not every restaurant that exists will get reviewed, so how is it different from a film or a book getting reviewed? If it's purely just a matter of how localized the coverage is, I'm sure there are ways to distinguish between a review in The Cowtown Enquirer and The New York Times without resorting to an insistence on the restaurant's significance. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think this is necessary. What makes such restaurants "unencyclopedic"? If there are multiple independent sources, then there should be enough to write a neutral, verifiable article on the subject. Note that per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), purely local coverage is generally not enough to meet notability standards. Many of the proposed guidelines are also looser than the normal notability rules, in particular, several run afoul of "notability is not inherited". Mr.Z-man 22:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Theornamentalist, can you explain why you think that the usual rules for businesses (which are slightly stricter than Wikipedia:GNG's "presumed notable" level) aren't normally good enough?
- Also, I agree with Mr. Z-man that many of your suggested criteria are actually banned under current rules, for being far too loose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- to Postdlf - The New York Times writes reviews all the time because they have to, not because it's news or notable. Therefore, it seems that a restaurant in the tri-state area will likely get a review simply because that's typically the extant of the NYT's coverage.
- to Z-man - My main concern is that businesses can pay for this type of coverage, the fact that a restaurant serves food and it's cited to a reliable source, should not make it notable. I know some of these conflict with inheritance issues right now, but I would like to revise them (with the help of those who agree and even those who do not fully); I am trying to come up with a way to orderly separate an unremarkable restaurant from one with some actual encyclopedic value. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- to WhatamIdoing - Simply put, they allow for articles like this to exist, which I oppose. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- My goal is to avoid lengthy discussions like this, it seems like there are definitely issues with a given restaurants' notability, and instead of going through the motions every time, I think it would be good if both sides could agree on a set of rules. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- This subsection of WP:N seems relevant: "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan", nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." I don't think that a single restaurant review, even in The New York Times, is generally going to be enough to meet the bar. I don't think the problem is that we don't have a guideline, it's that it's not being followed in all cases. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- to Beeblebrox - Then maybe instead of rewriting policy, an official guideline regarding Restaurants needs to be created (pending further input for support..); something like Wikipedia:HAMMER, to name one regularly in use and subject specific. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teaneck Kebab House, I've argued for keep on the grounds that, while only one restaurant review in a major newspaper's dining section isn't enough to establish a restaurant's notability, this particular restaurant has had two such reviews in two different major newspapers. In an area like New York City where restaurants exist by the tens of thousands, this is no small feat, even when one of the reviews is bad. The reason why Wikipedia:GNG calls for multiple reliable sources is that we don't want a subject to be considered notable on the basis of just one lucky break with the media. If there are at least two, from mutually independent sources, that would indicate that the subject is at least interesting enough to get these two sources involved.
- However, I have just one caveat with regarding multiple restaurant reviews as being enough to establish notability: the Montreal Gazette has stated time and again in its dining section that its restaurant reviewing team does not accept invitations from a restaurant's owner. That should be the case for every review used to establish a restaurant's notability. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good point, but for some reason there tends to be disputes about restaurants, I support your opinion, but I was hoping to crack this egg first, not the whole basket.. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I also have to concur that reviews should not constitute reliable sources for anything other than verifying a restaurant's (or other product's) existence, which is not enough to establish notability. One counter-intuitive problem with allowing reviews to establish notability is that it necessarily means that restaurants in smaller cities will be more likely to be notable, on the grounds that a local newspaper has fewer restaurants to cover, and thus any given restaurant is more likely to be reviewed, compared to a restaurant of similar size, stature, income, etc., in a larger city.
- Another way to tackle this is to deal with the issue in Wikipedia:COMPANY, which requires that "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." The key here that needs to be resolved, of course, is papers like the New York Times, which serve a dual national/local purpose. One of the big issues at a recent high profile AfD was that some editors (including myself) believed that while the NYT is a national paper, the restaurant reviews are a part of their local coverage (found in what I believe is called the Metro Section), and thus don't qualify. If a restaurant were featured in the Business section, that would be notable coverage, but the reviews by themselves are not. Others, however, argue that such an analysis is a type of POV/OR on our part, and there's no way to clearly state that the reviews are only intended for a local audience. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- *sigh* Yes, it's obvious the Metro section of the NYT is regional coverage, sometimes people take policy a little too literally. whose AFD
- Personally, I am less interested in whether the coverage is regional or national versus whether the review documents an extraordinary claim. For example, Sunset (magazine) has articles every month reviewing "5 Crab Shacks on the Maryland Coast" which are great food porn, but say nothing indicating the five crab shacks are extraordinary other than the travel writer decided to stop in that town. For the broader product category, national coverage is a given, again, in national magazines on every magazine rack. Again, the review needs to document an extraordinary claim beyond mere existence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- I think one option is to expand Wikipedia:ORG to introduce a "new" criteria: Notable businesses have normally received noticeably more media attention than similar businesses.
- My primary concern is that while I think some editors are thinking this at AfDs, nobody seems to actually come right out and say it, and ORG has a general goal of reflecting the actual practice as seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Please see Mzoli's - an article of this sort whose AFD was well-attended by the community and which was kept. The proposition is that restaurants, as a general class, are not notable, even though it is agreed that they commonly attract independent detailed coverage in reliable sources. Because this class of topics passes our general notability guide, this proposition rests upon the personal opinion of the nay-sayers. It is their POV or judgement that such topics should not be covered here. By objecting to such coverage, they wish to censor the project contrary to core policy. The nay-sayers do not seem to have any special status which would set them above other editors, the founder of this project nor the independent professional editors and publishers who decide that such topics do merit notice. Having worked themself in a restaurant does not qualify an editor for a special, expert opinion as such work is commonly menial labour and familiarity breeds contempt. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I wish you'd stop Mzoling us: that article is of little help for a number of reasons, namely:
- 1 - Mzoli is not a restaurant, but a sort of wholesale butchery, around which a number of restaurants opened; in other words, if anything, it is a restaurant cluster
- 2 - The concept described in point 1 is rather unique; most restaurants that would be affected by this proposal are something like, uh, a run-of-the-mill kebab house in Albany.
- 3 - The majority for keeping Mzoli was not clear-cut, and the article was written by Jimbo Wales; many of those who voted to keep the article explicitly did so out of respect for such a venerable editor.
- 4 - The whole AfD discussion for Mzoli, which is far too personal and acrimonious to be a template for how things ought to be discussed on wikipedia, was obscured. Editors with a certain expertise can still dig it out, but the fact that it is, at least in the intention, hidden from view is, in my opinion, a clear sign that wikipedia doesn't wish for it to be a precedent.
