Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Village pumps: Policy • Technical • Proposals (persistent) • 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 | ||
Field-specific guidelines
I believe that the points above all easily explain why some concept and baseline for notability is necessary - while not paper, we're not an indiscriminate collection of verifiable information.That said, understanding that notability as it is treated today as one swing of the pendulum of self-correction on WP is probably a bit too heavy-handed but also a bit too unfocused. I think most editors know how to use notability, but it is clear that most of this inclusist vs deletionist war that's been going on is due to a vicious circle of events that typically start with a heated argument at AFD and lead to ranges of articles being contested. This is often fueled by disagreement for what is appropriate coverage of certain fields relative to other fields (a fact often joked at by the press, which fuels the battles further) - I know one of the biggest is concepts from fictional works (characters, etc.) which some believe are important to be covered but rarely can be covered by secondary sources, thus making the present Wikipedia:GNG statement difficult to work with. But this is also true for schools, sports figures, etc.
It is not that notability isn't a bad idea, nor one to be abandoned, but we need to remind people that we a combination of an encyclopedia/gazetteer/almanac - to that end, we should be asking ourselves, first and foremost, what is it that we want to cover, and not the negative of what we don't want to cover. Given any field, we should be able to say "Ok, topics that satisfy these conditions from this field that demonstrate notability within that field should be included", and list out specific criteria that avoid subjection assessments. This may not be possible for some fields, but I think most fields can provide a good swath at appropriate topics that, with reasonable assurance, would be part of the encyclopedia/gazetteer/almanac. To that end, we already have the various sub-notability guidelines (SNGs) that provide that. Failing the SNG then drops you to our next goalline, the general notability guideline, which says that a topic that shows notability via secondary sources should be included. Mind you, many topics that would meet the field-specific guidelines likely would meet the GNG, but this should not be taken as a sign that the GNG is more important. The GNG is the fallback position of a topic doesn't meet its field's guidelines or if the field lacks any guidelines or falls outside of any known field. When viewed like this, this can significant help discussions at AFDs where notability is in play, because we're not talking about the presence of sources but the appropriateness of the topic for WP: if it is notable in the specific field but lacks sources, we should be more open to keeping it than deletion.
The problem we stuck with is this impression - when you read through policies and guidelines and AFDs - that the only good encyclopedic article is one that has third-party, secondary sources. Granted - verification and avoidance of original research and bias are all important, and third-party, secondary sources are a strong way to get there. But that's satisfying the "encyclopedia" part of WP's mission - gazetteers and almanac are works that tend to just cite facts and not attempt analysis or the like. Not every article on WP needs third-party secondary sources to meet WP's mission. That's not to say that we open the door to thousands of articles by allowing primary, first-person accounts as the only sourcing metric, and that's why, again, the field-specific guidelines of what is actually notable should come into play - there may be some topics within a field that should be included even if the sourcing is otherwise not as strong as one that is provided through secondary sources. Failing the field, then the lack of secondary sources will mean the topic fails the GNG, and we likely would not have a separate article on it.
We still need to make sure that field specific guidelines for inclusion are not overly inclusive compared to others. For example, if a guideline says that a one-time cameo fictional character always gets an article, while we exclude an amateur that plays one time at the Olympics through an athlete-field guideline or a single mom-and-pop business through a business-field guideline, we've got a problem. These field guidelines cannot be developed in a vacuum and should be challenged if they are overly inclusive - or overly exclusive too. We also need to realize that not every topic easily shuffles into established fields, or that new fields may become more obvious over time as we work towards this. We still have the GNG for those.
Basically, the "tl;dr" version of the above is simply that we should be asking ourselves, "what do we want to include in WP" instead of always playing the negative "This doesn't belong in WP". We want to assure ourselves we are covering all topics within individual fields well enough to meet the mission of WP, and being overly reliant on the GNG is harmful. (An argument I've had to point out several times is that while the property of having significant coverage is usually the result of something being http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/notable, it is not true that having significant coverage is what makes something http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/notable. There is a small but significant gap between GNG-based notable topics and dictionary-definition-based notable topics. We need to find out how to fill that gap, and field-specific guidelines are one way to do so.) --MASEM (t) 16:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- This has some merit. But it might be hard to do in practice. That is, a list of included fields could be too long. Maurreen (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- A complete switch to this approach is not something to be done overnight. But the framework is there, in how the existing SNGs (like Wikipedia:BIO, Wikipedia:BK, and Wikipedia:MUSIC already are written towards this idea. It would be a gradual change. The only immediate switch is applying to all editors the general understanding that the GNG needs to be treated as the fallback for notability, not the first barrier. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- That makes sense.
- In one of the sub-guidelines, I don't remember which one, is something like "has made a major, lasting, contribution to his field." I think that is a good guideline in general.
- The question then would become, "When is a field to small?" But that could be addressed gradually and organically, as you suggest, such as by adding sets of sub-guidelines. Each set of sub-guidelines could be addressed specifically. Maurreen (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like Wikipedia:CREEP to me. I dunno; I always felt our ultimate goal was well-researched articles regardless of the field. Fundamentally, I see Wikipedia as the biggest Literature review in existence. Nifboy (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! Finally someone with brains. (Ok, I'm gushing ;) Paradoctor (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Technically it is not creep as the framework is in place, though yes, as more field-specific guidelines are added, that increases the size, but I don't see that changing the general ways things are done. And while I do agree with you about WP being a literature review, that itself can be conducted, with care, in the absence of secondary sources which is why the GNG should fallback over topic-inclusion guidelines if it is a topic we decide we want to cover. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm still not reading you right. I see "in the absence of secondary sources" and read it as "in the absence of anything resembling a decent article at all." Then again, I'm most active in a project with a big list of things not to do because GameFAQs, TV Tropes, Wikia et al do them better (see Wikipedia:VGSCOPE); those sites are not constrained by things like Wikipedia:OR. What Wikipedia does better than any other place on the web is source compilation and summary. The notability guideline emphasizes that, and I like playing to our strengths. Nifboy (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- That point of view is starting from the possibly flawed opinion that secondary sources are necessary in a good article. I will content that it is likely difficult, working from non-secondary sources, to make an article as strong as one that is backed by that, but that it is not impossible. The reason I consider this possibly flawed is that what we consider an "encyclopedic" article is so disputed to know if this is consensus or not. I propose that being more open about topics but still alert to indiscriminate incluse, what we include will tell us better what we expect of "encyclopedic" articles. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- You probably could make a good article, but I don't think it would be a Wikipedia article, if that distinction is at all meaningful. Nifboy (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- If we were just an encyclopedia, yes, I argue for what you're saying, but the fact we're more than just an encyclopedia means that we may have articles that don't fit the pattern of an encyclopedia but nevertheless part of what we considered to be covered. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- We are? And here I thought Wikipedia was just one of many different knowledge bases on the internet, willing to let other projects pick up subject matters where we're weak, typically due to our policies. Nifboy (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- We're an encylopedia that anyone can edit, but we're still just an encylopedia. People forgetting this is possibly the single-most cause of drama and conflict here. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I do agree that where a MediaWiki sister project exists or has the possibility of existing, we should consider moving non-encyclopedic material to there. I also agree we are to be summarizing knowledge, not simply reiterating it, and pointed to reliable sources outside of the Foundation should be encouraged, but that's after we've summarized the topic here. I also point to the difficulty that many editors have resolving the first pillar in what "encyclopedia" means when we have elements of more datum-driven works like almanacs and gazetteers as elements of WP as well. This, in part, is the problem of notability, is that it is a way to drive home one's own opinion of "encyclopedic", when I doubt anyone can say exactly where the consensus stands on what "encyclopedic" quality really is. The bounds of that opinion are likely much narrower than they were 4-5 years ago before notability, but it is still a very fuzzy line and one that we need to be careful of.
