Gracenotes (talk | contribs) m add "below_toc" id |
→Obfuscation: examples are worth 100 quadrillion words |
||
Line 422: | Line 422: | ||
::If a user sees a page source like that and tries to edit it, will their browser edit box behave RtL as well? |
::If a user sees a page source like that and tries to edit it, will their browser edit box behave RtL as well? |
||
:::Yes, which can be very disorienting. Typing "Hi" on a RtL-formatted text input box, for example, will cause "H" to appear, and then an "i" to appear to its left, with the cursor coming to a rest at the left of the "i". The Unicode RtL character does not display in the text box in either FireFox or IE, though you can copy the text out of the page into a "dumb" editor, like Windows' Notepad or extensions-disabled Vim, and remove it. Copying it into a more-sophisticated editor will often result in that application (correctly, to be fair) deciding the text is RtL, and switching modes appropriately. <span style="font-family: monospace">[[User:Jouster|Jouster]]</span> (<span style="font-size: smaller; background: black;">[[User Talk:Jouster|<span style="color:white">whisper</span>]]</span>) 15:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC) |
:::Yes, which can be very disorienting. Typing "Hi" on a RtL-formatted text input box, for example, will cause "H" to appear, and then an "i" to appear to its left, with the cursor coming to a rest at the left of the "i". The Unicode RtL character does not display in the text box in either FireFox or IE, though you can copy the text out of the page into a "dumb" editor, like Windows' Notepad or extensions-disabled Vim, and remove it. Copying it into a more-sophisticated editor will often result in that application (correctly, to be fair) deciding the text is RtL, and switching modes appropriately. <span style="font-family: monospace">[[User:Jouster|Jouster]]</span> (<span style="font-size: smaller; background: black;">[[User Talk:Jouster|<span style="color:white">whisper</span>]]</span>) 15:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Examples of obfuscation. Try to remove the red text from each. Please revert to my version when you've succeeded (or given up!): |
|||
:#'''Simple (RtL)''': [[User:Jouster/open/1|Example 1]] |
|||
:#'''Text spam''': [[User:Jouster/open/2|Example 2]] |
|||
:#'''Complex templating''': [[User:Jouster/open/3|Example 3]] |
|||
:#'''Extreme''': [[User:Jouster/open/4|Example 4]] |
|||
:For each example, please indicate where/when you feel its use is appropriate, and feel free to add any thoughts you have. <span style="font-family: monospace">[[User:Jouster|Jouster]]</span> (<span style="font-size: smaller; background: black;">[[User Talk:Jouster|<span style="color:white">whisper</span>]]</span>) 16:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[:Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion]] == |
== [[:Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion]] == |
Revision as of 16:59, 6 July 2007
Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
- Table of contents
- First discussion
- End of page
- New post
If you want to propose something new other than a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.
Discussions older than 5 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 9 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 9 days the discussion can only be found through the page history.
Request for Comment regarding ALF, Alf, primary topic, and appropriate disambiguation standards
A WP:LAME edit war, in which I have gotten involved against my better judgment, raises some issues relevant to the intersection of disambiguation and some other policies. Your comments are welcome at Talk:ALF#Request for Comment regarding ALF, Alf, primary topic, and appropriate disambiguation standards.
Ban anonymous ip editing
For the past two years or so, I've noticed less and less ip users contribute healthily to the English Wikipedia. I can speak for myself; I use to be an ip user for a long while and learned of a lot since then, made a few mistakes, and learned from them. What made me come here was this discussion and after I read this section weeks ago (actually months have passed since) I came to the conclusion that ips are more dangerous than established users. For one, I have yet to see several ip users as much as established users banned; obviously, ips are normally not banned because many people may share the same ISP and all. Thanks to Centrx updating me with this here, my theory is supported — although I figured that anyways my theory was true to begin with. Now, I know many anonymous edits from ips are helpful — but as for the majority, they are not, and it is quite burdensome to have to go through and "rv" the usual ip vandal. Furthermore, those that experiment the Wikipedia as an ip (usually unknowing that a "You have new messages (last change)" can appear) is really, should one say, annoying? The person could be confused, or perhap, the person in another part of the room on their computer would say, "Huh, why did I get this message?" although that person didn't do anything, he/she will still be welcomed, or warned, etc. My point in all this is that someone (who happens to share an ip with a "vandal", whatever the case) normally looking at the English Wikipedia doesn't want to be bothered by a "You have new messages (last change)" even though that one person, or others, is innocent of any act they have done.
- Does this make any sense? Lord Sesshomaru
- By the way, perhaps an ifinite attractive message (of course, with the dismiss button) at the top corner on each article of this site saying something in the likes of "Click here to create an account/become a Wikipedian" would attract the attention of anybody. You wouldn't need to edit the encyclopedia as an ip user to figure that out. Lord Sesshomaru
- This makes perfect sense. I had not thought of the warning message poppping up to innocent users. I have advocated the ban for a while with one reservation, which is that we might lose some people who wade into editing slowly. Also, there could be a fear of signing up for something that is unknown and could possibly generate more spam in your life. Once people get hooked on WP, they will gladly sign up. But over all I agree that anonymous ip editing needs to go. --Kevin Murray 18:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- True story: it happened to me. My younger brother edited Wikipedia as ip in his room and I was lefted recieving the welcomings and other messages on my computer in my room. Thank god he moved out. Basically I took over, per say. Really, anonymous editing isn't a good thing, it must be banned. Any current ip users are welcome to create an account (which grants more benefits) and (usurp?) what they have on their ip pages to the new account. Lord Sesshomaru
- I think this is a bad idea, and please look here and here to see why. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 19:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've read a study somewhere that states although 97% of vandals are IPs, over 70% of IP edits are constructive. So it's a double edged sword, you may seem to root out most vandals, but a lot of innocents will also be blocked. Also, there is a chance that those IPs would just start many Vandal only accounts and make it difficult for the admins to handle.--Kylohk 19:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously those useful IP editors aren't interested in the same things I am. Nowhere near 70% of anonymous edits to the articles on my watchlist are constructive. Of those (probably a minority in the first place) that aren't straightforward wilful vandalism, the vast majority are illiterate or just plain incorrect. -- Necrothesp 20:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
What about the endless AOL and school ips that usually damage the community? What about the fact that someone could get blocked just for sharing the same ISP with others within the same ip range? With all due respect, wouldn't you hate for that "You have new message(s)" box appear on your screen and suddenly find that you had been blocked for vandalism just because someone is sharing the ip? Or worse, your ip is banned because of that someone you don't even know? Though you yourself didn't even edit as ip user, the possibility that someone else can is very much likely. Hence, anonymous edits have to really be banned to prevent any of this from happening. Lord Sesshomaru
- From what I've heard, many ips change like from every day to every 15 min. It is a hell of a lot harder to track down an ip vandal, in this case, then it is to track down an account that will not change every whatever. Multiple accounts used for things like sockpuppetry, etc., are commonly obvious to notice. Ips are the ones that can change in this manner and that's frightening right there. 97% of vandals are IPs, over 70% of IP edits are constructive. How is this sentence meaning to relate to a double-edged sword? Unfortunately, majority rules here. Lord Sesshomaru
- Nobody, or hardly anybody, notices the good editing that anon/ip's do, which is why statistics need to be thoroughly tested. Yes, a great many ip's make a few vandal edits (usually on the higher traffic articles) and giggle at the other editors having to come in and revert them. A couple of hours, or even a couple of evenings, dumb entertainment. Usually they get tired of the game and find something else to amuse themselves. However in terms of quantity there are a few ip's/anons who contribute regularly and add in great content, which even out the vandals. If the ratio between vandal and good ip editors is 100 to 1 the amount of good work the 1 does out quantifies the 100 over one year. Do you really want to lose one years (plus) worth of good edits from one editor just so you don't have to revert the work of 100 idiots? LessHeard vanU 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Answering your lst question, yes that's a good trade. Good IP contributors often don't join because they don't have to. I don't think that forcing them to join will automatically cause them to quit. --Kevin Murray 20:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- By the same token, forcing a vandal to take 3 seconds to register is not going to prevent them from vandalizing. The only way to make a proposal like this effective is to force a waiting period for everyone before they can edit. —Centrx→talk • 20:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- That might be the solution. Editing articles begins 24 hours after registration. --Kevin Murray 20:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- I did the maths over at User:LessHeard_vanU#Anon ip editors have edit hours on their side. If we lose 1 editor to stop 99 vandals then WP is down 27% in quantity. My assumptions there may be argued over, but the formula works. LessHeard vanU 21:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- By the same token, forcing a vandal to take 3 seconds to register is not going to prevent them from vandalizing. The only way to make a proposal like this effective is to force a waiting period for everyone before they can edit. —Centrx→talk • 20:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Answering your lst question, yes that's a good trade. Good IP contributors often don't join because they don't have to. I don't think that forcing them to join will automatically cause them to quit. --Kevin Murray 20:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think we will eventually have to ban anonymous editing once we reach the tipping point where the benefits do not outweigh the costs. But apparently the people who actually study this show that point has not been reached. What we do need now, is a change to the semi-protection policy. Now, semi protection is only imposed when there is a high rate of vandalism, and then only for a short time. We need to protect pages that are IP vandal magnets permanently. Hopefully this will reduce vandalism by protecting the high value targets. But also it will relieve the burden on the editors who try to keep those articles clean. I have stopped watching some articles like Bald Eagle because of this nonsense. This will strike a better balance between allowing IP edits and banning them altogether. We only need to protect probably less than 1% of the total articles, so this should not discourage new users much at all. Dhaluza 20:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Though there are certain valid arguments for banning IP editing, your's doesn't make sense to me. You argue that it would be awful to find out your IP has been blocked from editing when it wasn't you who incurred the block, so the solution is to just block all IPs indiscriminately? Atropos 20:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you are responding back at me Atropos, then yes. It isn't a bad idea, just have a big, attractive message at the top of this website that encourages people to create an account. As I said, you don't have to start out as an ip user to figure out how to edit. Of course, the possibility of being blocked/banned just because someone shares the ip of an innocent is preposterous. I believe the statistics are true; too many anons just vandalize for the hell of it and established users feel more comfort and vandalize less. Of course this is speculation, but rather intellectual speculation. Ips must be banned. Lord Sesshomaru
- Foundation policy says no. That said, I think about 70% of anon edits are good faith edits (although some are not exactly of the greatest quality). I've encountered many anons who revert vandalism and many anons who source their statements. The other 30% is fairly easily revertable stuff given the number of RC patrollers. Sure, some vandalism gets through, but that's what's expected. Yes, 70%, based on some surveys that have been thrown around. Good faith edits are hard to come by and anons are a good source of them. After all, vandals do not necessarily stick to IPs. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- people should be pragmatic about this. A complete ban of IP editing is not politically an option right now, but it is an option that we need to keep scrutinizing. We should not hand around statistics about how useful IP edits are that are long outdated (and were never very convincing to begin with). The pragmatic approach is long-term semiprotection. I believe it will become more and more "socially acceptable" to leave developed articles sprotected indefinitely. Many already are. With this option of selectively banning IPs from editing articles, we can make the required transition to a less IP-friendly Wikipedia without the tedium of having to revolutionize policy. dab (𒁳) 21:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- I like the idea that says we keep this under review. But banning of IP editting presently will lead to vandals creating accounts to vandalise still - we would just remove "casual" vandals and kids wanting to have some "fun." The serious vandals or issue-heads would simply register - we already have more than enough evidence of that on semi-protected articles. The idea is that anyone can edit Wikipedia, and we should keep as close to that principle as possible, which in my opinion a blanket ban would not. Rgds, - Trident13 22:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- I guess ips shall continue editing the Wikipedia. I lose this one, heh. Lord Sesshomaru
- I don't see this as a loss, but a primary step. However, I think that this change must come at the highest levels, and to affect such a change we need dialog. --Kevin Murray 00:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I guess ips shall continue editing the Wikipedia. I lose this one, heh. Lord Sesshomaru
This is a perennial proposal, and is impossible to enact because it clashes with Foundation issues. Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering is a foundation issue (it's basically a principle of all WMF projects). As long as they're sponsoring us (ie, paying bills and other expenses) we live by their rules on certain things, editing without registering and NPOV are just two examples. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 03:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
There's one argument for permitting IP edits which I haven't heard anywhere yet... Currently, the vast majority of vandalism, test edits and good-faith edits which are unencyclopaedic comes from anons who don't take the time to register. This way, we can easily filter the anons from the regular users. If account creation would be required, then it is much harder to see the difference between genuine users and vandals. Currently, most "innocent" vandals (i.e. people who don't really know much about wikipedia and think it's fun to replace a page sometime and see what happens) are IPs, and it should stay that way, for the sake of countering vandalism. SalaSkan 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- The entry barrier (registering) is low for the folks we want to be here. If somebody has too little time to register, cannot read the instructions or fears to be identified (and is too stupid to think of a non-identifying username), it's hardly a good contributor. On the other hand, vandalism takes time from contributors who could be writing new material. It can frustrate contributors and even discourage them from contributing. Would you add your text to a vandalized page? I don't think so. You would probably want to revert the vandalism first. But learning how to deal with vandalism is a higher entry barrier than registering! It requires interacting with other (potentially evil and cunning) users, which is not always easy option e.g. for a foreign math professor who would look up "dude" in a dictionary. Please don't just consider the changes made by IPs. Please consider the changes that could have been made if Wikipedia pages were in a good shape most of the time. Proski 01:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