- And, incidentally, deletionism (which I do not myself support, until ridicolously irrelevant things like prize dogs' sleeping habits start popping up on DYK) is a legitimate and widespread point of view on wikipedia. Calling its supporters menial, censoring nay-sayers is not particularly mature, and doesn't really help the mood of the discussion. Complainer (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just as a comment, what tends to happen with restaurants, local businesses, local bands, local sports teams, etc. is that while there are multiple secondary sources to cover these, they tend to be from local sources that question their independence to some degree. No, this is not to say that a newspaper has a vested interest in the well-being of a restaurant, but instead they do have one to the local community. The smaller the community the source servers, the less independent that work becomes, and thus begs the question of notability of anything strictly sourced to these types of works. Note that a source normally considered to be a work on a large scale (like the NYTimes) often will still have a local section, and while all the rest of the newspaper will generally be independent, this part will not be.
- In other words, it is not that we need a new guideline for restaurants - they should already be covered by WP:CORP if not the GNG. Instead, it is recognizing that local sources cannot be considered independent of the restaurant, and while usable as general sources, do not do a good job to establish the restaurant notability. --MASEM (t) 06:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- @Colonel Warden--I just want to say that it's not me being POV, at least not in the sense that you mean. It's my POV that interpreting either Wikipedia:GNG or Wikipedia:COMPANY to imply that reviews establish notability is an improper interpretation that is counter to the goal of the encyclopedia. I'm also not saying that restaurants are, as a class, non-notable--that would be unacceptable POV. I'm saying very specifically that specific restaurants to not meet Wikipedia:GNG, which states that there must be "significant coverage," and that a review does not meet the definition of significant; and also that it must be "independent of the subject", and not all reviews meet that criteria, either. I don't mind you disagreeing with my/our position, but you are wrong to claim that we're POV pushing in a way counter to core policy. Rather, we simply have differing interpretations of what core policy means. Yes, interpretation of policy is a point of view (just like being an eventualist or an immediatist is a point of view), but neither of them is a POV in the sense of Wikipedia:NPOV.Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:N helpfully defines what is meant by significant coverage: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Detailed reviews therefore satisfy this requirement. Furthermore, reviews in journals such as the NYT are commonly thought to be satisfactory for other topics such as plays or other attractions which may be of interest to their readership. Your ideas about significance seem constructed in an ad hoc or ex post facto way to produce the result that you desire - the elimination of articles about restaurants. There seems to be no objective reason to discriminate against restaurants and so doing so would be an overt bias or prejudice which would be contrary to core policy and other policies such as Wikipedia:CENSOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we be more interested in building an encyclopedia with articles of encyclopedic value, not blindly obeying core policy? We make the rules... - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia, by definition, includes everything worthy of note. Different people have different ideas as to what is worthy of note. We have no special status which entitles us to use our own POV for this purpose, as if we were the snooty maitre d' of an exclusive establishment. Instead, we rely upon the independent judgement of the professionals who write upon such things. For example, consider your first contribution to Wikipedia - Dance for the Sun. This seems to be a collection of children's music which some might think trivial and unworthy. In evaluating this, we look to see what independent authors have said about it. This doesn't seem to be much but I shan't be leading the charge to delete your work as it seems to have some possible value and good sources may yet be found. It is our explicit policy to be tolerant of such weak contributions in the expectation that they will mature and improve over the years. This is our essential method as we are not paid for our work and so cannot be held to deadlines or specific demands. Our volunteer nature requires tolerance and patience and it is our explicit policy that we are not here to make rules which do not assist us. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am not questioning whether or not we are in a position to decide what is noteworthy and encyclopedic, I am questioning our ability to discern advertisements under the guise of news articles. Common sense tells me that the Kebab House does not belong in an encyclopedia, just as it generally does so in keeping Schmuckythecat's muffler from having its own article.
- And for the record, I am slightly embarrassed by that being my first article.. :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your more recent work seems more embarrassing. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ha, I reverted to a version that still had vandalism by the same IP, I need rollback. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think for purposes of AGF, unless the article specifically says "paid advertisement" we cannot presume a restaurant review was made purposely as a commercial advertisement. I still argue that one can apply the concept of local coverage of local events losing independence as a reason to avoid such reviews however. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- We also need to put Wikipedia:SPAM into the mix. I'm just putting out a hypothetical situation, but one could "bribe" local reviewers and whatnot into giving a restaurant rave reviews, and via this, "create" a legitimate article according to the rule and regulations of Wikipedia.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is definitely a possibility. Although, as noted above, there are newspapers that boast that they won't do that, we can't be sure that it is the case. Ironically, should that happen to be the case, the restaurant that bribed the newspaper reviewer into being reviewed (regardless of whether the review itself says) and the deception is uncovered, the restaurant becomes notable for another reason when the newspaper's competition jump all over the bribed reviewer. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:ORG should be sufficient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Support, at least something along these lines, or some amendment to GNG and CORP to tighten them up. At the moment it's simply too easy for people to say "cited in NYT, must be notable, per guidelines." However, restaurants - and hotels and shops among other things - surely need some substantive notability above and beyond being featured once or twice in the lifestyle, travel or regional supplements, even of major newspapers. There is a massive difference between those sections and the main news section. It's not about reliability as such, but about the nature and the purpose of the coverage. There are hundreds of thousands of papers around the world, and among them, hundreds of what might be termed top flight, national or semi-national ones. Most have at least one restaurant critic, who is invited to or sent to at least one restaurant on a weekly basis, usually in the city where that newspaper has its offices, to tell their readers what the food is like there. Similarly, travel journalists will be packed off to hotels and resorts (often as part of a PR jolly, which I don't think is quite such a problem when it comes to local restaurant reviewing), to provide readers with guidance/ideas as to which holiday they might wish to buy. Those visits will usually result in quite a detailed review or even fuller feature. Are we saying that every restaurant featured here, here or here gets a WP page, at least if we can find a corroborating cite in a second publication? What function would that serve other than to provide a directory that tells the reader "you can get a meal in this place, and here's what a couple of reviewers thought of it, to help you along"? N-HH talk/edits 17:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Vote
At this point, with a fair amount of variety in opinions and suggestions, a formal vote is in order. Please note that this is intentionally non-definitive in either support or opposition of the inclusion or exclusion of specific ideas, just a chance to define what we will accept in the future to avoid lengthy arguments which involve referring to contrasting rules, essays, guidelines, policies, laws, or examples.I would like to see a clarification in the rules or a new guideline regarding the legitimacy of any restaurants' notability.
Support
- - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- - N-HH talk/edits 13:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Definitely need at least clarification of existing general guidelines - "trivial" coverage should be explicitly taken to include simply featuring in regular review spots or columns, even in major newspapers. The problem is, as noted, that there is enough wiggle room there currently to allow articles on every two-bit local restaurant - whether created as spam or in good faith - to survive AfD, just because a couple of papers did their weekly review spot on the place. Two editors cite that interpretation of policy, and suddenly there's no consensus to delete.