- That said, even if we take a stronger concept of what we expect a good WP article to be (a point I contend against, but will assume for this discussion), I would still assert that field-specific inclusion guidelines are needed. There are likely topics we want to include because they are in fields that are core to human knowledge, but due to difficulty in getting sources (due to rarity, age, cost, etc.) may not easily be expanded in the short term. It is better to put out the article with what limited verified information we have and hope that anons and other readers can expand it before those sources can get added, than to have no article at all. Eventually we hope that article gets to this "encyclopedic" quality, but there is no need to have it off the bat. That's the benefit of being a continuous work in progress with community additions. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- If we were just an encyclopedia, yes, I argue for what you're saying, but the fact we're more than just an encyclopedia means that we may have articles that don't fit the pattern of an encyclopedia but nevertheless part of what we considered to be covered. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- You probably could make a good article, but I don't think it would be a Wikipedia article, if that distinction is at all meaningful. Nifboy (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to me that Masem is trying to adapt the inclusion guidelines so cater for poorly sourced articles, but no amount of rule changing can make up for poor content. The idea that Not every article on WP needs third-party secondary sources to meet WP's mission is essentially a rejection of inclusion based on good sourcing in favour of questionalble sources. However, Masem forgets that secondary sources are needed as evidence of notability and enable articles to meet Wikipedia's content policies.
The problem with field-specific guidelines is deciding what will be the basis for incluision? There are only two choices available: notability or subjective importance. It seems to me that Masem is proposing the latter, based on the idea that a topic gets its own article if it can "prove" its coverage is of "encyclopedic" quality, but what he really means is that topics can have their own articles based on editorial opinion not veriable evidence of notability.
Masem's proposal for field-specific guidelines amount to little more than special pleading for badly sourced articles that fail Wikipedia:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)- Since what is http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/notable is determined by the subjective measures of mankind, subjective definitions that gain consensus to define field-specific inclusion guidelines seems perfectly acceptable to define those topics, by nature of being an encyclopedia, gazetteer, and almanac, that we absolutely must cover regardless if there is in-depth, secondary sources or not. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Except http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/notable has not really ever been the standard of inclusion. It's been Wikipedia:Verifiability + Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which Wikipedia:Notability essentially defines the minimum standard for: A single source is not NPOV, it's just one POV. Therefore, we want enough sources to write a half-decent article. The term "notable" is just a word we've appropriated for our own uses, because it's about as close to the concept as we can get without making up words. We do this all the time: Daniel Brandt's article got deleted after 14 attempts for Wikipedia:BLP concerns, even though we didn't have a name for BLP yet, much less a policy. Nifboy (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is possible that a single source - likely tertiary in nature - can be neutral. But this isn't about single sources or the like. This is about understanding that we have two issues in conflict: what we should be including as an encyclopedia/gazetteer/almanac work, and what type of sourcing do we expect at bare minimum an article to show. There is a large fraction of editors (I wouldn't necessary say "majority" necessarily based on past RFCs) that use WP:N to connect these two points. This is not that WP:N is bad - when we get to topics that are not traditionally covered by printed encyclopedias/etc., and thus where we don't know exactly how we should cover something, WP:N provides a good way to make sure the topic can be fairly covered on WP. But, WP:N is a bridge between the two issues and only spans so much. That's why there are people that insist WP:N is rubbish because it is used in a overly-enforced manner to demand sources without considering the first part of this issue, what WP should be covering in the first place. Mind you, this is not diminishing anything about sourcing requirements per WP:V and the need to avoid bias and synthesis in writing articles. This is: if we as editors under consensus expect that people will turn to WP to learn about certain topics from specific fields, we should damn well have some article about it, even if it is basic factual information.
- I'm aware this statement is tricky: I know there's been arguments in the past that readers come all the time to learn about fictional characters from WP (judged by view counts) and that deleting these "harms" WP. Which is why it is important to understand that these critical field-specific topics are ones that have global consensus. Maybe the global consensus is that we should have an article on every fictional characters for our readers (I doubt it, just an example). We can't know that under we get over this stigma that WP:N and sourcing is the first barrier for inclusion and in actuality should be the fallback consideration for inclusion after we've tested a topic against field-specific guidelines. I would still argue that knowing the general population of editors that global consensus on field-specific inclusion guidelines will nearly always lead to an topic that can be secondary-sourced, but that needs to be considered a happy circumstance of determining what we should be covering as a combination encyclopedia/gazetteer/almanac. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Turning people away because Wikipedia isn't what they think we are/should be is not something new, especially in fiction. I don't know if you were around when webcomics were this huge issue (circa '05) because 99% of their articles were close to what is now CSD criteria. That's just how the field is; there's very little criticism or analysis that goes on outside each individual comics' forums. We spent a freaking long time and an ArbComm case trying to draft inclusion criteria that got in all the webcomics we wanted; it didn't help that the whole thing was kicked off when Websnark (the closest thing to a webcomics "expert") suggested a very lenient inclusion criteria based on archive size. We went over Wikipedia:ALEXA and all that other nonsense. It wasn't until something very similar to Wikipedia:N came along that I personally realized, "Hey, this is actually rooted in policy! I like it!". Nifboy (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Except http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/notable has not really ever been the standard of inclusion. It's been Wikipedia:Verifiability + Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which Wikipedia:Notability essentially defines the minimum standard for: A single source is not NPOV, it's just one POV. Therefore, we want enough sources to write a half-decent article. The term "notable" is just a word we've appropriated for our own uses, because it's about as close to the concept as we can get without making up words. We do this all the time: Daniel Brandt's article got deleted after 14 attempts for Wikipedia:BLP concerns, even though we didn't have a name for BLP yet, much less a policy. Nifboy (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect what Masem is actually proposing when he talks about an encyclopedia/gazetteer/almanac is a comprehensive directory of fictional elements, that would encompass characters and episodes from films, TV shows, comics and other forms of fiction in which Backstory is a significant component of a fictional work. In some ways this might be a good idea (it would certainly appeal to fans of fictional charcters for instance), and like a TV guide, a detailed description of every character and episode would be used as reference source by the readership. This is approach used by TV guides or forums such as TV Tome, but there is example is of questionable relevance to Wikipedia.
The one big sticking point with this approach and that is there is not much you can write about a fictional character or a TV episode that is anything but plot summary.
Starting with Wikipedia:NOT#PLOT, it is the general consensus that plot summary on its own is not encyclopedic coverage, i.e. plot summary is more immersive than it is informative. It is also the consensus that too great an emphasis on plot summary (particularly fictography) results in an over-reliance on a perspective that is in universe and should be avoided in accordance with Wikipedia:WAF. There is also the consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability and giving undue weight to elements of fiction, rather than the works themselves.