By doing this people will not be able to try Wikipedia before they register, people will not want to get involved with something they cannot "Run!" right back out of, it is a lot like "try it before you buy it". Tcrow777 talk 23:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tcrow777. IPs (as a whole) should not be banned just to prevent vandalism. I used to edit under an IP, then I switched to an account. After the troubles I had (namely having my password cracked and changed) I made a new account, one that is more serious. If I never had the chance to use an IP to edit (spelling errors and such) I would've used a Bugmenot account, and if that didn't exist (it doesn't), I wouldn't have given it a second glance. Rahk E✘[[ my disscussions | Who Is ]] 02:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- I first heard about Wikipedia on ABC world news! Based on my original ideas of Wikipedia: if it was not for IP editing, I would not register on Wikipedia with a 1,000 foot pole. Tcrow777 talk 02:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't pretend to know what percentage of IP edits are good or bad. What I do know is that a lot of the articles on my watchlist get vandalized a lot, and a surprising portion of that vandalism is reverted by IP editors. I see IPs pop up all the time fighting vandalism. Is more of the vandalism I see from IPs than registered accounts? I'd say so. (though I'm seeing a lot more newbie accounts doing vandalism than I used to) But they definitely have some very good merits, both in fighting vandalism, and also in good-faith edits to articles. Overall, I'd prefer to assume good faith, and not ban an entire group of editors, just because some of them are up to no good. Is there any reason they can't register? Nah. But I don't see why they should have to. Bladestorm 03:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the vote of confidence, Bladestorm. Tens of thousands of anonymous editors like myself will do our very best to justify your faith. 67.189.48.7 20:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Television episode notability
There are a rash of articles on Wikipedia aboout individual television episodes which will never meet notability guidelines, and thus do not warrant their own article. At Episode coverage taskforce we have been working on ways to encourage editors and contributors to provide relevant episode information on list or season pages, and use individual pages for notable episodes only. Consequently, we have expanded Episode guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, working on a few 'how to' project pages, and also developing a review process for problem pages. In the past, unnotable pages have been merged or redirected on sight, or left mouldering with unactioned clean-up tags. This proposal provides for a tagging of problem pages, encouraging improvement, and a process for review and action (as appropriate). Come and see Wikipedia:Television article review process and add comments on the talk page. Gwinva 07:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Everyone knows the old Wikipedia adage, "If it's on TV, its per se notable." Now quit whining and go back to editing please. Gatorphat 03:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Most television episodes can be potentially watched by millions, and redistributed in some other country, attracting more notice, hence TV episodes are notable for being themselves.--Kylohk 21:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
All articles on Wikipedia must conform to WP:NOTABILITY. Just because something exists, or is seen by millions, does not mean it is automatically notable. I exist. Over my life, I will be seen by millions. Does that make me notable? Television might be an easily accessible medium, but that in no way determines that everything on it is notable. Gwinva 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting comparison (between the TV and you) Rahk E✘[[ my disscussions | Who Is ]] 02:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Bad comparison. You are accidently seen by millions over your life time. That is a world of difference from millions of people intentionally looking at you. I'll bet that you must be a notable person for certain if millions of people are intentionally looking at you! Mathmo Talk 11:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, poor analogy...But existing, and being watched (out of choice or otherwise) does not make something noteable. Being commented on by many (reliable sources) does (see WP:NOTABILITY). There are thousands of programmes on television every day; no way will they all meet notability guidelines, since not enough people care enough about them to write about them (reviews, out-of-universe production and commentary information). ALL articles on Wikipedia neet to assert their notability. Most programmes have enough information to sustain 'list of' or season pages, but there is not enough real-world commentary to warrant articles on EVERY episode on EVERY programme. SOME programmes will. SOME episodes will. Great..lets create good pages on those. If they don't, then let's create good season and episode-list pages. Gwinva 13:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Bad comparison. You are accidently seen by millions over your life time. That is a world of difference from millions of people intentionally looking at you. I'll bet that you must be a notable person for certain if millions of people are intentionally looking at you! Mathmo Talk 11:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I say that if there is a "rash of articles" on something, contributed by people not trying to force some agenda, and it does not meet the notability guidelines, then it is the guidelines that are at fault. 208.76.104.133 08:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- That arguement doesn't work, I'm afraid. Ever watched the speed with which articles are created at Special:Newpages? An epidemic rather than a rash... Wikipedia has guidelines about which pages should remain...and it must continue to do so if it is to remain an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate collection of information. Other wikis exist for that purpose, but not Wikipedia. Gwinva 08:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to add in response to the top of this section that nothing is notable just for being itself. 81.104.175.145 21:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps another way of stating this, that people might like to think about, maybe bring up elsewhere... in most categories of 'thing', should a particular only be considered notable if it is notable among such things? Obviously nations, currencies, heads of state, and so on can't meet this test, but otherwise it seems appropriate. Admittedly it fails to be objective, at least easily, but it has a certain feeling of sense, to my mind. SamBC 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Rumours
I would like to start a discussion here on the inclusion of rumours in articles for upcoming films and TV shows. A great deal of effort is put into editing such articles by editors who will start by AGF and reverting politely but end up getting obsessive and possessive. A quick look at the talk pages for upcoming TV shows and films will reveal a number of editors being very terse in their quoting of Wiki rules and basically giving an air of ownership of the pages in question. I would like to propose a compromise that might help to calm things down a little.
I propose the inclusion of rumours from specific types of sources (newspapers, TV shows and certain other sources(the standards of which to be decided by consensus)) within a "Rumours" section on the main page or on a seperate "rumours about x" linked page. Consensus would then decide if the rumours section (or what portions thereof) would remain on the page following the release/airing of the film/show.
Reasoning
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it should include all relevant information on a topic. Rumours that can be sourced appropriately are relevant facts on a topic prior to any substantial fact PROVIDED THAT THEY ARE CLEARLY MARKED AS RUMOURS and that they CLEARLY mark if they are proved or disproved in the end.
Further to this Wikipedia is an evolving encyclopedia and whilst one can look back through the history of an article or the archives on a talk page the constant evolution of articles can also be seen as a negative too. Before the release of a film large sections of the population may believe certain facts about that film that are then proven to be untrue. These may, currently, get a passing mention but on the whole that whole point in the film's history will be lost on Wikipedia thus it could be argued that the article on that film is incomplete.
An incidental point on this is that such a section would highlight the inaccuracy of the press and certain "reliable" sites. By having these sections on articles one will be able to clearly see after the release of a film just how inaccurate the reporting of said film was in the press. This is something the press likes to sweep under the carpet with their constant avalanche of new issues.
In Summary
I believe that by having a rumour section with clear rules and scope that pressure will be taken off editors and that inexperienced editors will feel less frustated. I believe that beyond this there is a compelling argument that these rumours are part of the history of a film or TV series and that they are a part of the gestalt experience of said films or TV episodes that we as an encyclopedia are wrong in omiting.
I am posting here to ask for comments and not to start arguments. Thank you for taking the time to read my proposal. AlanD 22:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- While I apprechiate your contribution it utterly ignores addressing any of my points. I am proposing a change of policy and I have set out my reasoning for that change. Simply quoting what "Wikipedia is not" does not address my points. Obviously Wikipedia currently doesn't support this otherwise I would not be asking for a change of policy. I am not proposing that rumours are reported as fact nor that such rumours should take over. I am proposing that the major rumours are part of the whole history of a film/TV show and that to ignore them utterly ignores part of the whole experience and is a diservice to the history of said film/TV show. I am putting this here to have dicussions for and against not to just have statements of Wikipedia's current policy. I do apprechiate you taking the time to comment and I'm sorry if my reply sounds rude but I, personally, felt your reply was terse and didn't address anything I'd proposed. I've got broad shoulders but new editors haven't and such replies could put them off editing rather than encouraging them to edit better. Again sorry if I sound rude but I wasn't asking if this fitted with current policy but what people felt the arguments for and against including rumours in any limited form were as a new policy. AlanD 23:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Something I forgot to say before is that I do not believe that this proposed change in policy should mark a move towards Wikipedia becoming a movie rumour site or a crystalball if you will. That is NOT the proposal. I do not believe that unsubstantiated rumours should be presented as fact. I am asking that the FACT that certain rumours have been presented in the press (etc) as facts should be presented and CLEARLY stated as such. It is the media's interest in the film/TV series and how this has been taken on by fans (the latter to a lesser extent as it will be harder to source appropriately) that I feel is missing from articles currently. I hope this makes more sense and clarifies my position and proposal a little more. AlanD 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a newspaper and weather forecasting site. Wait a week or month for the actual event to become history. Over at Wikinews there is a section for stories written for events which have not happened yet. I have one such story sitting in my local disk drives, not even uploaded yet, while waiting for the event to have happened. (SEWilco 02:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC))
- I agree and that IS NOT what I am proposing. I don't know if I'm not being very clear or if... well I don't know what. I am not supporting the reporting of rumours as facts or that rumours should dominate. I am proposing that the reporting of rumours be mentioned in articles. We already mention controversy or differing points of view. I am saying that the reporting of rumours (and their subsequent proving or disproving) is part of the whole experience of a film/TV show and that it should be reported in a limited fashion. AlanD 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is a problem with this proposal. If it were allowed, everyone may add prediction articles about every thing that may or may not happen in every movie. At least for elections, they clearly report the ratings of each candidate, but you can never know about films unless the producers officially say something.--Kylohk 21:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- For elections, a record of candidate "ratings" may be useful as a historical record, and it would be helpful if it were assembled as such whether the election has happened yet or not. Dated records should be maintained, not only the most recent results. (SEWilco 04:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC))
- In the matter of entertainment and sports related subjects rumour is very much part of the business; ideas, scenarios, deals, signings. etc are often unofficially leaked to gain leverage or to guage opinion. It would, however, require scrupolous citing to industry publications rather than the gossip columns of daily newspapers or listings magazines. It is likely that there would be considerable debate over the validity of sources should this be considered as allowable. I think any wording should be very carefully considered since even quoting some other source will not always protect WP's reputation if a rumour was included which proved to be embarrassingly inaccurate. Any agreed policy would also require vigorous policing. It may be possible to to this, but is it practical? LessHeard vanU 23:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- The way I see it if the rumours are utterly unfounded and embarressing then it would be no embarressment to us on here. I am not proposing we start predicting the future (as I have said numerous times) but that we report that the rumour is/was out there within x, y, z newspaper. If it turns out to be embarressingly false a) it is no reflection on us as we NEVER presented it as fact b) It would serve as a last reflection on the organisation that originally reported it. I agree it would require policing but I don't agree that the tabloids should be exempt. If the Sun, for example, runs a whole page article on an upcoming TV show with a screaming headline and an advert for the article on the front page AND then the rumour runs wild over the web (including lots of folks having to delete it from the wikipedia page for that show) then I AM NOT SUGGESTING that we cite the information as FACT. We cite the FACT that the Sun reported this information and that it spread as it did. Something along the lines of a "prepublicity" section, nothing big. We pare it down to the bone and keep it as simple and neutral as possible (possibly with a disclaimer above that section of the page (something that is done when folks are tying Doctor Who books into the TV show but in this case we'd be MUCH stronger and make it clear that this is the presentation of rumours not of facts). And, heck, if it turns out the Sun was embaressingly wrong then we, neutrally, say so. That is our role. AlanD 18:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- There could be a potential problem with public perception if it became known that Wikipedia were to support your proposal. Firstly though, what 'pressure' are you experiencing in your current editing role in its current format - avoiding the inclusion of rumours and speculation? As an inexperienced editor, I certainly don't feel 'frustrated' in my contributions as you generalise in your proposal. Reporting on what exists now is the role of an online encyclopedia, and although there may be a number of fervent fans on the movie/film pages of this online encyclopedia, it is not an indication that it should degenerate the reporting standards in that area for the sake of them. That is largely the role of the dedicated fan sites and tabloid media.