- Herostratus (talk) Some comments: 1) There is a restaurant wiki here, and that is where most of these articles belong. We have transwikied vast numbers of articles to wikia.com sites and we could do it again. 2) While it might be OK if we had neutral articles on every restaurant (although see point 1), it's practically impossible to have balanced coverage because 2A) it's a crapshoot which restaurants will be in and which not, and 2B) most of these articles are basically puff pieces. If there was a Wikiproject:Restaurant Neutrality dedicated to ensuring that restaurant articles gave fair place to negative information and removing puffery, then maybe that would be OK instead.
- I support this, in the context that all products, services, and companies should disregard routine reviews as evidence of notability. I note that most, or at least many of those that have commented so far, in the oppose camp seem to agree with this broader scope and seem to be opposing a specific guideline for restaurants and the Wikipedia:GNG should be enough. To them I say, well, the GNG isn't working, so let's modify the GNG. Maybe the next discussion needs to be on the WP:N talk page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Largely for the reasons the above two users have given, but partially because restaurants are something of a unique category unto themselves that don't really fit anywhere else. Each one is unique, and most newspapers have sections reviewing them. It's not the same as something like law firms, because there are daily reviews of different ones; with law firms, only the notable ones get any attention, and the non-notable ones struggle in obscurity. Quite frankly, I think this same issue exists with books, but I don't want to go there now. With the exception of huge chains and places like Frank Pepe Pizzeria Napoletana, which are undeniably notable on multiple levels, it's difficult to determine what constitutes enough variety in sources to establish notability, leading to discussions about obscure, ordinary kebab houses in the boondocks out in Albany. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support. I am late to the discussion, but what is missing is any consideration of published restaurant guides. Many of these - for example the Zagat guides in the United States - deal with regions or cities but are national, indeed international publications: they are for tourists. And many of them are published by reputable publishers. It is a slam dunk that they pass WP criteria as reliable sources offering national coverage. But, whatever the editorial content, many of these guides are basically directories, listing as many restaurants as they practically can, the good, the bad, the fly-by-night. Inclusion even in a national guide from a respectable publish does not mean that a restaurant is notable; it means that the guide is trying to be a fairly comprehensive directory of restaurants which simply exist. Now look back at the newspaper reviews on which these discussions are always focused. As Theornamentalist cogently argues, these mandatory weekly and bi-weekly reviews have similar status; their function is to sell papers and ad space. WP:RS is simply too blunt a tool to deal with absolutely every type of content we have to evaluate. The point is not to exclude some restaurants or to include more or less all restaurants, but to make up our minds which it is. That restaurant guides and newspaper reviews can be left to do the job is out-of-touch with reality, because by their very nature - they don't care about notability - they try to cover just about everything. My perspective is that of a restaurant critic and author of a dining guide (and no of course that doesn't make me an authority here).KD Tries Again (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Neutral
- The arguments have some merit, in that restaurants are a hotbed of irrelevant articles--the source of this very proposal is some incredibly irrelevant kebab house in Albany that I proposed for deletion. However, Wikipedia has already so many policies that nobody can remember them all and all too often the one that's forgotten first is the one about common sense. As a matter of fact, I was a fierce opponent of special policies for BLP, and derided the ones for notable pets; supporting special ones for restaurants would be inconsistent. I just wish Wikipedia:MILL were made into an official policy, which might make this proposal redundant. Complainer (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to treat restaurants in a different fashion from other organizations that are commonly written about. The problems that exist with restaurants apply with equal or greater force to schools, television stations, radio stations, small newspapers, and so forth. There are ways to make Wikipedia:ORG better, but a special, restaurants-only rule probably isn't it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I say, let each article be judged on it's own merits on a case by case basis, but with a caveat. It's pretty hard as it is to control Wikipedia's rapid growth as of late, where anyone or anything with a few verifiable blurbs can automatically have an article. I can also point to several specific subjects (certain TV shows for example and there myriad of articles about each of their episodes) where it seems that no matter what policies you can point out, people will vehemently support the articles in a Afd queue from being deleted. Yes, we do need some reining in of redundant and nonsense articles, but when do we implement a/or start to actively tackle them? We can't even agree with the current policies!! There is a problem, but it's not at the point where we need a massive overhaul of the rules. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
- Unnecessary, likely requires refinement of selection of sources at WP:N than a new highly-specalized guideline. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:CREEP: I don't think that there is any problem here serious enough to require a new guideline. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- We already require that coverage must be nontrivial. Routine reviews, local paper blurbs, etc., are trivial coverage. We don't need more subguidelines, we just need to follow the rules we've already got. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- A systemic bias against restaurants would be contrary to core policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:ORG is good enough. No need for a new one. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:ORG should be sufficient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- General notability guideline is fine. Davewild (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- The existing rules seem to cover the main issues here. If they aren't being enforced fully, new rules won't help. Mr.Z-man 23:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is enough in the existing guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:CORP that can be applied to restaurants just as well as to any other business or product. Reviews in major publications is certainly not something exclusive to restaurants. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose this entire process as nothing specific is even being proposed. We're having a vote to decide whether we should even try to write a policy? No thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Another stillborn attempt to regulate ... one of the least contentious area on wikipedia. No firm proposal indeed (the first criterion, that of being owned by a notable person is a deal-breaker: no inherited notability). Use general guideline. East of Borschov 08:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Although I do somewhat sympathize with the proposal, this is instruction creep aimed at a specific type of commercial establishment, and does nothing to address similar dubiously notable subjects as local music bands, buildings, local businesses and charities, and other factors. Maintaining the current policies, and in time perhaps merging some of the smaller, less developed articles into another article, is an idea which can still be used. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I echo the sympathy, but we've got far too many specific guidelines already. GNG is the cover-all; 'keep it simple'. Chzz ► 06:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nasty comment if special guidelines e.g. Wikipedia:ORG are used to prohibit things allowed by Wikipedia:GNG, then we should stuff like wikipedia:Notability (Pokemon characters) to squeeze out even lower-importance categories of articles. But I think that deleting one another's types of articles as unimportant rapidly turns into a library-shredding competition. Any article about any subject should always be notable if it meets the basic WP:GNG criterion. And I don't see anything obvious in WP:ORG to contradict that. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Unnecessary instruction creep; existing rules sufficient. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the establishment meets general notability with in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources I think its inclusion in wikipedia is appropriate. Solid State Survivor (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Per above, I don't see a need for this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Question: Is a listing in a restaurant guide "in depth coverage"?KD Tries Again (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