On the one hand, I can see where Masem is coming from, but on the other I do not like the implications, for what he is proposing is effectively a watering down of policies and guidelines that have widespread support. I don't honestly know how our opposing prespectives can be reconciled. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)- (ec)That's a good example of what field-specific guidelines should not do, and agree with the end result, in this particular case since it is not true that identifying web comics is a core part of being an encyclopedia/gazetteer/almanac. However, this is one case. The cases that we do have today, namely things like every village/town, or every professional sports player, are the ones that call to mind of where there is a need to understand field-specific inclusion guidelines and what these should and should not do. In my opinion, we're in part a gazetteer, so it makes sense to have an article on every village, even if the only source is a government census that identifies the name, location, and that X people live there; on the other hand, while I can argue every sports team and respective seasons should be outlines (as part of an almanac), every individual player is not necessary a topic we should be covering per any part of the mission. But that's my opinion. The point though is that we would need global consensus to determine these and make sure that one field does not try to stack out a larger piece of their field than we've limited other fields to; again, I think most would agree that the present allowance on Wikipedia:ATHLETE for any professional athlete of any sport to have an article is much much looser than any other Wikipedia:BIO-related allowance.
- Realistically, our first shot at any field-specific guidelines need to be short, simple "all-or-nothing" statements; eg: I would doubt anyone would be against assured inclusion of every single country in the world, every single known chemical element, every single President of the US, and so forth. Now, I know that in these examples, every single case likely can be met through normal WP:N standards as well (if they aren't already present and accounted for), but this exercise is for understanding what "field-specific inclusion" guidelines should be bounded by. If we go to biology, for example, is there a certain Taxonomic rank where every known classification in that is considered appropriate for inclusion? Given the simple points above for other areas, maybe its not the case that every species should be included, but maybe at least every genus or family. Again, simple, all-or-nothing classifications as a starting point would help this approach and avoid what you've described happened with webcomics. Heck, I'd argue at the initial pass, most contemporary topics would not have such field-specific guidelines until we understand how best to use them (leaving the current SNGs in place until such a time has been determined). --MASEM (t) 17:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- And to Gavin, there is a possibly that there could be fiction-based field specific guidelines, but certainly not as an immediate result, nor would I even suspect that such field-specific guidelines would result in ones for every character or every episode (as there's no easy way I can see an "all-or-nothing" inclusion standard that doesn't add a lot of nuances to assure meeting it). Now, you may be speaking the other aspect, which is, once a topic is included, what is appropriate coverage for it, but that's is completely separate from this discourse. This is simply realizing that there are topics that, through global consensus, need to be in the work regardless of sourcing or meeting notability guidelines, and providing high-level field-specific guidelines for those will help the work out in the long run. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- I can see what Masem is trying to do, but there is just no framework of policies or guidelines to support this approach. All the content policies generally require reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that article content can meet Wikipedia's standards for encyclopedic coverage, and are they are the source of external validation used to settle editorial disputes. Even if he were to create special guidelines, there would be no content polices to support them, and as I have mentioned regarding fictional topics, they would probably conflict with existing policy. I don't see a way to make his proposal work, because of content polices just don't work if you make lots of exceptions to the existing rules. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- No content policy require the presence of secondary sources to justify the presence of an article; verification yes, but this can be through primary or tertiary third-party sources. Now one can of course argue if a topic isn't shown to be notable it should be deleted, but what is notable or what we want to include is what we as the collective group of editors can decide. Which is why if we decide that we allow specific types of topics due to field-specific guidelines to be included because they are part of the core knowledge WP should be coverage, pressing for their deletion because they lack sourcing is inappropriate. But this is important: we have to be set that field-specific guidelines are appropriate to describe what topics we want to cover; if we try to use field-specific guidelines that do not have global consensus, we'll be seeing topics at AFD all the time that may have been included from these. This is why I'm saying that its doubtful that implementing field-specific will, at least initially and until well established, allow for a fiction-relation inclusion guideline because we don't know what these guidelines for core topics of key academic interest would even look like to start with; I would dare not attempt to start this process with an area as heavily contested as fiction. But I don't rule out the possibly that if you set in place field-specific topics for several other academic areas and make sure they work for a long-enough period of time, that eventually we could establish one for fiction.
- The problem you're having, Gavin, is putting the "requirement" of sourcing before anything else. Sourcing is important, but WP is based on common sense and good faith editing; good in-depth sourcing is only required for highly contentious statements and for avoidance of editor-claimed synthesis. If someone put forth an article on a topic that has encyclopedic value due to its academic nature (falling into a proposed field-specific inclusion guideline), but no one could easily provide in-depth sources on it due to limitations on achieving those sources, should we delete it? In our present attitude and environment, there would be editors that clearly would AFD that article citing "no secondary sources, fails WP:N", but that's the wrong attitude. We want to have these fundamental articles that fall into classes we have determined to be core to WP to be visible, inviting readers that do have that knowledge to add to it. Using field-specific guidelines would allow retention of that article and allow it to be improved over time without concerns of deletion. --MASEM (t)
- "good in-depth sourcing is only required for highly contentious statements": You mean, there are uncontested statements in Wikipedia?!? Paradoctor (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:LAME is proof that any statement can be "highly contentious". Nifboy (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- "good in-depth sourcing is only required for highly contentious statements": You mean, there are uncontested statements in Wikipedia?!? Paradoctor (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- I can see where Masem is coming from, in the sense that most fictional elements are pretty harmless, so as long as they are not the subject of "highly contentious statements", in which case then any editorial disputes can be resolved by "common sense and good faith editing". This might be true 95% of the time, so Masem has a valid point.
However, despite the fact fiction is one of the less controversial subject areas in Wikipedia, compared with say religion or politics, its not a controversy free zone. Fiction has always been written to reflect real world controversies and tensions, often with real-world implications, such as the Lady Chatterley's Lover legal case. Although our views about "public decency" have moved on, there are still topics that are taboo today. If we want to write articles about these topics, we still need content policies to defend our right to create articles, and defend them, if need be, against arbitrary deletion proposals. I agree with Masem that I often put the content polcy anything else, but it precisely these policies that provide us with freedom to write about what ever we choose.