- There is also no clear (or compelling) benefit to the inclusion of this proposal. Rather, in the context of film, literature or similar works, it would hamper the ability to freely interpret and enjoy the work in one's own terms. The accuracy of the content would be overlaid with 'an interpretation' that may differ from the reader's, and contradict the 'gestalt' experience of the movie/film/book. You might object to someone else's rumour, speculation or subjective interpretation of a favourite TV character being bundled in with a wikipedia article on it. I know that I certainly would, and I would resent what I believe to be a fact-based online encyclopedia and its well-meaning contributors for attempting such.
- Further, if the publishers took issue with the content or implications made in your proposed style of reporting, then the innocent addition of information could be legally complicated where they could find that your highly skilled and enthusiastic interest has inadvertently provided a spoiler to their next production.
- The adoption of your proposal therefore poses more serious issues than the benefits it offers, though I do admire your conviction and choice of examples. -Cheers Mark Vincent- Andmark 17:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - but I believe any verifiable fact from a reliable source ought to be a candidate for inclusion. For some topics, such as video games not yet released, this is our only source of information. The "just wait" argument is silly - readers want to know about the subject before this information is available. The price that Wikipedia pays for its rapid updates is the expectation that we'll cover new topics and keep our facts up-to-date over time. Dcoetzee 02:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- This would make Wikipedia less reliable. The "just wait" argument is not silly if we want Wikipedia to strive for accuracy. Movies/games/etc. often get rumors that never pan out, or the project dies early. We already have enough problems with rumored products (Shrek 4, for example) getting articles created even though there's nothing but vague rumors available to base an article on. Yes, we are expected to keep our facts up to date, which means they must be verifiable, not rumors. -- Kesh 04:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I believe I used the word "verifiable". The word "rumours" is loaded, but in the media is frequently used to refer merely to information that is not "officially released". Something conveyed by mere word of mouth from some unknown source clearly does not satisfy our standards of verifiability, but something based on, say, a analysis by a well-known industry insider, or leaked documents that have been traced to the publisher by an authority, might be considered "rumours" but are still directly verifiable and reliable if properly cited (i.e., an unofficial analysis ought to be referred to as such, and should have sufficient notability in its own right). Dcoetzee 06:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- This would make Wikipedia less reliable. The "just wait" argument is not silly if we want Wikipedia to strive for accuracy. Movies/games/etc. often get rumors that never pan out, or the project dies early. We already have enough problems with rumored products (Shrek 4, for example) getting articles created even though there's nothing but vague rumors available to base an article on. Yes, we are expected to keep our facts up to date, which means they must be verifiable, not rumors. -- Kesh 04:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Nationality
First of all, apologies if this has been discussed here before, but this is something I have come across many times and would like to discuss this to try and put a stop to the edit warring that is occurring.
There are many articles about Scots on Wikipedia - some sporting infoboxes have a nationality tag and in the case of anyone born in Scotland, their nationality is British, as Scotland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Many times I have seen their nationality set to Scottish with a Scottish flag alongside. In my eyes, this is wrong. Nationality is about which sovereign country you are from. If we allow autonomous communities to represent someone's nationality then that means including Quebec, Catalonia, Valencia, Bavaria, Walloon et al.
I'm in no way stating that we should not mention that someone is from Scotland, but as far as their nationality goes, describing someone as a Scottish national is plain wrong. Scottish nationality has not existed since 1707 when the United Kingdom was formed with the Acts of Union. People from the United Kingdom are British citizens, as described on their passports. I believe that stating otherwise is not NPOV, due to having political undertones to do with independence movements.
I would like to suggest that Wikipedia policy be amended to state that a person's nationality must refer to a sovereign state. Readro 22:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose proposal. If a person self-identifies as Scottish, that would be their nationality. Scotland does have its own national parliament, I believe. Badagnani 22:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- But Scotland is not a sovereign state. How far do you take it? If someone self-identifies as, say, Gallifreyan, it would be daft for an encyclopedia to list that as their nationality. Readro 22:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neither is Northern Ireland but a lot of people don't consider themselves British there as well as others not considering themselves Irish.It has been and still is to an extent a highly charged political situation so if somebody self-identifies as just being from Northern Ireland that should be allowed .Garda40 22:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- But Scotland is not a sovereign state. How far do you take it? If someone self-identifies as, say, Gallifreyan, it would be daft for an encyclopedia to list that as their nationality. Readro 22:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the important distinction should be the self-identification. If, for example, John Smith self-identifies as being Scottish, instead of British, then Wikipedia could indicate as such. If, however, John Smith does not express any public preference, then Jane Doe (Wikipedia editor/Scottish nationalist) should not be permitted to change "British" to "Scottish". Thoughts? --Ckatzchat</font>spy 23:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- But the problem I see is that how far do we take it? One former NASCAR driver self-identified as being from the Confederate States of America. Should that be allowed too? What about Québécois? In my opinion, we need an unbiased criteria to discern what is allowable, and limiting acceptibility to sovereign states is the obvious choice. Readro 00:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- In the absence of any strict criteria that define a 'nation', we must simply use our common sense: if a significant number of people identify themselves as having a certain nationality, then that nationality exists. I admit 'a significant number' is still vague and undefined - but self-evidently, the millions of people who identify themselves as 'Scottish' would qualify (see Scottish people), while the tiny minority who call themselves 'Confederate' or 'Gallifreyan' would not. Terraxos 08:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is a debate that frequently crops up outside of Wikipedia. Often, it's about whether or not Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland qualify as countries. The nationality slant is new to me, I must admit, but I think that the same applies to this also. Technically, of course, people from these respective countries are British - they are British subjects. However, I think self-identification is very important. It's not fair for people to suggest that Scotland isn't a real country or nationality when, under the same criteria, England isn't a real country and English isn't a real nationality! For some reason, you never hear that argument levelled at us (I'm English) as if we're somehow different or above that (most persons respond with: "Well of course England is a country!". Therefore, if it can be determined what nationality someone identifies themselves as, I think that is what should be stated. Blaise Joshua 12:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Some people don't care. Some people would care very much. Scotland is a country, it has a parliament, it has its own banknotes. Many Scots describe themselves as Scottish first and "British" last. This isn't just about some Scots being Pro-Scottish, it's about some Scots being vehemently anti-English. It's easier, and nicer, if we allow people to use either. With maybe wikilinks to relevant articles about Scotland and Britain so that people can learn the difference. I know that trying to 'force' the use of a nationality will cause very many megabytes of bad-tempered discussion and edit-warring, just for "Scottish" vs "British", let alone any other nations. Dan Beale 12:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Your examples are not the same. You are describing areas of a country (Quebec etc) not countries. Scotland is a country within a union (the United Kingdom of... etc a United Kingdom of seperate nations). It is described internally and externally as a seperate country and is recognised as such. It is governed by UK paraliment but it has borders, seperately printed bank notes (although the same currency), a seperate parliment, a seperate eduation system, a seperate health care system, a seperate flag and NATIONAL teams for sports (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are seperate nations in the World Cup and Commonwealth games for example. They are not described as regions but as nations. This was raised in the news when Cornwall tried to compete in the Commonwealth games seperately). It may not be a fully autonomous country currently it is still a country not a region or a state. AlanD 16:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Moving beyond self-identification for the moment... in articles about historic personages the Scottish ID in an infobox may well be absolutely appropriate. Certainly for anyone living prior to the Act of Union in the early 1700s. Blueboar 18:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm just not convinced that, as a matter of encyclopedic integrity, we can take self-identification as our absolute here. If two people can be born to the same parents, grow up in the same house, live in the same places, hold the same nationality and passport, but still end up with one being 'British' and one 'Scottish', 'Welsh' or 'English', then that information is more or less meaningless.
- Scotland does have a parliament, but it's a subordinate body of the Westminster parliament - Scottish regions are still represented in Westminster on the same basis as English, Welsh and Northern Irish ones. Bodies on not entirely dissimilar lines have been proposed for the regions of England, but no-one would have then said they were each a separate country. Bank notes are printed by several banks in Scotland; but they are not legal tender in the technical sense - the only legal tender in Scotland is Royal Mint coins, which are the same across Britain; and in practice, Scottish and English notes are equally accepted in all regions. It has a flag; but then so do Cornwall and various other regions.
- I'm also not sure it's consistent with how we treat areas in non-English-speaking parts of the world. The Basque region, for example, has its own borders, its own flag, its own parliament, even its own president. Many of its residents would identify very strongly as Basque, not Spanish. Yet we still begin the article on Juan José Ibarretxe with "Juan José Ibarretxe Markuartu (born 15 March 1957)[1] is a Spanish politician."
- The problem with recognising someone as belonging to the 'Confederate States of America' is not that not very many people identify as being from there; but that no international body recognises its existence. Similarly, Paddy Roy Bates may identify himself as Sealandish, and even issue passports, but we should still consider him British because no country or international body recognises Sealand as a nation.
- I would have thought that we are best sticking to internationally-recognised nations for determining nationality; and for all international purposes, the nation is the United Kingdom. No-one holds a Scottish passport; no nation has a Scottish embassy; no-one represents Scotland to the UN.
- This is no slight on Scotland, which is a very important cultural entity - and, of course, for pre-1707 citizens, "Scottish" is entirely appropriate; but I think that, if our designations of nationality are to have any meaning at all, they need to be based on internationally-recognised nations - what passport the person would be recognised under; not self-identified nationalities. Self-identifications can of course also be mentioned if they are sourced; but if one person with a British passport is identified as 'British', another should not arbitrarily be identified 'English' or 'Scottish'.
- Mohamed Al-Fayed is another example that springs to mind. "Mohamed Abdel Moneim Fayed (Arabic: محمد الفايد ) (born 27 January 1929) is an Egyptian businessman and billionaire." He has lived in Britain for many years, and would like to consider himself British; he has applied several times for citizenship. Because it has not yet been granted, however, we call him Egyptian.
- If we do not have an absolute, verifiable standard for nationality such as this one, then it seems to me that we are making our information on nationality more or less useless, by not applying the same standards of verifiability and NPOV to nationalities that we expect from the rest of our data. TSP 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would say that the "self-identification" argument is not the point. Unlike the other places you have raised the status of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales as seperate nations within a union is not something that is contraversal it is commonly accepted. I honestly cannot see the problem here. The UK is a union of nations not states or regions. Seperate nations that are accepted and defined as such. I return to the "national" football teams and so forth as just minor proof of that. Plus I doubt very much if you were to go out on the streets of any British town and ask the question "Is England a country or a region?" that you'd get many responses for the latter, if any.AlanD 21:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think I would have said that England was a country but not a nation; but use of all these terms tends to be ambiguous. What it isn't, however, is a sovereign state.
- The problem with using nationalities which do not correspond to internationally-recognised, passport-issuing states is the lack of verifiability. Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh to parents from Glasgow; is he Scottish? I don't think most people would consider he was, but there's no definitive standard. On the other hand, Greg Rusedski was born and grew up in Canada - so why do we call him British? Because that is now his citizenship. For sovereign states, we can verifiably establish someone's nationality, by establishing their citizenship. For countries within a sovereign state, we have no such standard, because English and Scottish people alike (since 1707) have British citizenship. (The UAE presents similar challenges.)