FA Pending Revisions proposal
My new proposal is this (credits to Golbez (talk)): to put all featured content as Pending Revisions.Us441(talk) (contribs) 19:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Support
- Yes, but only while it is on the front page. Once it is replaced the next day it should go back to normal. -kslays (talk • contribs) 23:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- In practice, a lot of featured articles are closely monitored. Anonymous editors are especially reverted. We would save a lot of time and may even increase the chances of productive revisions if we forced users to log in to edit a FA. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Featured Articles are community-chosen examples of our very best work. They have also attained a good level of completeness and polish, per the FA standards at the time of promotion and the level of participation in the FAC process. Thus 1) there is less of a need to edit the articles in the first place, 2) any random edit has a greater chance of bringing down the quality of the article than a random edit to an average or below average quality article and 3) we should avoid showing our best work to readers while it is vandalized. Therefore, edits to FAs by un-established editors should go through some level of review before going live to readers. There will still be many hundreds of thousands of average to below average articles that will be wide open. --mav (reviews needed) 12:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- If pending revs have any meaning behind them (apart from being a PR campaign), then their scope must expand. East of Borschov 08:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- All those people who say "FAs are usually heavily watchlisted" need to realize this is far from the case. On most of mine (and not just random video games, but things like Bone Wars), I'm the only major contributor still active or on Wikipedia enough to watch for vandalism. If pending revs is accepted by the community, I'm applying it to the FAs I've worked on regardless of whatever people say here. Its utility has far outweighed any "but poor anon who wants to add poop jokes can't" complaints. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the trial run is showing clearly that this feature brings desirable stability to articles. The time delay factor is actually minimal: just enough to make scribbling unrewarding.--Wetman (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
- Because a. I don't like pending changes in general, and neither does a large portion of the community, so adding more pages for no real reason isn't effective, and b. why does it matter? if there's heavy vandalism, it'll need semi protection anyway. Otherwise, it can be easily reverted. Oh, and c. Protection is not a preventative measure, so just protecting all the FAs isn't helping, just slowing things down, especially as pending changes is really slow. —fetch·comms 23:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- The point is that since featured articles are reviewed anyway, the FA review process, that has caused so much comment in the pending changes trial, can incorporate pending changes review. Uncle G (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- But there's no need to have an extra slow layer of relatively ineffective "protection" for articles that are already monitored. Half of our FAs are rather obscure topics that are not vandalism targets; the other ones can be semi'd when needed. I'm not opposed to using PC for a TfA (today's featured article) when needed over semi-protection for that day, but not for all FAs without need. —fetch·comms 19:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Seconded. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- The point is that since featured articles are reviewed anyway, the FA review process, that has caused so much comment in the pending changes trial, can incorporate pending changes review. Uncle G (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Per Fetchcomms. — Tanvir 05:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose because it violates the basic spirit of Wikipedia, and is unnecessary because FAs are typically heavily watchlisted. Thparkth (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Per Fetchcomms; the idea of pending changes seems antagonistic to a founding principal of wikis in general. We should especially encourage editing of FAs, since they're our most prominent works (of course we ensure that they're not vandalised, but that can be done with careful use of watchlists), and telling those whose edits aren't automatically accepted that their edits aren't yet visible really doesn't seem a way to encourage the understanding that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- per above (esp. Nyttend). Hobit (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Dreadful idea. Almost all of the people doing the reviewing will have no idea about the subject, and many of those who do will have to have their edits accepted, and perhaps lost in the confused muddle that is pending changes. Malleus Fatuorum 14:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Pending changes only hides things from people not logged in; it makes no difference to the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) who are, so it introduces complexity for little benefit. And reviewers are anyway supposed to accept anything that isn't obvious vandalism or similar, but those edits can be kept out without this additional layer of bureaucracy. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. We should use our best content to encourage editing, not discourage it. Powers T 12:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Pending changes protection works best for articles with a low edit frequency on a small number of watchlists. This proposal could easily tie things in knots. That said, some articles may end up not being watched by many people before or after their time in the limelight, so maybe it could be used selectively for featured content not on the main page. Yaris678 (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is a very bad idea. For FAs that don't get a lot of edits anyway, this just fixes what isn't broken. For FAs that get a lot of anon IP vandalism, this confuses anons and new editors. It gives them some sense that poorly worded and uncited changes are somehow legitimate, it makes editors who watch these FAs work harder to overturn poorly written passages cited to unreliable sources, and worst of all, pending changes on main page day FAs makes it very difficult to revert vandalism. Not all FAs should be partially protected, but some very certainly should be. Assuming all FAs automatically deserve pending changes does not help anon IPs and it does not help the articles. --Moni3 (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose We deal with featured content vandalism just fine, and in doing so, we demonstrate a) how open Wikipedia is, b) how 'on the ball' we are. PC adds complexity; also, it is not yet ready, and likely to be removed in the near future. Chzz ► 06:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose that this be blanket-applied to all FAs. Many of the ones I maintain don't get a lot of edits; those that receive a lot of vandalism are already semi-protected. A lot of people know a little bit about many of my article subjects (the Texas Revolution, particularly), but what they "know" usually doesn't reflect recent research - I have seen people revert changes because they think its vandalism when it's really factual information. I'd rather keep these articles off the pending changes list and let editors who know the subject take a look. Karanacs (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't quite make sense. Anyone registered can still made edits to semi-protected articles no matter how knowledgeable they are. Having FCs won't change a thing in that respect. Saying "keep it off the list so only experts will see it" smacks of anti-Wikiism or something. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- What I'm trying to say is that most FA-class articles deal with fairly specialized material, and it's likely there are only a handful of editors here who know the sources well enough to identify whether some changes are vandalism or good-faith misinformation or valid information. Adding pending changes to these articles means we'll be duplicating effort - a PC reviewer may be the first one to look at a change and make a decision, then a content expert will need to look at the same change and figure out whether it's valid or not. Why add the extra step, burdening another reviewer? I'm not speaking for all FAs, but there are a large number that are adequately watchlisted and/or experience little or no problem with vandalism, so why add complexity? Karanacs (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't quite make sense. Anyone registered can still made edits to semi-protected articles no matter how knowledgeable they are. Having FCs won't change a thing in that respect. Saying "keep it off the list so only experts will see it" smacks of anti-Wikiism or something. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
Why not allow Wikipedia editors to share in revenue for their efforts?