Even without controversial topics, I have to to agree with Nifboy that editorial disuputes are all too common. It only takes two editors to start a dispute, and issues such as original research (e.g. Kender) or content forks (e.g. Terminator (character) vs. Terminator (character concept)) won't ever go away. If field-specific guidelines conflict with content policy, then they will be a source of conflict, rather than building block of consensus. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since what is http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/notable is determined by the subjective measures of mankind, subjective definitions that gain consensus to define field-specific inclusion guidelines seems perfectly acceptable to define those topics, by nature of being an encyclopedia, gazetteer, and almanac, that we absolutely must cover regardless if there is in-depth, secondary sources or not. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- That point of view is starting from the possibly flawed opinion that secondary sources are necessary in a good article. I will content that it is likely difficult, working from non-secondary sources, to make an article as strong as one that is backed by that, but that it is not impossible. The reason I consider this possibly flawed is that what we consider an "encyclopedic" article is so disputed to know if this is consensus or not. I propose that being more open about topics but still alert to indiscriminate incluse, what we include will tell us better what we expect of "encyclopedic" articles. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm still not reading you right. I see "in the absence of secondary sources" and read it as "in the absence of anything resembling a decent article at all." Then again, I'm most active in a project with a big list of things not to do because GameFAQs, TV Tropes, Wikia et al do them better (see Wikipedia:VGSCOPE); those sites are not constrained by things like Wikipedia:OR. What Wikipedia does better than any other place on the web is source compilation and summary. The notability guideline emphasizes that, and I like playing to our strengths. Nifboy (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like Wikipedia:CREEP to me. I dunno; I always felt our ultimate goal was well-researched articles regardless of the field. Fundamentally, I see Wikipedia as the biggest Literature review in existence. Nifboy (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- A complete switch to this approach is not something to be done overnight. But the framework is there, in how the existing SNGs (like Wikipedia:BIO, Wikipedia:BK, and Wikipedia:MUSIC already are written towards this idea. It would be a gradual change. The only immediate switch is applying to all editors the general understanding that the GNG needs to be treated as the fallback for notability, not the first barrier. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- There's a nice paradox in the above reams of Wikipedia:TLDR. Those who maintain that there should be strict standards of inclusion which forbid personal essays on subjects of choice, nevertheless go on and on endlessly in talk pages like this. And all their maundering, repetitive, stream-of-consciousness thoughts will be preserved here for all eternity. In centuries to come, there will be terabytes of this stuff. But the actual encyclopedia will still be unfinished. For example, it seems that the real issue is creative control. But notice that our article on the subject is poor. The equivalent policy page, Wikipedia:OWN, on the other hand, is better. The players here want to be directors rather than spear carriers and so it goes ... Colonel Warden (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have to stop you there. Who are "Those who maintain " and where have they "personal essays on subjects of choice"? I say now you are making this up. Cite your sources or forever hold your peace. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
There is another, and also very good, reason to insist on independent sources. When an editor writes an article based solely on the work of fiction it is extremely difficult to determine where their reporting of the primary source crosses the line into inappropriate interpretation, speculation or editorializing, or where they place undue weight on one element or another. And it is also true that such articles tend to be very badly written, consist mostly of plot summary without balanced discussion, and can be difficult for subsequent editors to work on. Independent sources mitigate all of these factors.
Masem pointed out that it can sometimes happen that a worthy topic might come along, where everyone can see it's important but by some fluke the sources don't exist or are extraordinarily hard to get at. This is true. It happens. But it does not happen very often, and it's for cases like this that the old motto ignore all rules should be applied. By all means break the rules when it's obviously the right thing to do. We should not generate a set of blanket exemptions to catch the occasional freakishly sourceless worthy topic- because we'll catch so much crap along with it as to make the whole thing more trouble than it's worth. This is especially true in coverage of fiction because the exemptions will inevitably be misused, often deliberately. I would like to make it clear that I don't want to generalize because I know there are a lot of good-faith editors doing a lot of good work in that area, but the sad fact is that when spurious, misleading and irrelevant sourcing happens it's almost always when someone tries to defend a fiction-related article from AfD. Take away or lessen the requirement for independent sourcing and the problem will just get worse. Reyk YO! 10:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- If the people driving this battle are doing so because they worry about Wikipedia being mocked, we've already lost everything we ever hoped for. See you on the other side. Hiding T 23:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- How is this unreasonable? Do you think, instead, we should be emulating TVTropes and Wookieepedia in all things? I aim for a decent encyclopedia that can be trusted and be taken seriously, full of well-written and informative articles that present their subjects in a neutral and balanced way. And not being made fun of for having inappropriate obsessions, glaring systemic biases and over-the-top fannish enthusiasm is part of that. I don't know what you've been hoping for, but if that's not at least part of it then perhaps it really is time you and the 'pedia part company. Not that I think that's how you feel; I think we just differ on how to achieve it. No biggie. Reyk YO! 05:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, Reyk, I will agree that those 2 questions, is it true and why should I care, are essentially what we are after. However for some items, such as Probability amplitude it is self-evidence that they are encyclopedic even if we only ever find just one reliable source. Removing it because it fais the GNG would harm, not help, Wikipedia.
- The question as to is it important, however, does not necessarily need significant coverage by independent secondary reliable sources; there are other ways of determining it, such as sales figures, citing by research that something is a major influence to other unrelated topics, etc. Of course the quality of these sources should not be someone's personal blog, but they don't have to be more than one that is significant to show that it is if it is generally agreed upon by others in the field.陣内Jinnai 05:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Jinnai, needless to say I disagree but you make some decent points that deserve a thoughtful response. Sales figures (I assume you're just talking about the number of copies sold, without accompanying commentary) can be included in the article as a verifiable fact, but their ability to confer notability is very limited because that number needs to be interpreted. For instance, say we have a source that says only: Issue 14 of Captain Freaktacular sold 10,000 copies. You might consider 10,000 copies to be a lot, but I might go "Pff. Only 10,000? Clearly not notable". It's not an asertion of notability because it requires the reader to judge it. If the source said With 10,000 copies sold, Issue 14 was the third highest selling single comic book issue of the year then we're getting somewhere.
- Regarding "citing by research", I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean that Wikipedia's editors should show the influences of the fictional work on unrelated topics? That would be original research and is not allowed. Or do you mean that we should cite the research of others? Because that would substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Can you clarify? Reyk YO! 05:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- For sales figures, I meant more in relative terms, ie, makes NYT Bestseller list. Absolute numbers are good to know, but they are sometimes hard to figure out what is a good qualifier.
- For the second, no. I mean say we have Superman and pretend we are trying to build an article from scratch. All that we can find on him from RSes with significant coverage is research by someone recognized by his peers in the field as a qualified researcher citing that "Superman is influential in the development of the Superhero genre." and then he goes on to describe how this is. Everyone other respected researcher in the field we find cites him, but only ads 1-2 other lines generally agreeing. There's also some tertiary stuff like awards, sales figures, etc. No reviews from RSes with significant coverage or anything else that would qualify. There is a significant amount of creation info from the creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster though.
- With that, he'd fail the GNG because he lacks more than 1 significant source because no one feels a reason to further look into Superman specifically because they feel the researcher did a good job. They use bits and quotes from his research to support his argument, though in other books with other research not directly related to Superman, at least not enough to constitute significant coverage of the character itself.
- EDIT: In addition with regard to fiction specifically, we often have works that reuse the same characters and worlds and those overlap. The information, if copied and pasted (with some tweaking) in each article would repeat a lot of plot info in each one. That is a valid argument for having separate list/article because we want to limit the amount of repeat plot.陣内Jinnai 04:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think Jinnai is ignoring my earlier point, that lists of characters should not be created for their own sake, as this would be giving undue weight to elements of fiction, rather than the works themselves. Rather, a more balanced approach is to omit those characters who are best summarised as part of the overall plot summary. Giving undue weight to characters and episodes that are not the subject of significant coverage simply reduces the quality of coverage by reducing the context afforded to the reader through commenatary, crtiticism and analysis. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Granted, Hawking will get published as a matter of course, so presumably the stuff will get out there sooner or later, and filter back to Wikipedia. But one of the virtues of this encyclopedia, over any other in the world, is that it can promulgate information very quickly relative to a dead-tree publication process that can take months to years. And for every Hawking there are ten thousand perfectly competent scholars, not a few of them without institutional affiliation, doing perfectly sound original work even while primarily engaged in some other discipline. (The translation of the Old West Saxon poem "The Wanderer" by the late attorney Clifford A. Truesdell IV is a good example of this, published three years ago on line but as far as I know still unavailable in hard copy.)