- The constituent countries do play separately in some sports (but not, for example, in the Olympics) - sporting nations are often formed for reasons of history or fairness rather than recognised national boundaries - for example, no-one believes there is such a nation as the West Indies, but still it has a cricket team; and similarly, the Ireland national rugby team fields players from two nations - Irish players from the Republic and British players from Northern Ireland. There may be a case in sporting infoboxes for employing national team identifiers rather than nationalities - which would also mean that, in that context, Tony Cascarino, for example, would be identified as Irish, even though he has always been a British citizen, because there we are determining what national team they play for, not what their nationality is. That's fine, as long as we define what we mean by displaying a particular flag, and as long as it is a matter of verifiable fact.
- The fact that someone comes from Scotland, or considers themselves Scottish, is important, and should absolutely be mentioned; just as it should be mentioned if a Spaniard is from the Basque region, a United Arab Emirati from Sharjah, or indeed an American from Texas. For defining nationalities for lists and infoboxes, though, I think we should stick to verifiable nationalities: that is, the sovereign state (or states, in the case of dual nationality) which issues the person's passport. TSP 10:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that if you stick to the above suggestion, TSP, you will lose a core element of someone's biography. To take myself as an example, I was born in Ireland to English (or British, if you prefer) parents. I spent my formative years in Ireland before my family moved back to England. Then, in adulthood, I returned to Ireland. However, during all of this, I have only ever considered myself to be English, despite the fact that I have two passports and two citizenships. On what's been suggested, it would be as correct for you to describe me as Irish as it would be to describe me as British. However, I have English parents, English heritage and English culture - as much as I love Ireland, I don't consider myself Irish and none of my Irish friends and family would consider me to be Irish. While this is somewhat clearer cut because Ireland is not part of the UK (neither, technically, is N.Ireland). I believe that if you only describe someone from Wales, say, as British, you are withholding very important biographical information on that person's culture, heritage, identity and background. What is much harder, and this has been mentioned, is where the line is drawn. Many, many people consider Wales, Scotland, etc, to be individual countries. I may be opening myself to criticism of my ignorance here, but I don't believe the Basque region is (generally). Now, gentlemen, I don't really think I have anything more to add to the above discussion. However, this can be a very contentious issue and I should commend all of your for discussing it so peaceably! Best regards from the beautiful island of Ireland : o ) Blaise Joshua 11:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that any information should be left out. If you were born in England, that is a verifiable and important fact. If you live in England, that is a verifiable and important fact. If you call yourself English, that is a verifiable and important fact. But for nationality, there's no rule for which of these, if any, adds up to your being English; it becomes a matter of the editor's opinion. We can definitely say, though, that you hold British and Irish citizenship. I expect that Greg Rusedski's family and friends consider him Canadian; but nevertheless, he has taken British citizenship, so we call him British - with, of course, extensive mentions of the fact that he was born and brought up in Canada, his father is Ukranian-Canadian, and there is controversy over him taking British citizenship; but nontheless he did take that citizenship, so he is British. This rule is, from what I have seen, applied everywhere else in Wikipedia; so it should be applied for Britain too. If the citizenship they hold is British, the person is British, not Scottish, English or Welsh. It should absolutely be mentioned, if we know, where a person was born, where they live(d), and any cultures with which they self-identify; but these don't add up to a verifiable nationality. TSP 11:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- That is exactly my point TSP, although maybe you phrased it better! It would remove the ambiguity from British biography articles. If English and Scottish nationalities are allowed on Wikipedia then there will be edit wars where no party is in the wrong. With a rule, then this grey area can be eliminated. It would be OK to state that someone was English or Scottish, but when describing their nationality they should be described as British. Of course, for pre-1707 individuals, English and Scottish nationality would be allowed. Readro 12:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ok... but is nationality the same as citizenship? An Englishman may be a British citizen but his nationality may be English. AlanD 18:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- As a further point, someone who has multiple citizenships, or lives in another country now, may self-identify as being of a different nationality. A person born in the USA, but living in Australia under a visa may self-identify as Australian even if they do not have formal citizenship and spent most of their life in America. It's not a clear-cut issue, so I think the original proposal does not hold up well. -- Kesh 18:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, it holds up fine in this instance as they can self-identify as whatever they want, as long as it is a citizen of a sovereign state. In your example, either one of Australian or American would be OK, as Australia and the USA are sovereign states. Stating that they were a national of entities that are not sovereign states, such as Queensland or Florida would not be allowed though. Readro 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- As a further point, someone who has multiple citizenships, or lives in another country now, may self-identify as being of a different nationality. A person born in the USA, but living in Australia under a visa may self-identify as Australian even if they do not have formal citizenship and spent most of their life in America. It's not a clear-cut issue, so I think the original proposal does not hold up well. -- Kesh 18:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ok... but is nationality the same as citizenship? An Englishman may be a British citizen but his nationality may be English. AlanD 18:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would have said that we should consider them as being nationals of whatever nation they hold citizenship of. We should note if they choose to self-identify as belonging to another nation, but if they do not actually hold citizenship of that nation we should not consider it their nationality. If we are going to consider someone to be Australian based on self-identification, we might as well consider people to be citizens of the Confederate States of America based on self-identification. TSP 10:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
If your proposal were to go into effect we could never identify anyone as being a Kurd, for example, or the Korean runner who had to compete for Japan in the Olympics prior to World War II (can't remember his name now), would have to be listed as Japanese, even though he was Korean. Corvus cornix 03:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, that's not the case. Stating that someone is a Kurd is fine, as long as when explicitly referring to their nationality a sovereign state is used. The Korean runner could still be called Korean because Korea was still a sovereign state, but it was under Japanese rule. Readro 09:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Nationality is a very personal characteristic, hugely important to many people. I am hesitant to tell Scots (for example) that they must register as Britons; my English friends, after all, refer to themselves as English, not as British. I don't consider it my right - nor Wikipedia's - to tell people what flag they should associate with their homeland, heritage, or self-identity. The "sovereign state" argument holds no water with me. Why not just ask people to input a longitude and latitude? This sidesteps the issue of citizenship and nationality entirely, and just identifies people by geographic location. 67.189.48.7 20:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would agree to some extent. However, when your English friends refer to themselves as English are they instantly "corrected" by someone else telling them they are British? The problem that exists on Wikipedia is the constant back-and-forth editing of articles which means some articles have people going from English to British and back again many many times. Without a rule to stop it, this silly edit warring will continue. This is why there needs to be a rule. Readro 20:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Editing other people's comments...
So is it OK to edit another user's comments on talk pages and discussions just to correct spelling and grammar errors? I notice that a lot of wikipedians have terrible spellng and grammer problems. Gatorphat 02:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Spellng and grammer problems." No comment. Raymond Arritt 14:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments. Usually, the point of the message still gets across, no matter how poor the grammar or spelling. If it's really unclear, it's better to just ask what they meant. Sancho 02:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah but its freaking imbarrassing to have such iliterate comments strewn all over wikipedia. I think that "policy" needs to be recidned. It's an uttre imbarrassment. I mean like 20 per cent of the comments on the talk pages have major speling and grammer problems. Gatorphat 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's human interaction for you. Discussion pages aren't supposed to produce encyclopedic content, only discussion: we don't need to worry about appearances. Sancho 03:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- And don't forget that a great many of our contributors are not native English speakers, so please have a little patience. And I don't agree that it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia unless it's in an article or policy page. Talk pages are expected to be a little more conversational, and thus less than perfect. And yes, we get the ironie in your coments. -- Satori Son 03:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's human interaction for you. Discussion pages aren't supposed to produce encyclopedic content, only discussion: we don't need to worry about appearances. Sancho 03:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- It only seems polite to fix an obvious error or typo, but I can see a slippery slope there. --Kevin Murray 08:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen people throw a ridiculous fit for the smallest things (see the talk page for one since-blocked troll's little spat), like the little alignment thing I just did in this edit. Personally, I say only correct someone's spelling when you have to decipher their post over a few minutes, never correct their grammar, and at least try to correct their formatting when they have no sense of how comments are indented. One thing I hate is when people just can't pick up on the indenting. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
In general, it's the best idea just to leave others' comments alone. There may be exceptions to this (such as when people are disrupting a talk page by discussing totally off-topic stuff), but as to spelling corrections or poor grammar, just leave it. If nothing else, the fact that someone spells "you" as "u" and can't put together a coherent sentence gives a good idea how much (or little) weight should be accorded to their opinion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- (cough)I presume that folk noticed that Gatorphat mis-spelt vatious worms in his konchreebushions, and mae bee induljeen in WP:POYNT? LessHeard vanU 12:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, you shouldn't edit other editors' comments for spelling or grammar. Even if you mean well, it can be seen as condescending. You might also be inadvertently 'correcting' a perfectly acceptable regional spelling variation or local idiom. Worse still, you would run the risk of altering the meaning of the original comment. (If the reason for 'fixing' a comment is that it is hard to understand, it stands to reason that the 'fix' may actually be a misinterpretation of the original poster's intent.) Making 'repairs' to other editors' comments amounts to putting words in their mouths. They've signed the words that they typed; going and editing their signed remarks misleads subsequent readers about what was actually said, and by whom.
- Far, far better is to ask for a clarification, or to state any assumptions that you make about a comment's intent when you reply. Restate the question in your own words with your own signature, if you'd like. Fix formatting (indents and such) where the original formatting is misleading (a leading space on a line, a missed colon in indenting a multiparagraph comment, etc.) but use a light hand. The one exception to the 'don't fix spelling' rule might be broken wikilinks, but only in cases where the poster's intent is absolutely and unquestionably obvious. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly. The light hand philosophy is even stronger in situations where you're participating in the discussion already, rather than just reading through it. on the other hand, editing your OWN posts for spelling (like I just did on this one!) is okay CredoFromStart talk 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I for one perfer to rule with heavy hand, like Stalin. And in the future, just refer to me as "The 'Phat." Gatorphat 01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes, when I am Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, I may fix spelling. I may fix spelling in AfDs where it is clear that the contributor unintentionally misspelled the word. Much less often, I may fix spelling on an article talk page where it is clear that the contributor unintentionally misspelled the word and the discussion is six months or more old. I would advise against "fixing" user talk page posts. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be confrontational, but to illustrate what you're proposing 'Phat, I fixed the incorrect grammar I don't think you intended as part of the point you later made by intentionally making mistakes. You said: "So it is OK to...?" Which isn't a question by grammatical standards. Is it ok to fix this... is asking if it's acceptable to fix this, compared to It is ok to fix this... which is not asking anything. Anynobody 01:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's probably not such a good idea, in that it will have a greater detriment (of upsetting people and causing meaningless quarrels) than actual benefit (there's lots of junk on talk pages anyway, but the encyclopedia is more important). >Radiant< 07:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Swedish Letters in Defaultsorting
Swedish has 3 letters additional to the English alphabet. These are Å, Ä, and Ö. They are actual letters, not letters modified by diacritical marks or accents. In defaultsorting names starting with these letters, what is the Wikipedia policy? Should they be sorted by their correct spelling, or should these letters be replace with A, A, and O, so that they sort into the wrong place in the alphabet? DuncanHill 12:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Standard English practice is to fold all such letters back into the alphabetic place of the base letter; thus "Åland" sorts right after "Alan" and before "Alans". Note that even if you wanted some other, non-English sort order, there'd be technically no way to get it. By default, the Wikimedia software sorts all non-Ascii accented letters after the end of the alphabet. That happens to coincide with the Swedish convention in the case of "Å", but it certainly doesn't fit the native conventions in many other cases of non-English orthographies. Thus, the only way to get consistency is to specify a defaultsort string stripping off all diacritics: {{DEFAULTSORT:Aland}}. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- My point was that they are not diacritics but if that is policy then I suppose I will just have to live with people being listed in places I wouldn't exxpect to find them. Hey ho. DuncanHill 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think that although they aren't diacritics in the Swedish alphabet, they are in the English alphabet, which is the alphabet (asciibet) the English Wikipedia uses for sorting. -- JHunterJ 13:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- My point was that they are not diacritics but if that is policy then I suppose I will just have to live with people being listed in places I wouldn't exxpect to find them. Hey ho. DuncanHill 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think the main problem with this is that English and Swedish aren't the only languages used in names. Different languages (and I expect publishers) have different collation conventions, and it would be pretty much impossible to follow them all. Doing so would also be a problem for users who may not know that a given name is Swedish, or even if they do, what the Swedish order is. (I also foresee a problem with some names being sorted one way and others another, but that's not a long-term problem.) So, we should use one standard order for all names regardless of language. I think folding is probably the way to go, but I could be convinced that another solution would be better. — The Storm Surfer 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I do believe folding is what most English-speaking people would expect, and this is the English-language wikipedia after all. >Radiant< 07:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- They should be collated after Z (though native Swedish has no Z) over on se:, but here on en: they should be folded in, immediately after the lone letter if there is a conflict (if all three of the following existed, Åland should immediately follow Aland but precede Alanda). If there is a conflict between two accented characters, then we face the prospect of the universe destroying itself. 81.104.175.145 21:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I do believe folding is what most English-speaking people would expect, and this is the English-language wikipedia after all. >Radiant< 07:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Better Statistics
There are stats for the most viewed pages each month, however what I think would be more useful is a list of the most edited pages. This could be done on an absolute monthly basis (ie Article X was edited 1000 times in June), as well as a historical basis (ie Article X has had an average 5 edits per day).