The British Broadcasting Corporation reported that a prominent user-content-generated website was planning on implementing a method of paying its contributors a share of its advertising revenues. Weber, "YouTubers to get ad money share." (BBC). I posit that Wikipedia, also a prominent user-content-generated website, should explore implementing the same policy. Of course, some revenue stream has to be tapped to make it worthwhile. More importantly however, if wikipedia users could share in the revenue generated by the website, more individuals would contribute higher-quality content, as opposed to now where editing wikipedia is akin to giving to charity. What's stopping us from implementing this? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)- A complete ban on advertising on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:PERENNIAL#Advertising. postdlf (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- The point is, once users look at advertising not in the abstract, but as a way the users themselves can directly monetarily benefit, perhaps advertising will be seen as more beneficial. Anyway, I didn't know there was a "complete ban" on advertising. Where is that written? Furthermore, I'm not proposing anything old-hat, what I'd like to discuss is the revenue-sharing idea that other websites are advocating. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Among the many other problems with this... how do you determine who gets the money? The people with the most edits? The people with the best edits? Only people credited with creating a featured work? --Golbez (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I say the people with the most edits. ;-) Seriously, though, Wikipedia has no "revenue" to share. bd2412 T 15:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Plus, would such a move potentially jeopardize the Foundation's 501(c)(3) status? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- There'd be no way to filter out vandals and non-constructive edits. Bots would be among the highest paid if it were just by number of edits, and if it were by kb added, then people who contribute by pruning crap out of articles would get nothing, and people who revert blanking vandalism would get a lot. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I say the people with the most edits. ;-) Seriously, though, Wikipedia has no "revenue" to share. bd2412 T 15:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I dont know if there would be "no way" to organize this in order to be fair to all editors. That's why I brought it up here . . . so that we can hash out the guidelines for paying editors dividends like other user-content websites. Perhaps we should allow advertising for the purposes of having revenue to share. Just a thought huh. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just a thought, but I think in order to make revenue-sharing fair we'd actually have to have a real-life human being (or a panel) actually reviewing user's edit histories. I dont think payment would be automatic -- a user probably would have to apply for remuneration and be evaluated for such. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- And then there would be disputes - why did the panel only award me x? And then an appeals process. And then litigation. And increasing greed for more advertising to earn more money. And then some becoming professional Wikipedians... And then we will have lost the original spirit behind Wikipedia. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Followed by "And after I spent six weeks' insisting that I deserve 16% of revenue from this obscure article rather than 14%, I discovered that the total revenue from the entire article was only twenty cents, and they never pay less than US $10 at a time, because of the cost of bookkeeping involved."
- In short, it's not worth it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- And then there would be disputes - why did the panel only award me x? And then an appeals process. And then litigation. And increasing greed for more advertising to earn more money. And then some becoming professional Wikipedians... And then we will have lost the original spirit behind Wikipedia. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just a thought, but I think in order to make revenue-sharing fair we'd actually have to have a real-life human being (or a panel) actually reviewing user's edit histories. I dont think payment would be automatic -- a user probably would have to apply for remuneration and be evaluated for such. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Among the many other problems with this... how do you determine who gets the money? The people with the most edits? The people with the best edits? Only people credited with creating a featured work? --Golbez (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- NOOOOOOOO Wikipedia is not supposed to be based on financial gain, this proposal runs against the very core ideas of what it is we are doing here. There should never be a profit motive involved, I can only imagine the terrible mess this would make of this entire project. Wikipedia is not even remotely the same thing as YouTube, thankfully. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think the core ideas have anything against making money per se. Jimbo's a fan of Ayn Rand, who was always in favor of making an honest dollar. But not when it compromises the integrity of the project. And it's hard to think of any way of keeping that from happening (even if there were any revenue to share, which of course there's not). --Trovatore (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Why not?" Because there's no money; there's no process for allocating the money; there's no system for dispensing the money; and a lot of people would object to the philosophy. I cannot believe you meant this as a serious query. Propaniac (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I did mean it as a serious query. Sorry if I offended you sir. Please AGF and all that . . . Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not based on financial gain. It is a free encyclopaedia in every sense of the word - speech as well as beer.
- Advertising is something that has been repeatedly discussed and repeatedly thrown out due to the inherent problems of having advertising.
- Suggesting that people would look at the debate differently once they know they could benefit from ads is tantamount to bribery. It implies that Wikipedia users are easily-swayed imbeciles who will change their stance on a principle because they have some gain out of it.
- Linked to the above point, nobody here got in it for cash.
- It would be impossible to determine who gets money for what; do we say that only content writers get money? what about anti-vandalism? should it be by raw editcount? what about people making bad edits? So on, so forth.
- None of us got in it for cash, and the principles behind refusing to allow ads are not likely to change because there's money in it for us. Wikipedia does not need advertising or to pay its users to stay afloat.
- We currently have a complete ban on paid editing; I'd love to see how this idea would interplay with that. Ironholds (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- We do not have a complete ban on paid editing. See Wikipedia:PAID for links to the two (currently unapproved) proposals, both of which would permit some kinds of paid editing. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project for one example of paid editors that the community is—far from "completely banning them"—grateful to have helping us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that rewarding editors can be done, but it must be done cautiously. An example of an incautious reward would be that a certain computer game manufacturer looks over the edits about its articles, picks out some key fans, and sends them generous care packages of games and computer equipment (or at least, tickets to claim them sent via Wikipedia e-mail). Note that the lack of transparency and clear strain on WP:NPOV are what make this objectionable.
But a different philanthropist might set up another way to reward Wikipedia editors. All editors are put through a primary screen for number of edits and byte count. Text that is new versus old is marked, and an effort is made to create easy links to contemporaneous discussion pages. A statistically guided "random" set of 50 edits is chosen from these and sent to a group of volunteers. Each volunteer runs through 50-100 edits from 50 different people, rating the quality on a few characteristics. (Volunteering might also be required for people to have a chance to win? A handful of standard edits, especially those meant to sense certain biases in judgment, might also be used to discount some ratings) By summing up the quality ratings, and multiplying by the number of edits per each person, a group of winners can be generated in nearly neutral fashion. The winners would then receive a modest sum - not really enough to be worth the time on an occupational level, at least not at first - and the recognition of having been selected as a quality editor. Wnt (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Given the vast success of Wikipedia as a purely volunteer project, it doesn't look like financial incentives are necessary or even desirable. If you don't want to edit without getting paid, don't edit. SDY (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I gladly volunteer time for this project because it is a beneficial, worthwhile project. It is also a non-profit project—no one makes money from running Wikipedia, not even WMF or Jimbo Wales. I'd much rather see money go toward paying for servers, hosting, and the few paid staff we do need in terms of WMF and developers. If we should ever have a surplus of cash, I would really like to see that going toward purchasing the rights to different types of media and releasing them under a free license.
- If this were a for-profit product, you bet I'd demand a share of the profits (or, more likely, I would never have worked on it at all). But it's not, so there is no profit to share. For WMF to attempt to retain profits for personal enrichment would be a gross violation of federal law. That's what 501(c)(3) means. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not only are you wrong, but you quoted it wrong. Read your Bible. --Golbez (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- With all the cultural pull to be dishonest already coming from outside Wikipedia, adding financial temptations for skewing text and spewing credible scribble, for minute pay, seems to miss the Zen of Wikipedia, which is that you do get no credit, do receive no reward. --Wetman (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Capitalization of common names of species
I think the rules of the English language state that a common name is a proper name, and thus should be capitalized.Conventions for capitalization of species' common names seem to differ.
There are massive inconsistencies between article names, between the article name compared to its content, as well as mention of the common name within a given article.