The error, I think, lies in an assumption that original research is somehow unverifiable. But those two assertions are by no means fungible. Independent scholarship can be very sound, and readily replicated by anyone who is willing to take the trouble, while on the other hand there is a great deal of piffle that finds its way into print anyway, even from university presses that should know better (I've worked for some of them). Just because a press publishes something, even a careful scholarly press, is not an absolute guarantee that it is true; and just because a epiece of research hasn't been published yet does not mean that its findings are ipso facto false.
It seems to me that on the one hand, Wikipedia exuberantly celebrates (and rightly, in my view) the ability of regular folks to be self-starters in the collection, editing, and dissemination of information; yet this very same principle seems to me to be flouted in its institutional unwillingness to allow itself to be (on rare occasions, to be sure) a primary source, written by the people who are in a position best to know whereof they speak. That "original research" should instead appear in this connection as though it were a term of opprobrium seems, at least to this independent scholar, both contradictory and more than a little counterproductive.
75.33.43.107 (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Nick Humez 14 March 2010
Add a speedy deletion criterion for files uploaded by a copyright infringer
Jumamuba (talk<dot-separator> contribs) vandalized Wikipedia by posting many copies of copyrighted images - about 50 over two months. This is 25 copies per month; on average, about ten every two weeks. Many of these copies were with false licensing information, claiming that he took the pictures, when in reality, he stole the pictures from forums (of course no source information there) such as skyscrapercity.com.I propose that if a user is known to have likely falsely claimed at least one file as his own, and has been blocked for copyright infringement, then all files he uploaded within one month of the falsely claimed file(s) with an "own work" declaration may be speedily deleted immediately. Evidence for false claims of ownership can be established in a Wikipedia:FFD discussion. If a user does not want his files deleted, he should not falsely claim any of them as his own and lose the implicit trust of the community that he will respect copyright. Unfortunately, the current situation is that it takes, according to policy, at least seven days, to get a file deleted because of questionable permission or source info. PleaseStand (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- On Commons this comes up all the time. Standard procedure is to just nominate all the affected images at once in one mass deletion. We do sometimes just unilaterally delete additional images by the same uploader discovered later. It's worth having a deletion discussion because often a user thought to be a serial copyvioer actually uploaded a mix of copyvios and personal images. Dcoetzee 23:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion, as one file (Commons) has already been identified as public domain and salvageable. I have started a broader PUF discussion for all his contributions. By the way, I suspect the user has a sockpuppet, and so does Commons. Please'Stand (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Popular Science
Popular Science magazine has posted their entire 137-year archive, all hosted on Google Books. In the bottom right corner of each page image is, in gray text, the phrase "Copyrighted image", even on old magazines that have fallen into the public domain, like the March 1905 issue I have open in another browser window here. A scan of the original magazine wouldn't have been marred by this, and in the US, the "Copyrighted image" claim is incorrect, per the court ruling that a photograph of a public domain work of art isn't copyrightable. (See Copyfraud.) My question: When I grab full page scans of the old copies of this magazine that have fallen into the public domain, is it considered a "best practice" to use image editing software to simply remove the "Copyrighted image" text? Is it acceptable to just upload the image to en with the "Copyrighted image" text intact, even though this is incorrect and may in the future cause editors to waste time debating whether the image is or is not copyrighted and subject to deletion? (I ask whether it's acceptable because it takes time an effort to hack the text out of every image.) And, finally, does anyone have a link to a Google Books page where I can just grab the highest-res PNG or JPG file of a particular page without having to use their clumsy, awful reader with the scroll arrows and zoom magnifying glass icons? I don't really want to have to take 10 screen captures and stitch them together just to assemble a single page. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)- I think you want to know about http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly. Paradoctor (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer. After browsing for a bit, it looks like that project so far has a tiny subset of the magazine, so my question stands. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- As long as they are indeed public domain, you are quite within your rights to crop off or otherwise remove text. Whether you should, well, that's up to you. As for getting other copies of them, sometimes Google provides a "download as PDF" (or somesuch) button; you may also want to try archive.org. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- There are some complicated legal questions lurking in this area, which I'd be curious to hear informed commentary on. Suppose I publish a book of photos, and included are some public domain photos. Clearly I have copyright on the work as a whole, even if not on the PD photos individually. Are you allowed to copy the PD photos from my copyrighted book? What if I've modified them before publishing them? How much modification is needed before I can assert copyright on the modified version? --Trovatore (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Reprinting public domain materials does not give you a new copyright in them, so you can always copy a public domain photo from wherever you find it. Even a book entirely composed of public domain materials may have a copyright in that particular compilation--in your selection and arrangement of them--but that would just prevent you from copying the book exactly as is and keeping it in the same arrangement. As far as "how much modification," 10 lbs worth. It's really not a meaningful question in the abstract, beyond answering that the modifications have to be "creative" or "original" in some way; these things always have to be discussed case by case. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- There are some complicated legal questions lurking in this area, which I'd be curious to hear informed commentary on. Suppose I publish a book of photos, and included are some public domain photos. Clearly I have copyright on the work as a whole, even if not on the PD photos individually. Are you allowed to copy the PD photos from my copyrighted book? What if I've modified them before publishing them? How much modification is needed before I can assert copyright on the modified version? --Trovatore (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- As long as they are indeed public domain, you are quite within your rights to crop off or otherwise remove text. Whether you should, well, that's up to you. As for getting other copies of them, sometimes Google provides a "download as PDF" (or somesuch) button; you may also want to try archive.org. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer. After browsing for a bit, it looks like that project so far has a tiny subset of the magazine, so my question stands. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Rollbacker Question
Is it proper or within policy for a rollbacker to rollback his or her own user/talk page after a vandal hit, or should said editor refer elsewhere for help ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlpearc (talk • contribs)Listings of a vanished user
I've been going through CAT:FFD, and finding several images where the original listing had been overwritten due to a bug in Twinkle. I've been relisting these, and linking back to the edit where Twinkle overwrote the nomination. If the original nomination (possibly from 2008) was made by a user who had since vanished, should I remove/change the sig in the relisting, in order to help keep the user "vanished"? (It will still be visible in the diff which I link to) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)PROD for books
Proposed deletion (books), an adaptation of the PROD process for Wikipedia-Books has been proposed. Feedback and comments would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Citing evidence of an occurrence within subject.
A bit of a debate is rising on the article One shot (music video) numerous videos have been added to the list without citations. Some of these have been added in error because they give the appearance of one continuous shot when in fact the shot changes are well hidden (this has been made easier using modern techniques, though Alfred Hitchcock also did it for Rope (film) in 1948) a lot of these have unreliable secondary/tertiary sources claiming they are "One Shot" but little or no reliable evidence either way.Now when recently removing some of these to clean the article up, I was asked to provide citable references that they were *not* one shot which I could do for two of the videos. I also added a section explaining why they were not One Shots. The problem now exists that for many there is no academic study/analysis of this field from which a secondary source can be drawn. I did attempt to cite the Primary Source (including the Timecode of the cut) but this has been removed by another editor - citing this reference as "Original Research" because the cut may not be apparent to a casual viewer.