That way, you can get a feel for which article is hot at the moment in terms of content being updated, as well as which articles have had the most work done to them. Suicup 11:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- The results would be predictable. Of course, the most edited pages on the project are Wikipedia:Sandbox and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, with one edit every two minutes or so. The most edited articles will include some perennial vandalism targets (see Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages) and current events such as Virginia Tech Massacre, which I presume is still a hot topic more than two months after it occurred. Shalom Hello 09:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Proposed clarification of Content forking guideline
A proposal has been made to incorporate a new term ("ownership forking") to describe portions of existing guidelines on content forking.. Discussion on the proposed clarification is on the guideline talk page at Ownership forking revision proposal. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
New policy proposal
This proposal has been rejected by the community. Tcrow777 talk 02:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I've proposed a new policy at Wikipedia:Non-merit attacks. I'd like to see some consensus there. Thanks. Cool Bluetalk to me 01:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
|
Template:User en-6
Does this template fit within Wikipedia policy? Is this a pre-curser to de-6 or fr-6 Tcrow777 talk 07:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- You may want to see the discussion regarding its deletion. — The Storm Surfer 07:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Question regarding press release
Can someone help me take a look at Malden Mills? An anonymous user has been contributing a good bit of information today, including a copy-pasted press release. Should these edits be reverted? Besides a drastic need for wikification, is there anything 'wrong' with the article? Thanks -- Ratiocinate 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Press releases are generally not reliable sources. Further, a straight copy & paste is a copyright violation and must be reverted. -- Kesh 17:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
CSD R2
There is a discussion currently going on about the rewording of CSD R2 to make it more efficient for the RFD process. The discussion at WT:CSD#CSD R2. Thanks. Cool Bluetalk to me 17:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Rules applied to Featured Article before presentation on the main page
Recently Islam was presented on the main page as the featured article on June 1. What happened was that during June 1 and one, two days before it User:Beit Or and User:Arrow740 made significant changes to the article each receiving objections from some editors. The edit of User:Arrow740 was removed but that of User:Beit Or was preserved through edit-warring by users User:Proabivouac, User:Arrow740, and User:Sefringle despite a couple of editors expressed their objections to the new version.
Learning a lesson from the recent experience, I would like to suggest the following:
- When an article is supposed to be presented on the main page, no editor should unilaterally re-write a section of the article a day or two days before its appearance on the main page. Featured articles are featured because they have passed the peer-review process etc etc. The sections that are replaced recently may not have the quality one would expect. They may not even be neutral since they have been just written.
- Further, those who try to preserve an undiscussed version through edit-warring should be blocked in the future as violators of WP:OWN.
In fact, it might be best to revert back to the version that achieved consensus for being Featured article and present that version on the main page --Aminz 01:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- What should happen is that articles should be permanently protected in the state they were in when they passed FA. That's the only way to prevent WP:OWN violations.Proabivouac 01:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Protecting pages indefinitely just because they hit FA-class is absurd. We can always improve an article. If anything, having them indefinitely protected would heighten WP:OWN problems, since it would mean that the article is going to be at one person's "my revision" forever, and it would be very difficult to get consensus for any real change since it would require an {{editprotected}} request. --tjstrf talk 02:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think you have not read my proposal in detail. The version that the article has recieved consensus for becoming FA is not anybody's version; it is the consensus. --Aminz 02:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- In any case, my proposal only requires not rewriting a section of the article within a day or two of its public presentation. --Aminz 02:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I was replying to Proabivouac, actually. Not you. Your idea sounds like a good one in general, though I'm not certain that it's important enough to be worth the effort and WP:CREEP it entails. --tjstrf talk 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh. Sorry. I thought you were replying to me :P --Aminz 02:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose I should have added an emoticon to indicate my intent. There is something nearly contradictory in appealing to WP:OWN while asking that articles be locked into "approved" versions. There are several good arguments that can be made for protecting main page articles, but WP:OWN isn't one of them.Proabivouac 02:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- WP:OWN is relevant in the context of edit-warring for keeping a recently re-written section. --Aminz 02:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I was replying to Proabivouac, actually. Not you. Your idea sounds like a good one in general, though I'm not certain that it's important enough to be worth the effort and WP:CREEP it entails. --tjstrf talk 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Protecting pages indefinitely just because they hit FA-class is absurd. We can always improve an article. If anything, having them indefinitely protected would heighten WP:OWN problems, since it would mean that the article is going to be at one person's "my revision" forever, and it would be very difficult to get consensus for any real change since it would require an {{editprotected}} request. --tjstrf talk 02:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Indefinite protection is absurd, but I think it should be fully protected from like 2days before it goes up, till after it's taken down. This way we can stop any vandalism it attracts going onto the main article, and keep any major changes from going on with out consensus. Once it's taken off the main page it could be unprotected. Just my 2cents --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- If it gets fully protected two days before presentation, then we should ask others not to edit it just before protection. I think we should have show the public some stable version.--Aminz 02:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Articles linked from the main page should never be protected; they're our showcase of the wiki way. So you might get away with "two days before til the moment it goes up on the main page". --Golbez 02:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Aminz actually added ridiculous apologetics to the article the day it was on the main page, and posted many disruptive tags when he ran out of reverts. This is besides his objections to Beit Or's changes. Beit Or also opposed the FA at the time, making it clear that he had serious problems such as the ones he tried to address. Arrow740 04:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Trusted Sources
I'm not sure where to post this, so let me start by doing it here before I find a more appropriate platform.
I have very mixed feelings about the anonymous nature of many Wikipedia "admins." Now, a few years ago, many anonymous contributors would post completely bogus stories to Wikipedia, making it very unreliable. These days, administrators tend to clean up that kind of stuff pretty quickly. However, a number of us have had news deleted because we were viewed to not have a reliable source.
The case in point - the death of science fiction writer <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Saberhagen">Fred Saberhagen</a>.
I first read about Fred's death on July 2 from a source I view to be extremely reliable - the obits discussion list on SFF.NET (http://webnews.sff.net/read?cmd=xover&group=sff.discuss.obituaries&from=-10). Just about everyone who posts their posts under their real names. I know just about everyone who posts there. In the many years of this group's existence, I don't think there's been one rumor planted on the list. When Harlan Ellison reports the news of a death or an illness, I don't think it's ever been shown to be false, and it was Harlan's Web site where the news of Fred's death first broke. Again, this list is not like, say, the USENET group alt.obituaries where many people post anonymous drivel. This is a list where many of the participants are known to one another.
So since I trust the information in the sff.discuss.obituaries group, I immediately added information about Fred's death to <a href="http://www.deadpeople.info">Dead People Server</a> (a site I maintain), and attempted to add it to Wikipedia. I've had an account on Wikipedia for a while, and make occasional updates. I do so under my own name, and not under a pseudonym.
I admit I failed to include a referential link when I first added information about Fred's death, but then added a link back to the sff.discuss.obituaries group. And then, I had other things to do, so I didn't spend much time watching Fred's Wikipedia page.
It turned out my editing of Fred's death was edited by some Wikipedia admin using the name of Quatloo. When John Scalzi tried to update the record later, Quatloo deleted John's edits as well.
Now, when two people make the same edit both using their own name, you'd think someone at Wikipedia would catch on. It took hours for Fred's death to be properly noted due to the stubbornness of one pseudononymous Wikipedia admin. Lauriemann 16:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- You've certainly identified a problem, but it's not in my opinion a solvable problem. It happens, and as I'm sure you'd agree, when it comes to whether someone is dead or not it's usually best to use the best sources we can. Your point about two people adding something using their real names is understandable, but has another side. It could be one person using two false names. Really, what this problem is to do with is simply scaleability issues with Wikipedia. We've all got to remember we're an encyclopedia; we shouldn't be reporting information, we should be summarising it. Our job isn't to scoop newspapers and the like. Yes, our nature allows us to be more responsive to events, but when all is said and done, a few hours of not reporting a fact until we verify it isn't that bad. Some books can be wrong for years. I don't really see any value in criticising another user for either appearing stubborn, or for using a psudonym. Us admins get so much thrown at us it is no wonder most choose to adopt some sort of anonymity. To be honest, it looks like a lot of the problems here happened because nobody communicated with each other properly. It looks like a lot of people got their backs up during that discussion, which might have been solved had people perhaps kept their heads. From my point of view, a man died here. Arguing over the speed with which Wikipedia reports it seems somehow disrespectful. Steve block Talk 17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, to the best of my knowledge, my Wikipedia account has never been hacked. I've never posted anything that wasn't a fact. I can't speak for John Scalzi, but I suspect he wouldn't post anything that wasn't true here either. So does that mean that no one can be trusted, other than pseudononymous Wikipedia admins? This is why we're so frustrated.Lauriemann 18:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- (Edited to say: My tone seems a little abrupt here, it's not intended. Apologies.) I'm not really sure what you are asking for. You had a dispute. It got resolved. Welcome to Wikipedia. You seem to be failing to consider the other side of the fence. Someone looks at a page and sees it states that the subject has died. There is no source so they remove it. Then someone adds it, and provides a source but the source provided doesn't verify the claim made, so they remove it again. That's the wikipedia way. I'm not sure that you're following my argument regarding pseudonymity either. I have no way of knowing what your real name is, just as you have no way of knowing what mine is. Nor do we happen to have a User:John Scalzi, and even if we did, it could be John Smith editing as John Scalzi. It could be John Smith editing as Laurie Mann, John Scalzi, Steve Block and John Smith. People actually do create a large number of accounts in order to disrupt Wikipedia. Those actions in part frame our policies and our actions. Our names aren't important, our sources are. Steve block Talk 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- As just a small point of order, I, John Scalzi, have just taken the John Scalzi user name so it can not be used as people posing as me. So that's sorted. Thanks, Steve Block. John_Scalzi
- (Edited to say: My tone seems a little abrupt here, it's not intended. Apologies.) I'm not really sure what you are asking for. You had a dispute. It got resolved. Welcome to Wikipedia. You seem to be failing to consider the other side of the fence. Someone looks at a page and sees it states that the subject has died. There is no source so they remove it. Then someone adds it, and provides a source but the source provided doesn't verify the claim made, so they remove it again. That's the wikipedia way. I'm not sure that you're following my argument regarding pseudonymity either. I have no way of knowing what your real name is, just as you have no way of knowing what mine is. Nor do we happen to have a User:John Scalzi, and even if we did, it could be John Smith editing as John Scalzi. It could be John Smith editing as Laurie Mann, John Scalzi, Steve Block and John Smith. People actually do create a large number of accounts in order to disrupt Wikipedia. Those actions in part frame our policies and our actions. Our names aren't important, our sources are. Steve block Talk 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, to the best of my knowledge, my Wikipedia account has never been hacked. I've never posted anything that wasn't a fact. I can't speak for John Scalzi, but I suspect he wouldn't post anything that wasn't true here either. So does that mean that no one can be trusted, other than pseudononymous Wikipedia admins? This is why we're so frustrated.Lauriemann 18:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- The concept of "trusted source" needs to be gone into better. Laurie's source here was one of the best sources there could be for this information. Yet by Wikipedia standards, it's not a good source. Sources, in the end, always come down to people. Dd-b 17:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think Laurie already admitted not listing a source in the first instance, which contributed to the situation. Reliability of sources pretty much comes down to editorial judgement, ultimately to consensus. Steve block Talk 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- However, I quickly realized my mistake, and added a link back to the sff obits list within five minutes of my initial post.Lauriemann 10:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think Laurie already admitted not listing a source in the first instance, which contributed to the situation. Reliability of sources pretty much comes down to editorial judgement, ultimately to consensus. Steve block Talk 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- The concept of "trusted source" needs to be gone into better. Laurie's source here was one of the best sources there could be for this information. Yet by Wikipedia standards, it's not a good source. Sources, in the end, always come down to people. Dd-b 17:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- While I said some on this on Scalzi's blog, in the context of wikipedia, I'm also going to bring up the subject of Pleasantville, aka Kathryn Cramer. Wikipedia has had extensive issues with Kathryn making massive edits to the pages of science fiction writers, and backing it up with the argument that her brain, personally, is a valid source, and if she knows it and its true, then its ok to put it in the article. This is ironic, because The New York Review of Science Fiction would actually be an acceptable source. Likewise, there is lots of stuff I know, after 20 years in fandom, some minor writing success (nothing but journalism reported, but lots of pros like my work) that I can't express; even if I published it to my site, no one knows who I am.