Some examples:
- Black Rhinoceros: All upper case article name, and all upper case occurences within article
- Brown Bear: All upper case article name, and almost all lower case occurences within article
- Kangaroo rat: Second word lower case in article name, and all lower case within article
I think this problem has arisen because the policy is likey wrong. Editors don't know which to pick, and the outcome is split. There are constant page moves from one convention to another, and back again. If this gets sorted out either way, MOST animalia articles will be flawed or inconsistent. This is a serious problem, and a very visible blight upon Wikipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiProject_Animals is probably a better place to raise this issue. LadyofShalott 03:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- This has been brought up multiple times: Talk:Platypus#Capitalization, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals/Archive_6#Common_names, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals/Archive_7#Capitalization_debate (one I brought up), Talk:Platypus#Edit-protected.3F (the first part of the previous). There doesn't seem to be any stong consensus on the capitalization of vernacular names, however I strongly feel they should remain lower case. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Flora
A worse problem is the naming of plants, where the project seems to have flown in the face of Wikipedia convention by adopting (mainly) Latin names, whereas all the books I have ever seen sources use the common name as the primary title, unless there is none, when the Latin name must be used. --Bermicourt (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)- I see what you mean. I don't have too much of an issue with naming articles by species or common name. I have done both. But the capitalization issue is nuts. If one article name is different from another, it's not the end of the world. But when the name is different from the content, that's a problem. Even worse is when the case keeps changing several times within the article. That should be resolved at once. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have posted at WikiProject Animals. (Thank you LadyofShalott for that suggestion). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Am I The Only One Who Finds This Questionable?
One of the lead Did You Know's on August 29th (30th UTC, I suppose) is based on a highly speculative statement (Did you know that that Lou Gehrig (pictured) may not have died of Lou Gehrig's disease after all, but may instead have succumbed to Chronic traumatic encephalopathy?). Even the source concedes the possibility is wholly synthesized (Although the paper does not discuss Gehrig specifically, its authors in interviews acknowledged the clear implication).I'm not advocating removal of the material from the article, I mean, it is sourced, but it's one claim flying in the face of 75 years of accepted medical conclusion and it seems we may be jumping the gun in giving the possibility so much weight. Lou Gehrig's Disease is a very well understood condition whose presentation is well documented (even in Gehrig's case). While CTE may be similar with regard to a couple symptoms, lending credence to such specious claims on the main page seems intellectually irresponsible.
--K10wnsta (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know. I think the hook does exactly what it's meant to do: hook the reader into reading the article. It's an interesting "what if"? that's relevant to the DYK article. — Coren (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that it works as a hook, but analogously, so would something like Did you know the World Trade Center may not have been destroyed by planes alone, but may also have been blown up by controlled demolition? Sure, it's going to grab a readers attention, but do the ends justify the means?
--K10wnsta (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)- It is not just the NY Times that has reported this very interesting speculation, which I would say is more than speculation; I do believe it was either Scientific American or Discover (or both) that recently had quite an article on the new findings. Verifiable, not truth I do believe is the motto? If doctors/scientists/professionals who are published in reliable third-party peer-reviewed journals and newspapers say something who are we to say it isnt good enough for us? As far as the WTC hypothetical hook- find a professional with some sort of relevant background giving him/her an authority on the subject and who is published in a reliable third party peer-reviewed journal who has that hypothesis and then sure it could be a hook. Good luck. And that is the difference.Camelbinky (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- The point is the NYT piece is known to have gotten it wrong. See also the discussion at wt:WikiProject Medicine#ALS and NYT and Talk:Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis#Misdiagnosis_of_some_traumatic_brain_injury_as_ALS. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Verifiable not truth. Dont care to read Wikipedian's views and discussions regarding NYT or any of the multitude of other magazines, newspapers, etc that have covered this (including I believe National Geographic) because Wikipedian's views arent relevant. Give me medical peer reviewed journals that state for a fact that this is not legitimate research and speculation and then it is fine. Otherwise we have a conflict of sources and we present both. This thread isnt about the facts, it is about whether it was appropriate to put the "fact" as a DYK hook. The answer to that question is unquestionably YES, it was in fact appropriate. This is NOT the place to discuss whether NYT got it wrong.Camelbinky (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that's the rub, there's no medical, peer-reviewed article (or journal) stating that Lou Gehrig died of anything other than Lou Gehrig's Disease. We have medical researchers who have impressed upon the similarities between a disease they researched and Lou Gehrig's Disease, which is certainly verifiable and, as I stated before, worthy of mention in the article. I just wonder if we should be trumpeting specious possibilities in an effort to call attention to an article.
--K10wnsta (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)- Importantly, "no peer-reviewed article" includes the article that the NYT is supposedly basing this claim on. The actual article doesn't mention Lou Gehrig or baseball anywhere in it. It talks about the potential for misdiagnosis only in the context of players of American football and hockey (both sports with dramatically higher rates of head injuries than baseball). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that's the rub, there's no medical, peer-reviewed article (or journal) stating that Lou Gehrig died of anything other than Lou Gehrig's Disease. We have medical researchers who have impressed upon the similarities between a disease they researched and Lou Gehrig's Disease, which is certainly verifiable and, as I stated before, worthy of mention in the article. I just wonder if we should be trumpeting specious possibilities in an effort to call attention to an article.
- Verifiable not truth. Dont care to read Wikipedian's views and discussions regarding NYT or any of the multitude of other magazines, newspapers, etc that have covered this (including I believe National Geographic) because Wikipedian's views arent relevant. Give me medical peer reviewed journals that state for a fact that this is not legitimate research and speculation and then it is fine. Otherwise we have a conflict of sources and we present both. This thread isnt about the facts, it is about whether it was appropriate to put the "fact" as a DYK hook. The answer to that question is unquestionably YES, it was in fact appropriate. This is NOT the place to discuss whether NYT got it wrong.Camelbinky (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- The point is the NYT piece is known to have gotten it wrong. See also the discussion at wt:WikiProject Medicine#ALS and NYT and Talk:Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis#Misdiagnosis_of_some_traumatic_brain_injury_as_ALS. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is not just the NY Times that has reported this very interesting speculation, which I would say is more than speculation; I do believe it was either Scientific American or Discover (or both) that recently had quite an article on the new findings. Verifiable, not truth I do believe is the motto? If doctors/scientists/professionals who are published in reliable third-party peer-reviewed journals and newspapers say something who are we to say it isnt good enough for us? As far as the WTC hypothetical hook- find a professional with some sort of relevant background giving him/her an authority on the subject and who is published in a reliable third party peer-reviewed journal who has that hypothesis and then sure it could be a hook. Good luck. And that is the difference.Camelbinky (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that it works as a hook, but analogously, so would something like Did you know the World Trade Center may not have been destroyed by planes alone, but may also have been blown up by controlled demolition? Sure, it's going to grab a readers attention, but do the ends justify the means?
- I objected at TDYK but it moved on... Anyway, Gehrig doesn't care. ALS is a kind of shit that forces people to seek any possible clues - why? why me? Look at it from the other side - no one can help them. But simply reproducing a hypothesis wouldn't hurt either. False hopes? Yes. But maybe ten minutes of hope, even if false, mean a lot to a dying human. East of Borschov 21:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Proposed change to RfA pass/fail percentages
I am intending to propose a small but significant change to the wording at Wikipedia:RFA. In the "About RfA" section, in the "Decision process" subsection, the current wording of the first paragraph is- Any user may nominate another user with an account. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass; most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion.