This leads to a rock and a hard-place; if the references stay in we get further tertiary sources taken from Wikipedia. If we remove them entirely they simply get them re-added.
So the question of Wikipedia Policy Remains, is it/should it be acceptable to cite the event within the primary source when there is a lack of secondary sources? I asked the question of do we require a secondary source to cite that Moby Dick begins with the words "Call me Ishmael"? Or do we require to assume a certain level of ability on the part of the reader - i.e; citing the Timecode is not enough because it requires a certain level of technical knowledge to understand what is being seen. A similar literary equivalent might be House of Leaves where the Editor has cited sections of the book which contain Codes but a request for further citations has been made.
My personal opinion is that in either case these videos need to be identified to prevent further error, even if a reliable secondary source cannot yet be found. Then marking the video as Citation Needed or Citing Timecode will encourage further editors to search for sources in places I have't even thought to look for them - or possibly encourage reliable third parties to carry out the required research so that a subsequent editor can cite their work.
Thoughts, additions and comparisons? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- In this particular case you could try pointing out that they've got it the wrong way round. Under Wikipedia:V it's up to them to provide citations to show they are OSVs, not for you to show they aren't. Peter jackson (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Peter, I agree but I'm Pre-Empting a wave of errant secondary sources being cited. For instance the OK Go video This too shall pass was the one that led me to start editing this article. I noticed it only because Edgar Wright declared it OSV when it clearly wasn't; it was one that I was able to cite Damian Kulash from the band themselves as proving it was not one shot - but if Damien had not been citable; Edgar could have been cited as an errant Secondary Source. For the other video for the song, "The Marching Band" there is a cut that is clear to anyone versed in editing but there are errant secondary sources that claim is OSV yet no secondary sources to back the opposite position.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Then my understanding of policy is that you're not allowed to do anything about it, unless there are so few reliable sources on the topic that it could be deleted. Peter jackson (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Peter, I agree but I'm Pre-Empting a wave of errant secondary sources being cited. For instance the OK Go video This too shall pass was the one that led me to start editing this article. I noticed it only because Edgar Wright declared it OSV when it clearly wasn't; it was one that I was able to cite Damian Kulash from the band themselves as proving it was not one shot - but if Damien had not been citable; Edgar could have been cited as an errant Secondary Source. For the other video for the song, "The Marching Band" there is a cut that is clear to anyone versed in editing but there are errant secondary sources that claim is OSV yet no secondary sources to back the opposite position.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- They should just call the list, Videos that seem to be done in one shot as perceived by Wikipedia editors, unless they have sources for the additions to the list. I think Wikipedia:BURDEN covers this well. Angryapathy (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Or perhaps List of videos that do not credit an editor? :{O User:LeadSongDog come howl 19:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Proposal: Option to disable images
Dear all,I propose a simple new feature to be added to any article in Wikipedia that may contain images of a graphic nature - this would basically consist of a small button somewhere on the article giving the user the option to block all the images on that page.
I propose this feature due to the fact that some articles that are fairly neutral in nature tend to contain images that are unsightly, graphic, explicit, and which make it hard to read the text near them (e.g "Nail").
The feature would be as non-intrusive as possible and its purpose is certainly not to patronize users.
Perhaps the feasibility of this option could be reviewed.
Regards --188.220.173.129 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)tpos1an--188.220.173.129 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Can you give some examples of pages you think this would be useful on? I can't think of any myself... ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 22:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- You can switch off images in many browsers. For example in Firefox it's: Tool -> Options -> Content. Untick the load images and save with ok. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think this has been discussed before, but it seems unlikely to be something that the WM devs would spend time on. Have you considered a browser plugin such as Adblock - it will let you block images on a page, or a whole domain. I mostly use it to block creepy images on fellow Wikipedians' userpages (e.g. commons:File:Jimbo Peeking.gif), personally. :D – Toon 22:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
CSD A1 and CSD A3 tagging moments after creation
I've noticed that looking at Special:Newpages, there is a notice that says: "Note: articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation." I'm not sure how long ago this was added, but I can't recall it being there when I started new page patrol. Was there ever a discussion about this? If so, could someone point me in that direction? Also, I couldn't find this explicitly stated anywhere in our policy about speedy deletion. If this is desirable perhaps we should add that. Jujutacular T · C 23:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)- It's possible that someone may be creating the article "piece by piece": a bit now, save, another bit, save, etc. That would be a legitimate way of editing, and tagging it would bring unneeded grief and discussion. That's why it's better to tag articles when they have been stable at their current version long enough to confirm that they are actually a page without context or content and that nobody is working in them. MBelgrano (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- I Jujutacular. I am the culprit on that edit (to address the same issue I previously created {{Hasty}}). I added the text on December 3, 2009 (diff), following this discussion. The topic—the inappropriateness of tagging articles as A1s and A3s seconds after creation—has been discussed many times at WT:CSD, including here, here, here, here, here and here. The long and short of it is that while the consensus is pretty clearly on the side of viewing it as bad practice to tag as empty or lacking context immediately after creation, we have not yet come up with a workable technical way to apply it to the tagging, such as having the tag not propagate into CAT:CSD for a set time after an article's creation. As to the time span of delay before tagging and deletion, 48 hours or a day as has been suggested, is far too long, one minute after creation is far too short, while about an hour allows a creator who didn't realize there might be any problem with posting and then working on it, plenty of time to add enough content to meet the very low threshold to avoid A1 and A3.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- I build articles this way. I make sure to always slap up a CONSTRUCTION banner. { {construction} } So far it has kept the boogeyman away... Carrite (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- @Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you for that. I mainly ask just because I still see pages being tagged immediately, and administrators still deleting fairly soon after. Specifically, I saw Parisjohansen was tagged at 23:06 and deleted at 23:15. I'm not sure exactly when it was created as I'm not an administrator. I was considering leaving a message on some talk pages, however I couldn't find anything written in policy. What should be done in these instances? Jujutacular T · C 18:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- That particular page was clearly non-constructive - I can't see that there could be too much drama in getting rid in pretty short order. There's certainly no reason to Wikipedia:CREEPily sustain this nonsense for 48h. Anyway, FYI Parisjohansen was created at 2306. --Xdamrtalk 23:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Also, that particular page had content when created and thus not an A3 anyway. Should have been A7 deleted, so it's not a good example. But anyway the point is that pages should not be tagged A1 or A3 hastily because with those tags it's much more likely that the reasons for deletion might disappear with further edits by the page creator - but that does not mean that exceptions cannot be made if it's clear that further improvement is impossible or very unlikely. Regards SoWhy 23:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- That particular page was clearly non-constructive - I can't see that there could be too much drama in getting rid in pretty short order. There's certainly no reason to Wikipedia:CREEPily sustain this nonsense for 48h. Anyway, FYI Parisjohansen was created at 2306. --Xdamrtalk 23:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- I Jujutacular. I am the culprit on that edit (to address the same issue I previously created {{Hasty}}). I added the text on December 3, 2009 (diff), following this discussion. The topic—the inappropriateness of tagging articles as A1s and A3s seconds after creation—has been discussed many times at WT:CSD, including here, here, here, here, here and here. The long and short of it is that while the consensus is pretty clearly on the side of viewing it as bad practice to tag as empty or lacking context immediately after creation, we have not yet come up with a workable technical way to apply it to the tagging, such as having the tag not propagate into CAT:CSD for a set time after an article's creation. As to the time span of delay before tagging and deletion, 48 hours or a day as has been suggested, is far too long, one minute after creation is far too short, while about an hour allows a creator who didn't realize there might be any problem with posting and then working on it, plenty of time to add enough content to meet the very low threshold to avoid A1 and A3.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:ELG
I'm on a fact finding mission, and I'm hoping to get some help from the greater wikipedia. Wikipedia:ELG, the Exit List Guideline, is a guideline created by User:TwinsMetsFan in September/October of 2006. It was immediately posted as a guideline and part of the manual of style without any (apparent) discussion outside of the one pointed to by the guideline as its basis.A recently started discussion, which I and a couple others from outside of the United States are questioning, aims to add an amendment to this "guideline". I however, would like to question it's status. This was a guideline discussed by American editors in the American roads wikiproject, and then applied to Wikipedia as a whole as if it were the international standard without ANY discussion outside of the US. As it stands, no project besides the US roads wikiproject, and Canadian road articles created by the members of the US road wikiproject, follows this hidden jem of the manual of style. When I asked that any discussions amending a worldwide guideline be brought up to every road wikiproject that is active, I was refused because it's too tedious. This nullifies the guideline as any sort of non-US standard, and many of the administrators involved in it seem oblivious to the fact that if you aren't discussing this with wikipedia as a whole, it's not a guideline.