- Within Science Fiction articles, especially those involving the writers, we should absolutely be accepting more Primary sources, when the primary source is reasonable. Our own definition of 'Primary Source' does, to me, fully include Harlan Ellison in this case; he's a well known author, he controls his own site (ie, it wasn't someone posting to another site using his name), and he was directly contacted by the family, as a friend, and with the intent and knowledge that most people would get the information through him. Stuff about Joel Siegel's death by Roger Ebert was perfectly acceptable, stuff about Fred Saberhagen's death by Harlan Ellison is of the same quality. The definition of primary source on Wikipedia is 'Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about.' Part of the problem is too many editors forget that while COI is important to avoid, if the subject is completely outside of their interest (and I don't see that the editor in question has done any SF editing), you're also not as good a judge of what is a valid primary source, and it gets reduced to (often incorrect) guideline interpretation. --Thespian 18:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- The nature of Wikipedia means our names aren't enough alone to be able to add information. It needs to be verified. This has long been a policy and should be nothing new. Look, you're all sitting here stating this is a reliable source because the information was true. You aren't considering the possibility that it wasn't. That maybe there are instances where people actually pretend to make this stuff up. Reliability of sources is a judgement issue, it's easy to say that Harlan Ellison stating something on a message board is a reliable source, but we've got to be able to verify that it is in fact Harlan Ellison saying it. Yes, I'd be inclined to accept it as a source after I'd given it the once over, but we have somewhat stringent policies when it comes to biographies of living people, and not everyone is aware of who Harlan Ellison is or what makes him a reliable source. Like I say, what's better; that we discuss in a calm manner and reach a consensus, or that we get our backs up and argue? Is it better that material is challenged, or is it better that anyone can add anything? Yes, there are some issues over primary sourced material, but that misses the point a little bit. The internet is such a wonderful resource in that anyone can publish anything. You state that you could do that but the issue is that no-one knows who you are. That same issue applies on Wikipedia; no-one knows who you are. My advice is to publish it on a blog; there at least you will be able to allow no-one to remove it, and there at least someone may utilise it so that it can then be utilised on Wikipedia. Maybe enough of you could get together to form something that eventually does become a reliable source in its own right. A number of websites regarding comics are now regularly cited by scholars, let alone Wikipedia. But i think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that this is merely a content dispute, one which sadly involves a man's death. Steve block Talk 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please note, I did specify Harlan's *site*, and said specifically, he controls his own site (ie, it wasn't someone posting to another site using his name). You're starting your argument talking about him saying something on a message board (and is that really Harlan, etc), but that isn't the source; a message board is never a good source, but Harlan Ellison is noted in this field, just as much as Roger Ebert is in his (he's not 'just anyone', the way I would be). Your argument here is going off in a pile of different directions, and very few of them are actually coming from my entry there, which I think means you're bringing something else in here. I'm not actually saying 'accept everything' (in point, John Scalzi's blog is seriously not an RS), but I am saying that rigid adherence to guidelines as if they are rules is to our detriment; especially in a case like this where Ellison absolutely counts as a primary source for this information, but an editor was insisting, contrary to our own definition of 'Primary Source', that he couldn't be one.--Thespian 19:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think you missed the part where I said that I would probably have allowed it as a source. I apologise for calling it a message board instead of a personal website. To address you personally, the policy on biographies of living people isn't a guideline, it's a policy. Regarding that policy, Ellison doesn't count as a reliable source per the text quoted below. Yes, there are probably issues with that policy, but that policy needs rigid adherence for what is considered very good reasons. I'm not going to disagree with you, but I think you're missing the nub of my argument towards you; not everyone will be aware of who Harlan Ellison is. I know enough that I'd let Ellison pass, but does that mean the person who doesn't and so removes the info, acting in good faith, should be treated as disruptive? Are our policies wrong because in rare occasions they have a disputable effect? Is Wikipedia supposed to be first of the bat with breaking news? It's easy to say that the policies are to our detriment in this instance, but the reason they exist is for the many others where they don't act to our detriment. Like I say, in this case the editor in question was arguing, correctly, that WP:BLP trumps our own definition of 'Primary Source'. What was needed was cool heads and a discussion that WP:IAR might apply. Yes, this is reflects badly on the policy, but to be honest, it reflects worse on most of the participants. Sat what you like about Quatloo, to his credit as soon as he removed the info he posted on the article talk page requesting a source. Things went downhill pretty much from the first reply to that request. Had everyone been civil, who knows if we'd be here now discussing this? I concede the possibility Quatloo clove to close to the policy, but I would hope that people could consider it understandable. Everyone seems to be highlighting this instance as if it was a matter of life and death as to whether we took Ellison's word or not in this instance. To quote the talk page, "Saberhagen remains dead". Does our recording it make it any truer? Steve block Talk 19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I know enough that I'd let Ellison pass, but does that mean the person who doesn't and so removes the info, acting in good faith, should be treated as disruptive? Actually (and this isn't just related to this subject; I generally stay out of SF because I'm unsure where my own COIs lie, as I count many pros among my friends, work in an SF bookstore, ete), I do. I *do* believe that editors who know nothing about a subject (and in this particular case, the editor doesn't have an SF-related edit in the last month) can be just as disruptive as those who are *too* passionate about the subject. I have great respect for editors who post to talk pages, "I am unsure about these two external links that were just added, but I am not able to assess them; I just copy edit and don't know the subject well. Can someone who knows more about the subject please examine them?" It's more frequent in the science articles, but I do feel that people should be as careful in other areas, when they find they're discounting things because of 'I've never heard of it' reasoning. Edits to subjects that you have 'No Previous Interest' in should be treated gingerly, because there's the danger of working against Wikipedia's goals because you have no way of assessing content or context. --Thespian 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you think someone acting in good faith is disruptive, then I'm not sure how to respond. I'm not sure I can follow your reasoning, because it seems based on a flawed position. If people both familiar and unfamiliar with an article's topic are unable to edit an article, how does it get written? If wikipedia is built through collaboration and discussing and building consensus, doesn't that behoove us to make our opinion heard, engage and help build the encyclopedia? Yes, I have a great respect for those editors who rather than act, query first. But Wikipedia is built on the be bold principle. Yes, it is very easy to criticise in this instance, but I think most definitlye your argument flounders on one point. You seem to be ignoring the position of our policy on living people, which like it or not mandates that people act as Quatloo did. This whole mess was caused because people saw Quatloo acting disruptively rather than in line with policy. Yes sometimes policy is an ass. I tend to just grin and bear it when that happens, because its an ass for a reason. I'll state my case and I'll argue it, and I'll stay polite and I'll engage in building a consensus, but I won't act against that consensus. That's disruptive. In fact, thinking about it, I'd argue the opposite; people who have no interest in the subject are probably the better editors for the article; they can eidt better for NPOV, better check that info matches the sources and they can better check that our policies are met. If someone removes info that is not sourced from an article and is considered disruptive for that action, Wikipedia is a poorer place. Steve block Talk 20:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not 'interest' that is my problem; my issue is that people who are completely uninvolved in something need to be aware that being completely disconnected from the subject might also cause as many problems as the people who are so immersed in it. There are issues of not being able to see the forest for the trees, but you still need to be aware that there's a forest at all to write about it. Do you really want to read articles on SF by people who don't know who Harlan Ellison is? I don't want Ellison editing his own article, but likewise, I don't want editors discarding information because they don't know enough about the subject, sources, community, etc., to be able to draw from all aspects of it and create an NPOV article. I'm arguing that people who are neither completely detached from s subject or completely passionate about it are the best editors in these cases. By this standard, neither Scalzi nor Quatloo was the best editor for this information, and since they were coming at it from two completely different paradigms (Scalzi immersed in the field, Quatloo just repeating himself about the rules), they clashed, in a way that (judging from the tone of our discussion here), you and I, as more moderates in the area (we know a bit about it, but aren't in the field professionally or completely detached from it) wouldn't have done. --Thespian 20:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you think someone acting in good faith is disruptive, then I'm not sure how to respond. I'm not sure I can follow your reasoning, because it seems based on a flawed position. If people both familiar and unfamiliar with an article's topic are unable to edit an article, how does it get written? If wikipedia is built through collaboration and discussing and building consensus, doesn't that behoove us to make our opinion heard, engage and help build the encyclopedia? Yes, I have a great respect for those editors who rather than act, query first. But Wikipedia is built on the be bold principle. Yes, it is very easy to criticise in this instance, but I think most definitlye your argument flounders on one point. You seem to be ignoring the position of our policy on living people, which like it or not mandates that people act as Quatloo did. This whole mess was caused because people saw Quatloo acting disruptively rather than in line with policy. Yes sometimes policy is an ass. I tend to just grin and bear it when that happens, because its an ass for a reason. I'll state my case and I'll argue it, and I'll stay polite and I'll engage in building a consensus, but I won't act against that consensus. That's disruptive. In fact, thinking about it, I'd argue the opposite; people who have no interest in the subject are probably the better editors for the article; they can eidt better for NPOV, better check that info matches the sources and they can better check that our policies are met. If someone removes info that is not sourced from an article and is considered disruptive for that action, Wikipedia is a poorer place. Steve block Talk 20:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Also of relevance is the principles established in this recent arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Principles. Note principle 3, which states that In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." In practice, this means that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached. I don't raise this to comment on the rightness of our policy, but only to ask that the people who were so quick to attack perhaps appraise themselves fully of why this situation occurred. Steve block Talk 20:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Full agreement; also, I wrote the story in this week's Signpost on the vandalism and media reaction of Chris Benoit; I spent a lot of the research time shaking my head at the talking heads discussing OMG SOMEONE KNEW SHE WAS DEAD BEFORE THE POLICE DID!, so I know that there's extra special crunchy good reasons to be careful about deaths right now. Not that Saberhagen's sad but inevitable passing at 77 is going to get nearly the play of a wrestling champeen and his hot babe wife double murder suicide. We get death hoax crap constantly. There are just other things about this subject that have concerned me, and since Laurie brought it up, I chimed in. --Thespian 20:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I know enough that I'd let Ellison pass, but does that mean the person who doesn't and so removes the info, acting in good faith, should be treated as disruptive? Actually (and this isn't just related to this subject; I generally stay out of SF because I'm unsure where my own COIs lie, as I count many pros among my friends, work in an SF bookstore, ete), I do. I *do* believe that editors who know nothing about a subject (and in this particular case, the editor doesn't have an SF-related edit in the last month) can be just as disruptive as those who are *too* passionate about the subject. I have great respect for editors who post to talk pages, "I am unsure about these two external links that were just added, but I am not able to assess them; I just copy edit and don't know the subject well. Can someone who knows more about the subject please examine them?" It's more frequent in the science articles, but I do feel that people should be as careful in other areas, when they find they're discounting things because of 'I've never heard of it' reasoning. Edits to subjects that you have 'No Previous Interest' in should be treated gingerly, because there's the danger of working against Wikipedia's goals because you have no way of assessing content or context. --Thespian 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think you missed the part where I said that I would probably have allowed it as a source. I apologise for calling it a message board instead of a personal website. To address you personally, the policy on biographies of living people isn't a guideline, it's a policy. Regarding that policy, Ellison doesn't count as a reliable source per the text quoted below. Yes, there are probably issues with that policy, but that policy needs rigid adherence for what is considered very good reasons. I'm not going to disagree with you, but I think you're missing the nub of my argument