- Any user may nominate another user with an account. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~70% approval should pass; most of those below ~60% should fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion. (Historically, the likely-pass level was ~80% and the likely-fail level was ~70%, but these were lowered in the fall of 2010.)'
I see this as the simplest way to address the problem that not enough admins are being created, partly because too many are failing, and presumably others thus despair of trying. I think this is because of some commentors applying too-high standards ("Oppose, would make a great admin, but does not meet my criteria of 25 GAs and 25 DYKs") or are too niggly ("Oppose, would make a great admin, but his userpage shows awful design skills"). We could go round-and-round with other solutions but just changing the percentage is far simpler and should do the job of reducing the weight of these kinds of comments.
I'm not asking so much for discussion on the merits of this proposal here, as a large forum is needed for this (see question 3), although maybe I'm missing something. But I have three questions:
- Has this been discussed recently anywhere?
- Any suggestions on changes to the wording? In my opinion, simpler is better, and less change is better.
- Would it be OK to offer this as a stand-alone proposal, that is, as a stand-alone article with the "Proposed Policy" template at the top? I know its not usual to do this when just proposing to change the text of a page (and Wikipedia:RfA is not even labeled as a policy), but this is a pretty radical change, I guess, and an RfC won't do, I don't think. Or would there be a better way? Thanks, Herostratus (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- The classical argument against that is that people will just increase their personal standards when the pass percentage is lowered. I doubt that is true; I think people in general simply ask "Can I trust this person to be a good admin?", and will continue to do so with a lowered percentage. Ucucha 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the reason really is people opposing for stupid reasons, why not just remind everyone that RfA is not a vote and the percentages are a rough guideline for onlookers? This is already stated in Wikipedia:RFA#Decision process, but could be made somewhat clearer by removing "and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion" to remove the implication that the area not between is not subject to discretion. Anomie⚔ 00:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that could be done instead. It would give more discretion to bureacrats, and to a certain extent take it away from the regular editors. This could be controversial, and RfA has been considered closer to being a vote than anything else here. Note that the support/oppose/neutral numbers are given when the result it posted, and "votes" are not mixed in with general discussion as happens in other venues. I think this would be difficult to get adopted. Herostratus (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Here's an experimental AFD style RFA from 2007. Interesting concept but considering how long RFAs become, closing something like this would be one hell of a headache for the crats. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. It would be a lot of work unless the 'crat basically ignored the numbers and focused on the cogency of arguments. Which means someone could pass with minority support (or fail if there was one truly damning argument against). You could do this if you replaced the reference to "consensus" with something like "best judgment of the bureaucrat". I don't have an opinion on that, but it might be a good thing. But I don't want to propose it because I don't want to go that far, and it would probably never fly anyway. Herostratus (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Here's an experimental AFD style RFA from 2007. Interesting concept but considering how long RFAs become, closing something like this would be one hell of a headache for the crats. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that could be done instead. It would give more discretion to bureacrats, and to a certain extent take it away from the regular editors. This could be controversial, and RfA has been considered closer to being a vote than anything else here. Note that the support/oppose/neutral numbers are given when the result it posted, and "votes" are not mixed in with general discussion as happens in other venues. I think this would be difficult to get adopted. Herostratus (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Venus Car
Hello, and thank you for your patience with me. I hope I am posting to the correct place; my apologies if I am not.My question deals with an entry that has already been made by someone else, and the subject is about an old car made in 1953. My father was the one who designed the car, and quite frankly, there is NO ONE more qualified to write about the history of this car than I am. I tried writing something about the Venus Car a year or so ago, however, was booted off as being opportunistic, or someone who had something to gain by writing about this car, which I guess falls within the "conflict of interest" policy.
But I assure you, my only goal is to have the history of this interesting car available on Wiki, even if I have to hire a 2nd person write it for me.
You I guess my question is why can't I write this story? The current entry about the Venus Car is totally wrong and inaccurate.
Thank you Patrick McLoad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcload (talk • contribs) 03:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Could you expand on this a little more? The article Venus Automobile seems to be pretty much in the same shape as you left it. There is some stuff about Wikipedia:COI to worry about, but I don't see why you can't make this a much better article.
- And please, start by uploading some pictures! Wnt (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Unrealized ideas
I seem to recall some policy or guideline or essay or something in the Wikipedia: namespace about not including in a biographical article the things that a person is thinking about doing or would like to do, because those are just unrealized ideas. However, I can't find that now. Does anyone know what page this might be? Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)- Wikipedia:CRYSTAL? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 18:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
TV episode plot summaries
I'm pretty sure this is not the way it's supposed to be done.For those who accuse me of asking about one article, I'm saying this may be an example of what Wikipedia is not.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- It definitely fails notability, but ignoring that, its plot fails Wikipedia:WAF and Wikipedia:NOT#PLOT and overuses NFC images. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is something of a recurring problem. We have over 3,000 articles in Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention, with the oldest dating back to January 2007 as I write this. Perhaps we should target them next when we've finally sorted the unreferenced BLPs! Alzarian16 (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Eeeehhh, unreferenced BLP actually have a potential legal hazard to Wikipedia; bad plot summaries (or articles on fiction without sources) aren't an issue that needs expediency. That said, I certainly see a possible task force to help get appropriate WProjects involved to understand what articles are tagged, suggest other articles for merger (possibly deletion) due to lack of notability, and so forth, but without the gusto of the BLP one. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think we should be deleting plot summaries because that is all there is, instead it needs expanding to add the context, refs etc. We could expand the notability criteria to say that an episode of a notable series is also notable. Wikipedia typically has great coverage on TV shows. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Do we really want every episode of a notable series being declared notable and therefore have every single episode of Bonanza or Law & Order or the Simpsons? Those three series alone would cause for so many episodes that it becomes ridiculously unmanageable to make sure all episode articles are taken care of in a decent amount of time. We should limit articles to tv episodes to actually notable tv episodes that were reported about in third-party sources. Just because it exists and people are fans doesnt mean we need every single episode as a stand-alone article. The episode where the Fonz jumps a shark waterskiing would be a notable episode since it led to the phrase Jumping the shark. Unless an episode is relevant such as that, then why keep it? Because we are an indiscriminate collection of knowledge? Oh wait, we arent...Camelbinky (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I been trying to wrangle WP:FICT long enough to know that there is no precedent or consensus to assert every TV episode notable; each episode needs to meet the GNG like any other topic. Which is why I suggest that if we wanted to make a task force to handle these plots, we would be informing projects about it, giving them time to work it out and expand if possible, and at worst merging as a redirect to a list-of-episodes articles. Do also note that not every entry on the list noted above is a TV episode. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd echo what Graeme Bartlett said: this is an area in which Wikipedia generally has excellent coverage, and this should be appreciated and enhanced, not diminished.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- While that may be, a lot of that enhancement has been in consolidation. We don't, generally speaking, need a full article for one more episode of any given show. Now, of course, some episodes (the jumping the shark episode was mentioned above) are notable on their own merits, and most certainly should have a separate article. But most are not, and are notable only in context of the show they're part of. Given that, the proper presentation is also to keep them with the show they're part of (or as a list of episodes emphasizing the whole), not as a standalone article that largely consists of an over-detailed plot summary and perhaps some trivia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's been well established that tv episode articles that lack any coverage outside of being a TV episode are generally merged and not kept. This is consistent with established policy (specifically Wikipedia:V regarding lack of 3rd party sources, and Wikipedia:NOT#PLOT on articles comprised mostly about plot, in addition to Wikipedia:WAF and Wikipedia:N. That said, I would certainly not want to delete/merge existing articles on TV episodes without editors being given the reasonable chance to expand plot-only articles to include things like reception. If they can't be expanded, they can always be merged into a larger episode list with a shortened summary. --MASEM (t) 04:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Do we really want every episode of a notable series being declared notable and therefore have every single episode of Bonanza or Law & Order or the Simpsons? Those three series alone would cause for so many episodes that it becomes ridiculously unmanageable to make sure all episode articles are taken care of in a decent amount of time. We should limit articles to tv episodes to actually notable tv episodes that were reported about in third-party sources. Just because it exists and people are fans doesnt mean we need every single episode as a stand-alone article. The episode where the Fonz jumps a shark waterskiing would be a notable episode since it led to the phrase Jumping the shark. Unless an episode is relevant such as that, then why keep it? Because we are an indiscriminate collection of knowledge? Oh wait, we arent...Camelbinky (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is something of a recurring problem. We have over 3,000 articles in Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention, with the oldest dating back to January 2007 as I write this. Perhaps we should target them next when we've finally sorted the unreferenced BLPs! Alzarian16 (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Plot summaries and "reception" (viewership? or do you mean something more?) is not enough! You need actual third-party (not TV guide!) coverage that shows the EPISODE was in fact somehow notable in its own right for some reason. Just because you can write an article about something does not make it notable. Please, if an episode exists with nothing more than a plot summary and some numbers on viewership and nothing substantial that shows it is notable for some sort of cultural reason then DELETE DELETE DELETE and let it be part of a list of episodes on the tv show's article page or some sort of spin off page but it does not deserve its own article. It makes a mockery of Wikipedia and makes us something we are not. I am sorry there are lots of editors who love to make these types of articles because they love the show and are a fan. We are not a fan site. There are other places for your hard work, just not here. Yes, you are large in numbers, but this isnt a democracy, those articles simply factually do not meet our standards at all.Camelbinky (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't found anything yet, but with the show's 50th anniversary there will surely be mention of the show's most popular episodes, and I have heard or read that this is one of those. If I find this information I'll certainly add it to (hopefully) establish notability. I was really surprised Opie the Birdman doesn't have an article, because it is often listed as a fan favorite.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia and public domain for upcoming edits.
| Not going to happen, and if it were to happen it would have to be discussed at Meta (not here) and have a foundation resolution and a community-wide vote like we did for the Licensing update. Let's move along now. |
|---|
| Sir, I am Rishikeshan. I like Wikipedia. Will you please convert Wikipedia to public domain? Please do it, sir. I know you can't convert wikipedia completely to public domain, but you can make upcoming edits of Wikipedia and other projects under public domain The reasons why release in public domain are: 1.In public domain Authors can get use of it and it will be the most open content. This helps book writers, Other writers of digital method and they can adopt according to their needs. PLEASE! HELP AUTHORS AND PROPRIETARY CONTENT WRITERS. COPY-LEFT IS USEFUL TO SOFTWARES BUT CONTENT MUST NOT BE IN COPY-LEFT. PROPRIETARY IS NEEDED TO THE WORLD. Eg:- Linux grow because of competition with Microsoft and BSD. 2.No one can be competitor of Wikipedia, even if you make Wikipedia public domain, because Wikipedia is the largest and the most trusted. 3.Please remember no one is going to write derivatives of Wikipedia because it is too large. But, authors are going to make derivatives of pages of Wikipedia. 4.Even If you make new content of Wikipedia under public domain, Wikipedia will not loose People's trust. 5.Please understand no one can compete Wikipedia even if Wikipedia is not copy-left. Wikipedia can live MORE USEFULLY if it is under public domain. Please remember BSD as an example. BSD criticizes GPL and GNU but it is favorite OS of many users. Google chrome and chromium project live--better than copy-left-ed Mozilla Firefox and the server giants APACHE and ISC BIND live better than others. Please make new edits under public domain. Let's make Wikipedia more useful. I asked info-en of Wikipedia about this. They said to start a village pump thread. I hope you will accept upcoming edits under Public Domain. Please change 'You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.' to 'You accept to give this edit and your previous edits under Public Domain'. If you are unsure, Please make a poll with describing these reasons. Rishikeshan (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Rishikeshan
DON'T REPLY HERE WITHOUT READING ABOVE THREAD (MAINLY REASONS PART). PLEASE READ THE THREAD COMPLETELY BEFORE WRITING A REPLY. --Rishikeshan (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Rishikeshan Can we close this thread? Rishikeshan is clearly trolling now. —Farix (t | c) 11:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
|
Rationality
Atheism is one of the condition for rationality and moral science. Can you make Wikipedia rationalist (inclusively atheist) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iohana4 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)- No, Wikipedia tends to respect all viewpoints, religious orientations and personal beliefs. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- If anything Wikipedia is Agnostic. The very fact that we are not chauvenistic (the real meaning, not to be mistaken with male chauvinism) and we are not overtly religious is why Conservapedia hates Wikipedia so much. We dont put the US first, we dont put the Christian religion first, we dont put ANYTHING first other than our collective belief on creating an accurate encyclopedia of knowledge.Camelbinky (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would also challenge the idea that being "rationalist" and or "scientific" is somehow better than our current point of view--essentially (in my opinion), that we attempt to match up our writing to the properly weighted and attributed points of view of people writing on the topic in the "real world. What do we gain by moving to a point of view that favors a certain group of voices over others? Wouldn't this also push our systemic bias even farther towards the western, privileged classes? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- If anything Wikipedia is Agnostic. The very fact that we are not chauvenistic (the real meaning, not to be mistaken with male chauvinism) and we are not overtly religious is why Conservapedia hates Wikipedia so much. We dont put the US first, we dont put the Christian religion first, we dont put ANYTHING first other than our collective belief on creating an accurate encyclopedia of knowledge.Camelbinky (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is entirely rational. It speaks facts on all matters; in religion, a figure is X; Religion Y is the belief of Z; etc. etc... I know no instance on Wikipedia where a purely religious aspect is described as objective fact. So your request comes across as odd, without making any statement on where Wikipedia lacks rationalism. --Golbez (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