I would like to see this demoted as a guideline, and potentially moved from its current title to reflect that it is an American standard. The rest of the world is not going to spell it 'color'. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- It seems like the best thing to do in this case would be to tag it disputed, and start an RfC on the talk page neutrally summarizing while you feel it is not an appropriate guideline. However, as it has been around since 2006 and seemingly undisputed before, it will likely be argued that it has de facto community consensus (many of the guidelines that exist today started in the same fashion around that time). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Why are IP's allowed to edit?
Recently, as I have reverted vandalism (most of which was from anonymous IP's, I have began to wonder why we do not require logging in for all editors. If this policy was changed, it would not effect wikipedia's promise that it is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" because anyone can log in, and it would probably reduce the amount of vandalism we see quite a bit. Immunize (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)- I don't think that requiring editing from a registered account on all cases would be a good idea as a lot of people wouldn't have the ability to log in or register as they are intensely private people and don't have the patience to learn how to log in or create an account on here. This is a very complex process and it would behoove us to respect those people that cannot bother to log in ans they provide useful information to the articles and what not, you know what i am getting at here Sapporod1965 (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- This has been proposed before and it's been rejected everytime. I agree with those rejections, but I would support quicker blocking of IPs that commit Vandalism. SMP0328. (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:PEREN#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editing --Cybercobra (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- This has been proposed before and it's been rejected everytime. I agree with those rejections, but I would support quicker blocking of IPs that commit Vandalism. SMP0328. (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you've been reverting vandalism, you should have noticed that most edits are legit. Anyways, we urge IPs to create accounts with {{Createaccount}}ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 02:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- IP's are allowed to get away with all sorts of tomfoolery, as one of the core policies of wikipedia is that "anyone" can edit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- And 67% of percentages are just numbers made up to support an argument with no real data or evidence backing them. Mr.Z-man 03:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, Dilbert, that's been verified by 87 studies. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is true that 98% of vandalism is from anonymous IPs. It's also true that we'd have somewhat less vandalism if users were required to register to edit (not 20 times less, since many vandals would register). However, we'd also lose a lot of constructive edits, and a lot of new users. It's not worth it. Small wikis, without the manpower for vandal patrol, often decide differently. Dcoetzee 04:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes the amount of vandalism that Wikipedia gets does make it a lot less fun. And I would not doubt that it drives away some of our most productive editors and keeps people who are very competent or experts in the subject from editing due to their lack of desire to deal with vandalism. I think flagged revisions would be a great compromise especially for medicine article which get more than their share of vandalism ( thinking specifically about sexually transmitted diseases ).
- Registering actually gives people more autonomy in a way as it hides your IP address. Wikipedia will eventually need to address the problem of allowing IP to edit. We have IP addresses that have made hundred of blatant vandalism edits and are allowed to continue to make more. This one [1] finally got a reasonable block.
- Another possible would be to require all IPs which vandalism two or more times to create an account. Thus everyone can edit at the start but only if they continue to have a good record. The reason why this keeps getting brought up over and over is many people see an undressed problem ( the large amount of vandalism from IPs and only minor positive edits ). Many of use consider writing an encyclopedia to require a certain dedication and have concerns that if someone is unwilling to put in the effort to register there maybe a good chance they will not put in the effort to edit constructively. My first edits were as a registered user. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry but your post is wrong in several ways. First of all there is a stack of evidence showing just how much good Ip editors do, every day I see IP's reverting vandalism, tagging for speedy deletion, adding good content. Second, we don't block IP addresses indef because they change so frequently, I have a new one every few days, many change even more often than that. Thirdly, if we indef block IPs forcing them to log in that will do two things. The helpful people will be pissed off and not come back, and the vandals will just register accounts. This proposal has been rejected time and time again for the simple reason that blocking anonymous edits will have a proven negative effect on the encyclopedia. Its never going to happen--Jac16888Talk 21:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- First, could you cite the studies that show how much good IP-editors do on en.wiki? I know of a couple on French Wikis, but IP behavior is very different there (most semi-protected articles on en.wiki don't even need protection on French Wikipedia).
Second, I know of no study showing a "proven" negative effect of not allowing IPs to edit. This would need to be randomized and prospective, since any retrospective study of IP edits that is used to project what would happen if registration were required, would be forced to make assumptions about what those great IP-editors would do, if forced to pick out a name and password. The truth is, we don't know. They might be so "pissed off" as to quit. Or not. And in the meantime, other good name-users might become so "pissed off" by IP-user continued vandalism to their work, that THEY might quit. It's a total guess as to which one wins. Personally I think anybody who goes through the arcane work of leaning how to make edits that "stick" on WP, is not likely to balk at the very simple task of registering. You don't even need an email address to do it. Third, if you yourself edit from and ISP where your IP changes often, you're either editing from a proxy (a no-no) or one of those ISPs with rotating IP-exits, which are EXACTLY the sort of IPs that need to be soft-rangeblocked (with account creation enabled). The reason being that such ISPs are a perfect hide-out for vandals, who cannot be blocked by any means when using them. Best to force vandals who use those ISPs to take a name which CAN be blocked, and (in the meantime) cannot edit semi-protected articles. Persistant vandals from rotating-IP-exit type ISP services have had their entire ISP IP ranges soft-blocked, with NO-account creation enabled (which means only previously-resistered users in that range can use them, but no new users can register), which is even more draconian. But it's within policy. SBHarris 05:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- User:Dragons flight/Log analysis shows that anonymous users make ~40% of non-reverted edits and almost 80% of IP edits are not reverted. I don't know of any newer statistics. Mr.Z-man 05:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- It looks to me like an IPs is 4 times as likely to make a reverted edit as a name-user, an 10 times as likely as an admin. The only reason they only contribute less than half the reverted edits is that there are fewer of them. If there as many IPs as name users, they'd be contributing 80% of the reverted edits or vandalisms. Anyway none of this tells us what would happen if we forced these people to register. The assumption that all IPs would simply disappear, is unfounded.SBHarris 08:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- I like the suggest from Doc James (20:34, 13 March 2010) and Immunize (21:28, 13 March 2010) - allow "good" IPs to carry on, but indef block IP vandals and force them to register after just 2 incidents. As another discussion recently commented, most vandals won't have the patience to register.