towards you; not everyone will be aware of who Harlan Ellison is. I know enough that I'd let Ellison pass, but does that mean the person who doesn't and so removes the info, acting in good faith, should be treated as disruptive? Are our policies wrong because in rare occasions they have a disputable effect? Is Wikipedia supposed to be first of the bat with breaking news? It's easy to say that the policies are to our detriment in this instance, but the reason they exist is for the many others where they don't act to our detriment. Like I say, in this case the editor in question was arguing, correctly, that WP:BLP trumps our own definition of 'Primary Source'. What was needed was cool heads and a discussion that WP:IAR might apply. Yes, this is reflects badly on the policy, but to be honest, it reflects worse on most of the participants. Sat what you like about Quatloo, to his credit as soon as he removed the info he posted on the article talk page requesting a source. Things went downhill pretty much from the first reply to that request. Had everyone been civil, who knows if we'd be here now discussing this? I concede the possibility Quatloo clove to close to the policy, but I would hope that people could consider it understandable. Everyone seems to be highlighting this instance as if it was a matter of life and death as to whether we took Ellison's word or not in this instance. To quote the talk page, "Saberhagen remains dead". Does our recording it make it any truer? Steve block Talk 19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please note, I did specify Harlan's *site*, and said specifically, he controls his own site (ie, it wasn't someone posting to another site using his name). You're starting your argument talking about him saying something on a message board (and is that really Harlan, etc), but that isn't the source; a message board is never a good source, but Harlan Ellison is noted in this field, just as much as Roger Ebert is in his (he's not 'just anyone', the way I would be). Your argument here is going off in a pile of different directions, and very few of them are actually coming from my entry there, which I think means you're bringing something else in here. I'm not actually saying 'accept everything' (in point, John Scalzi's blog is seriously not an RS), but I am saying that rigid adherence to guidelines as if they are rules is to our detriment; especially in a case like this where Ellison absolutely counts as a primary source for this information, but an editor was insisting, contrary to our own definition of 'Primary Source', that he couldn't be one.--Thespian 19:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- The nature of Wikipedia means our names aren't enough alone to be able to add information. It needs to be verified. This has long been a policy and should be nothing new. Look, you're all sitting here stating this is a reliable source because the information was true. You aren't considering the possibility that it wasn't. That maybe there are instances where people actually pretend to make this stuff up. Reliability of sources is a judgement issue, it's easy to say that Harlan Ellison stating something on a message board is a reliable source, but we've got to be able to verify that it is in fact Harlan Ellison saying it. Yes, I'd be inclined to accept it as a source after I'd given it the once over, but we have somewhat stringent policies when it comes to biographies of living people, and not everyone is aware of who Harlan Ellison is or what makes him a reliable source. Like I say, what's better; that we discuss in a calm manner and reach a consensus, or that we get our backs up and argue? Is it better that material is challenged, or is it better that anyone can add anything? Yes, there are some issues over primary sourced material, but that misses the point a little bit. The internet is such a wonderful resource in that anyone can publish anything. You state that you could do that but the issue is that no-one knows who you are. That same issue applies on Wikipedia; no-one knows who you are. My advice is to publish it on a blog; there at least you will be able to allow no-one to remove it, and there at least someone may utilise it so that it can then be utilised on Wikipedia. Maybe enough of you could get together to form something that eventually does become a reliable source in its own right. A number of websites regarding comics are now regularly cited by scholars, let alone Wikipedia. But i think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that this is merely a content dispute, one which sadly involves a man's death. Steve block Talk 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I think there's points being missed here. Wikipedia shouldn't be the first to report something. I'm missing why it is so important that this fact be added so swiftly to the article. There hasn't been an explanation as to why we couldn't wait for a source which meets our polcies. And also, this wasn't an incident in which it was the stubbornness of an admin held things up. It was an action in which a lot of people acted not in keeping with our policies, and where the one person who did is being criticised. We have a stringent policy on articles related to living people for a reason. I'm sure people can all appreciate what that reason is. Part of that policy states, in bold letters, that "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used". Yes, that's a very strong line to draw, but it has been drawn, and it was drawn by the consensus of many editors over the last eighteen months. Quatloo wasn't acting alone, he had the voices of all the people who have affirmed that policy behind him. I think you have raised important questions, but I think it is unfair to blame one
adminuser for the fact that our policies are, by definition, inflexible in some regards. Steve block Talk 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC) - Besides which, Quatloo isn't even an admin. (sob!) I take it nobody thought to check the list of users before they jumped to conclusions, since I fail to see anywhere where Quatloo claimed to be an admin? Steve block Talk 19:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Laurie referred to him as an admin, but I haven't. Actually, I suspect an admin would have handled this much better; my impression of most admins is they're pretty helpful, and for something like this would have done the 5 minutes of work to bring the cite to speed instead of just reverting repeatedly and arguing with John Scalzi over it for an hour ;-) --Thespian 20:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- My comment wasn't aimed at you, hence the revised indent. As to how admins would have handled it, the edit before Quatloo's first was made by an admin, and it didn't help much. I don't think anyone comes out of the mess smelling of roses, and as I say above, no-one has as yet managed to explain the issue with regards the timeliness of Wikipedia actually recording the death. Steve block Talk 20:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Laurie referred to him as an admin, but I haven't. Actually, I suspect an admin would have handled this much better; my impression of most admins is they're pretty helpful, and for something like this would have done the 5 minutes of work to bring the cite to speed instead of just reverting repeatedly and arguing with John Scalzi over it for an hour ;-) --Thespian 20:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
We have, in some ways, wound up with something of a circular argument here. Some of us, and I'd include myself in this, would like to be a little more active in Wikipedia. We have the time, we have the expertise, we think Wikipedia is basically a good idea. We know some of the problems Wikipedia has had in the past, and the fact that some of the Wikipedia contributors are trying to correct them is a fine thing. But, unfortunately, trying to be more vigilant about keeping bad information out, it means that good information is also kept out. I understand that Wikipedia was not meant to be a news site, but it is becoming one. If Wikipedia management doesn't want breaking news on the site, they should rethink their home page, which has had a news headlines area for something like two years, if not longer. The fact that breaking news is now stressed on the home page gives people the impression that Wikipedia would like accurate, breaking news in the articles themselves. So it goes back to the dilemna that people like John and I have - should we even bother to update information that we know to be correct when a random, pseudonymous person can remove because we haven't used a source that Wikipedia trusts? We trust these other sites, and we're willing to vouch for the sites. Regular Wikipedia contributors can't know everything. As I've pointed out above, I generally don't trust news of a death that breaks on alt.obituaries, particularly when a person hiding behind a pseudonym posts it. But I know when news of a death hits sff.discuss.obituaries, it's almost always accurate because anyone hoaxing there would be slammed really fast. While I can't claim utter expertise in the issue of "trusted sources," I've been maintaining Dead People Server for over 10 years, and am reasonably sure I've never been hoaxed. I've posted wrong information at least twice that I'm aware of, but I'm usually pretty careful about how I update my site. Steve, I want to thank you for your responses. I may not agree with everything you've been saying but I appreciate the time you've been taking with this issue. And if Quatloo isn't an admin, I guess that's something of a relief, but...Lauriemann 10:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, too. My problem is that I don't ultimately disagree too much, it's just that I've been here long enough to have seen the path Wikipedia has taken. It used to be that the way you want it to work was how it worked, you'd add the death to the article, and Wikipedia was small enough that people would know that if Laurie added it then it was pretty much right, and Wikipedia was also small enough that if it got it wrong it didn't matter, it was just this upstart online encyclopedia that wasn't a threat to anyone, no-one took seriously and it could be excused for being wrong. And then Wikipedia became big. And now no-one knows who Laurie is, and ultimately no-one can care who Laurie is, because wider issues have taken precedence. Maybe a better way to go in the future would be to update Dead People Server and then add it to Wikipedia and cite that as a source, but I still don't know if that'd beat a particular reading of policy. You make a good point about how we cover the news, and that caused a lot of controversy when it was introduced. I used to update the British news page, and even back then we had to source a news source or we couldn't add anything. Have you checked out n:Wikinews, they allow original reporting, maybe that'd suit you better? I think for me and Wikipedia nowadays, I don't get too invested anymore; I add my info, give it the best source I can find and let it go. I'll make my best arguments, but at some point these days you have to be prepared to walk away, because otherwise it does grind you down. I think Wikipedia has been a victim of its success for about 18 months now. It's become too much like a game to some people. In all honesty, I don't have an answer for you Laurie. The whole thing is tangled up in what Thespian notes as being people's investment in the issues. It's too hard now for people to simply agree for the sake of an argument. Still, the whole affair has given more grist to the bloggers who feel that Wikipedia sucks... Steve block Talk 12:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Titles of pages disambiguating abbreviations
Is there any general advice for merging of disambig pages for abbreviations, for example BAM was merged with Bam (taken from the User:Cmh/List of page titles with multiple capitalizations list) and BAM now redirects to Bam. This seems sensible to me... A topic which has been discussed (Without a clear outcome) is ADA and Ada. Would it be sensible to merge these?? It seems confusing to have 2 different pages with significant overlap. Perhaps if they were to be merged, ADA could point to the abbreviations section of Ada. Also, if these should be merged, which one should be the main article, ADA or Ada. Generally Ada would seem to be the sensible title (as in the example above), but how about disambig pages such as TFT which should then be called Tft with a redirect from TFT. My apologies if this has been discussed here or elsewhere, but I couldn't find any information on it... NPalmius 01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Here, the difference between initialisms and actual words is important. It makes sense to me that if a series of characters (for example, X-Y-Z) has significantly more words with that meaning than words that stand for it, XYZ should redirect to Xyz. If XYZ is used much more frequently as an initialism (with maybe only one or two words Xyz), Xyz should redirect to XYZ, and all disambiguation should be included at the latter page. If the quantities are about equal, I would think that having two separate disambiguation pages with links to each other is the best course of action. This is merely what editorially makes sense to me, but not necessarily practice. GracenotesT § 07:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hm. The complications probably happen when there is an entity called "XYZ", where that entity is not an acronym for anything. In that case, assuming that both XYZ and Xyz exist as disambiguation pages (based on the circumstances above), I would probably list it on the XYZ page. It seems like case-by-case is the best way to work this out. GracenotesT § 07:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
CSD R2
WP:CSD#R2 was amended, per a discussion at WT:CSD#CSD R2. The template, Template:db-r2 was also amended to comply with the new version of CSD R2. Cool Bluetalk to me 16:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Score! I thought these guys never got changed... Shalom Hello 17:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently they don't - or at least not for long. It's been reverted, but who knows how long that will last? Confusing Manifestation 02:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
intellegent scholars hassled off by losers
I read once that there was this policy set up because really intellegent scholars would come onto wikipedia and be hassled off by losers. Anyone familar with this policy? 69.153.81.182 00:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Civility... although it doesn't only stop intelligent scholars from being hassled by losers, but also losers from intelligent scholars, and everyone in between. Sancho 00:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Citizendium? --tjstrf talk 00:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh how I LOVVVEEE wikepidia, Instant gratification thanks User talk:tjstrf and User_talk:Sanchom :) 69.153.81.182 00:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Opps, spoke too soon, this isnt what I am looking for :( there was an Arbcom case some time ago, 2004 or 2005...wondering if policy came out of it... 69.153.81.182 00:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that was more or less the theory behind the founding of Citizendium. There isn't actually a policy that states what you are asking about, though there are certainly proposals regarding them (Wikipedia:Expert retention and linked pages.) We also have some rules that dictate when and how you may cite yourself, which I think are part of the WP:COI policy.