- I also support Sbharris's comment (05:03, 14 March 2010) that we should be quick to block shared IP ranges. Their users would have to register at any other site, e.g. a forum, so it's hard to justify making vandalism easy on WP. And if the organisations running shared IP ranges complaint, WP's response is: editing WP is a privilege, not a right; it's the job of shared IP ranges to police their users. --Philcha (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep in mind we don't even have to total-block IP ranges. A "soft block" can still let users from that range edit, but only if they become a nameuser. Which takes 10 seconds. So why does it matter, and won't IP-vandals just get a username, and then still vandalize? No. You know why. Because individual name-users are treated far more harshly than IP addresses, which are apparently fantasized in administrator minds to all be be shared junior high library computers, or something. SO the coddling of IP users is endless. Anything to make them take usernames, is to be encouraged. SBHarris 08:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- User:Dragons flight/Log analysis shows that anonymous users make ~40% of non-reverted edits and almost 80% of IP edits are not reverted. I don't know of any newer statistics. Mr.Z-man 05:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- First, could you cite the studies that show how much good IP-editors do on en.wiki? I know of a couple on French Wikis, but IP behavior is very different there (most semi-protected articles on en.wiki don't even need protection on French Wikipedia).
Side note: It should be imposed on admins to do a WHOIS and check the identity of the editor. If its a school IP, they should only softblock. Rotating IP's (they will be shown with "status:ALLOCATED PORTABLE" on a WHOIS) should be 24hr blocked (no matter what their block record is) without autoblock, but account creation prevented, and fixed ip's should be blocked by the same guidelines for normal users (24hr, then a week, then a month, etc.), except the block should be a softblock. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 11:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I oppose the proposal to prevent IP addresses from editing, as many of their edits are good-faith, although I support the thing with blocking the vandals. 112.203.184.112 (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- The success of Wikipedia is largely built on the concept that any reader can edit any page, right now. And that's built into Wikipedia's core principles. The gain to Wikipedia from that perception vastly outweighs the inconvenience of vandalism. Experienced editors would also be aware that a huge number of constructive edits are made every day from IPs, and while we'd all love them to create accounts, that doesn't make their contributions any less valuable. On a more specific level, the majority of IP vandalism comes from schools; on a purely philosophical level I think the lessons learned about knowledge (and the reliability of information) that students acquire from editing from IPs vastly outweighs the inconvenience their vandalism causes us. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Request for Comment on BLP
On the closing note it said to start a discussion on WP:VPP concerning the specifics. I am starting this discussion here. Any PROD can be removed by any user? Sapporod1965 (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)- I believe the discussion is already happening at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_Prod_workshop --Cybercobra (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Exceptions to Wikipedia namespace restrictions
A case arose recently where an editor with a community imposed restriction was blocked for commenting on an AfD for an article that editor had created. A number of editors felt this block was unwasie and/or unwarranted. I have therefore created Wikipedia:Standard exception to Projectspace limitations after a discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Specific question. Comment is welcome. DES (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)French wikipedia have simplified their policy
Basically what they've done is changed their Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia to state what an encyclopedia is (for their Wikipedia), and then marked a lot of the other policies like Is Not as essai i.e. essays.This seems to me rather sensible, provided you can define what an Encyclopedia is in the policy. I think they've more or less succeeded.
The problem with the English Wikipedia's policy (which doesn't define encyclopedia in policy, but does so in article space) is that the Encyclopedia article space doesn't really know either, and many encyclopedias are very different from the Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia article has to cover all of them.
- French version of WP:ISNOT google translation, note that google translates essai as 'test' which doesn't seem correct, it means essay.
- The word essay originally came from essai, and "try" is the original meaning of the word. "This page is a test" and "This page is an essay" both seem to work equally, so Google Translate chose the more used version of essai, which is "try" (essai is a deriviative of the french essuyer, which means "to try"). If Google had read the second line, it might have realized that it means "essay", but that would require a few more years of data as Google is a Statistical machine translation software. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 05:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- French Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia (google translation )
- I like their "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" page. It might not be the best idea to overwrite or displace our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia page, however. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is is a redirect to Wikipedia:5P -- perhaps we could repurpose that page.
- No, I don't think so. The page at Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia logically has to say what Wikipedia is, not be a list of 6 or so things it isn't. That's what the French enc does, and it works. The en page is underperforming; it just doesn't say what the wikipedia IS, it says what it isn't..- Wolfkeeper 15:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Turning just about any policy or guideline into an essay on en: is going to be a steep battle. Wikipedia:BURO and Wikipedia:IAR aside, we have a very legalistic culture here.--Father Goose (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's an essay, we need a policy. If you could refine it so that its more neutral etc., we might be able to incorporate it. Actually, we should have a concise set of policies. Right now, we have tons of policy pages, and each one is quite large. We should have a policy cheatsheet which has the "nutshell" text, commonly used acronyms (those acronyms are aggravating for a newcomer), and a little description. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 05:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to have misunderstood; they've rewritten Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia to be most of the policy, in the French Wikipedia it actually says what the wikipedia is. By doing that, they've been able to turn most of the other policy into essays.- Wolfkeeper 15:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- The English Wikipedia doesn't define what an Encyclopedia is in the policy anywhere, and it pays the price, because you end up having to say it in the negative, it's not this, or that or the other... or whatever... it goes on and on.- Wolfkeeper 15:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Impact factor depreciated
Recently, the reliable source guideline (Wikipedia:RS) was edited to make it appear that evaluating the impact factor of journals to determine their reliability was prohibited entirely. There is a discussion on the talk page to determine if this is accurate or not at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Impact_factor_usable.3F. Hipocrite (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Wikipedia:Quotations is being proposed as a guideline
There is an active proposal to turn Wikipedia:Quotations into a guideline.--Father Goose (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)PRODding images?
As soon as I finished clearing out the backlog of expired PRODs a few minutes ago, I went to Category:Proposed deletion and discovered that one of its subcategories is Category:All files proposed for deletion. Why do we have such a category, since only articles are eligible for PROD? Was it once common practice to PROD images? Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)- The purpose of the category is as a collection point for incorrectly tagged files needing correction (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_deletion/Archive_9#Files_proposed_for_deletion). --Allen3 talk 03:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am pleased to note that it is empty ( and should be empty). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Categorising human settlements
A series of discussions at CFD over the last few days have revealed a number of problems in the naming conventions of the top-level categories for inhabited human settlements.The issues are too wide-ranging to be resolved in the format of a CFD discussion, so I have opened a centralised discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorization/Categorising_human_settlements to try to find a consensus on how to proceed.
Your contributions will be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NS2 has been marked as a guideline
Wikipedia:NS2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)- This was the result of bad redirect syntax; now fixed — Gavia immer (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User pages has been marked as a guideline
Wikipedia:User pages (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Wikipedia:User page no longer marked as a guideline
Wikipedia:User page (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)- These two are merely the result of a page move from the singular to the plural. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