- In general though, if by "hassling" you mean "not letting the professor add stuff just because he says it's true", we do allow that. Even if you are a professor, or for that matter a "professor", you must keep to the same standards of verifiability and referencing as everyone else. --tjstrf talk 00:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- There were just edit wars, if I recall. I looked through Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions and couldnt find anything in particular. Thanks for your time User talk:tjstrf. Ha--thanks Wikipedia:Expert retention is perfect.69.153.81.182 00:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Scholars should hold themselves not to the same standards but to higher standards, because they have access to libraries and journals that often are not readily available to others. What "hassles" scholars is not the fact that they're expected to provide sources. Instead it's the fact that Wikipedia is too often like the wild west, where the ability to shout the loudest, swing the hardest, and outlast the other fellow counts more than the quality and depth of one's sources. Raymond Arritt 00:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- There were just edit wars, if I recall. I looked through Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions and couldnt find anything in particular. Thanks for your time User talk:tjstrf. Ha--thanks Wikipedia:Expert retention is perfect.69.153.81.182 00:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Opps, spoke too soon, this isnt what I am looking for :( there was an Arbcom case some time ago, 2004 or 2005...wondering if policy came out of it... 69.153.81.182 00:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh how I LOVVVEEE wikepidia, Instant gratification thanks User talk:tjstrf and User_talk:Sanchom :) 69.153.81.182 00:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Citizendium? --tjstrf talk 00:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- And finally, Wikipedia:Tendentious editors and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. >Radiant< 07:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocking policy/NLT alignment
Blocking policy states a reason Users may be blocked is by:
- making personal, professional or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site); but only NLT is a policy. I propose WP:NLT No Legal Threats be changed to WP:NT No Threats to include both personal and professional as well as legal threats. Anynobody 00:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Notability and Minor Article Sprawl
First, a personal note: I'm relatively new to wikipedia, although I've been reading all the policy I can find and taking up large amounts of time doing so, which might not be good for me personally, but that's beside the point (yes, I'm waffling, sorry about that). If there has been a general discussion on this somewhere, please direct me to it.
On to the actual point. I've now read most of the notability policies and guidelines I can find, at least the consensus-accepted ones. It seems to me that there are a number of wikimedia projects that advocate the creation of large numbers of articles of generally dubious notability. I've seen this recently with rail/subway stations (which seems to have been the subject of recuring debate), TV episodes, music albums, peers/peerages and baronets/baronetcies, and probably far more. It seems to me that, while there is seperate debate on many of these issues, it would be useful if, in as far as is possible, some sort of debate went on about this sort of thing generally, hopefully leading to some sort of consensus. Then, the specific cases could be debated/decided with reference to this more general consensus.
So, does this exist somewhere that I've missed, and if not, what do people think? SamBC 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I, myself, have not come across any debate of this size (then again, after three months I feel I have barely scratched the surface of all Wikipedia policies/guidelines). My best suggestion for you is to sit down, think out your proposal (what you want to do, change, how to enact it, what you wish to achieve, etc.) and be bold and start it. --Ozgod 13:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Obfuscation
Take a look at the image to the right. Is obfuscation, via RTL, ROT13, excessive and roundabout use of {{templates}}, etc., appropriate for the Wikipedia project and in the spirit of the GFDL? Note that your opinion may vary based on whether the obfuscation is occurring in User space, Template space, or article space (though I, personally, do not feel it's valid for it to vary). Perhaps most importantly, is a sufficiently-obfuscated page fundamentally different from "stealth protection"? Jouster (whisper) 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- This might be besides the point of the discussion you would like, but I can't reproduce that screenshot; I see perfectly valid templates that aren't called in obfuscated manner. I haven't looked at the templates themselves. SamBC 17:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- It depends on your browser's ability to support RtL text. Feel free to ignore the actual user page referenced by the image; it's just used as an example and might change at its user's whim, anyway. The image, and what it portrays, are what I'm concerned about, along with the other examples (ROT13, crazy template hijinks, &entity; codes, etc.). Jouster (whisper) 18:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, so my initial gut reaction... if this is occurring outside the user space, then it's a very bad thing contrary to the point of wikis in general, and definitely wikipedia in particular. In the user space... meh. I'm not sure if a general point could be made for the user space, I mean, I'd prefer obfuscation not happen at all, but if it's used in the user space for any purpose other than to get away with things that are bad in themselves, I can't get worked up about it. I'll try to put a more coherent thought together later, preferably after more input from others. SamBC 19:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, at the risk of being harsh, how is the User space so very different? Users don't own their own space; it's there as an extension of the Encyclopedia. Even if they did, they very specifically and freely copyleft their contributions in both user and article space. The point of the GNU and the open-source movement in general, from which cultures the GFDL arose, was to avoid receiving data that you could not modify as you saw fit. After all, that's the only difference between an executable program and its source code—one is easy to edit, one is not. With sufficient time, resources, and skill, you don't need the source code to modify a computer program; you can do it on the bare machine code. Here, we're deliberately making the "source code" harder to edit, starting from the simplest measure of reversing the text order, and running up to the extreme measure of heavily-interlinked templates that literally encode the page source in, for example, ROT13. Is there a fundamental difference between doing that and "compiling" the source code into nigh-unreadable machine code, as in a program? Would not the ethos of open source—let alone those of Wikipedia, which promote world-wide-editable source—be then violated?
- In summary, I find little excuse for there to be permission to vary from the absolute commandment of readability and editability in the name of vandalism prevention, let alone vanity. This seems like a cut-and-dried case to me. Can you explain your reasoning for feeling otherwise? Jouster (whisper) 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I guess one way to put it is that it's just as wrong, in an abstract objective moralaity, in every case, but it's less important, or less harmful (less wrong in a utilitarian sense), in user space. SamBC 13:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, if this is a recurrent head-to-head between you two, how about you try to get someone else in to arbitrate or mediate or something? Jouster, if this is a real problem that this is just an example of, can we have more exapmles? SamBC 13:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Magnus is of the opinion that everything I do is part and parcel of my agenda to discredit him, or something. As for other examples, see AzaToth, for sure, and presumably others as well. I'd love to hear something on-topic from Magnus (like, for example, a defense of the merit of this type of encoding, since he apparently thinks it helps) rather than this continued belief that everything I do is about him. Jouster (whisper) 14:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- And is that page another example of the rtl that doesn't show up in my browser, or is there a different complaint for that one? Apologies if this sounds suspicious, I'm just trying to figure out what the problem is supposed to be. SamBC 14:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- So, let's for a moment assume that I know nothing at all about RtL text on computers (I actually know a little, but let's just assume for now). How, exactly, would a user cause their user page source to look like that? What support is required in a browser for it to then look that, and what browsers have this support? If a user sees a page source like that and tries to edit it, will their browser edit box behave RtL as well? SamBC 15:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- "How, exactly, would a user cause their user page source to look like that?"
- By adding the Unicode character for right-to-left text at the beginning of the text.
- "What support is required in a browser for it to then look that, and what browsers have this support?"
- RtL support, in general, is required; you can get kinda-crappy versions of it in older versions of browsers, but I've confirmed these changes are effective in FireFox 2.x and Internet Explorer 7.x. It's probably fair to suspect that most other modern browsers support at least some subset of the features these two do.
- If a user sees a page source like that and tries to edit it, will their browser edit box behave RtL as well?
- Yes, which can be very disorienting. Typing "Hi" on a RtL-formatted text input box, for example, will cause "H" to appear, and then an "i" to appear to its left, with the cursor coming to a rest at the left of the "i". The Unicode RtL character does not display in the text box in either FireFox or IE, though you can copy the text out of the page into a "dumb" editor, like Windows' Notepad or extensions-disabled Vim, and remove it. Copying it into a more-sophisticated editor will often result in that application (correctly, to be fair) deciding the text is RtL, and switching modes appropriately. Jouster (whisper) 15:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- "How, exactly, would a user cause their user page source to look like that?"
- Examples of obfuscation. Try to remove the red text from each. Please revert to my version when you've succeeded (or given up!):
- For each example, please indicate where/when you feel its use is appropriate, and feel free to add any thoughts you have. Jouster (whisper) 16:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I have just suggested a change to the criteria for speedy deletion that is rather small but also fairly fundamental.
To me, this says broad consensus needs to be reached, so talking about it here seems pretty much a requirement. — Coren (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Admins, by virtue of their having received the admin bit, are considered trusted members of the community. Requiring them to wait for somebody else, anybody else, to put a flag on an article before it can be deleted is unnecessary bureaucracy. If you disagree with an admin's deletion, there's always WP:DRV, and if you feel that a particular admin is making too many inappropriate deletions, there's always WP:RFC. Corvus cornix 18:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, actually, this has nothing to do with trust. It has to do with the fact that, despite attempts otherwise, CSD criteria are and will always be somewhat subjective. This is not a bad thing. Having the implicit exchanges "This is nonsense. — Yep." or "This doesn't have enough context — Meh; it's salvagable." is a good thing that does not imply lack of trust.
- I would suggest that, as is pretty much already happening, this entry on Village Pump be taken as a sort of broad notification, and all real discussion happen on the linked wp talk page; duplicating/forking discussion here won't help. But please, anyone interested, contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Slight fundamental change in policy?. SamBC 21:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
English-language sources should be given whenever possible
i currently have an issue with a user on Talk:Battle of Jenin due to a problematic translation to a newspaper article. this translation page is added with personal highly POV thoughts and unverifiable references in regards to the original article.
the user keeps stating that "English sources must be used, while in this case it is clearly a non reliable and unprofessional source that is also known as POV.
i suggest some statement be issued about such a case in the "Citing sources" article, so that issues like this would not repeat for other users.
p.s. a comment on the Talk:Battle of Jenin#gush shalom source, would be a generous act to help end this conflict. Jaakobou 22:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
User Contact
I know that this proposal is almost certainly going to get shot down in flames, but I will float it out anyway.
The general policy of anonymity of editors, which most (but not all) follow, means that there is no way of contacting an editor except through the project user talk pages or through e-mail. It is not uncommon for editors to make quite close relationships, without either party knowing anything personal about the other. And if that is their mutual wish, fine.
But sometimes editors vanish unexpectedly and without warning, as User:Coelacan appears to have done, to the distress of his adoptee; and as User:DocEss did a few months ago, to my personal distress.
My proposal: that a register be formed of contact details of all editors; to be held in the office under strict security, and details to be released only by senior wiki officials (bureaucrats? stewards? Jimbo?) and only on the presentation of absolutely irrefutable reasons by editors whose identity can itself be verified, by e-mail or other means to be agreed.
It seems to me that there are rare occasions when the sudden and unannounced absence of an editor can cause serious concern, And I feel that some way of avoiding this situation could be considered. I welcome comments. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Get in touch with editors you are in close contact with by email or other means before they leave, and you'll be set. Λυδαcιτγ 03:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- To some extent there is comfort in the anonymity of Wikipedia. If someone can piece together my identity based on tidbits of information scattered about my userpage and/or contributions - good for them. Should someone suddenly decide to up and depart the project; that is their decision, despite what void it may leave. If an editor wishes to leave some way for them to be contacted it is up to their discretion; otherwise I am a little uncomfortable with the idea of a "database" of Wikipedia Editor contact info floating around in an office. Or hard drive. --Ozgod 05:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Article "signed"
Hello. I took a look at the DYK today, and found that in the main body (not the Talk Page) of one of the articles appeared the creator's name. Just wonder whether the policy has changed and one can now "sign" their creation. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 01:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)