Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive AW

Proposed versions

This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Current version

This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

A discussion about a possible "official policy seal" for our policy pages to replace the green tick mark,() has been going on for the last few days at WP:ATT, Official policy seal.

This is the latest iteration. Previous iterations are available in my sandbox. Here is a Diff of how this will look on the {{policy}} template.

Before I invest any more time on this, I seek comments from the wider community to assess if this proposal is worth pursuing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense... I think seals are a bit more universally recognized in the context of a policy/mandate. The only caveat per User:David Levy is that it is better to make one without words in it for universality across all Wikipedia languages. (→Netscott) 00:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a blank version available, that can be used to localize the text: Image:Gold seal.svg ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer it without the text. "Official policy" is in blue and in bold in the box's text - there isn't a lot of point trying to get the image to illustrate the page when the bold text does that much better. And when shrunk down to the size used in the template, the tiny curved text strains your eyes. It would be good to replace the generic tick mark, though, so I like the idea of using a seal. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've commented at the aforementioned discussion, I have numerous objections to this change:

1. There's nothing wrong with the checkmark/tick. Jossi claimed that it's "US-centric," but that's patently false. It isn't even Anglocentric.
2. This is proven by the fact that this exact icon file appears in the policy templates of Wikimedia wikis spanning no fewer than 26 different languages. This consistency is highly beneficial.
3. In addition to being widely adopted by other Wikimedia wikis, the current setup (green checkmark for policies, blue checkmark for guidelines, red cross for rejected/historical pages) has been in use here since December 2005. It's highly familiar to many people, and there's no compelling reason to start over.
4. The seal contains English text, thereby limiting its use to English-language wikis (or necessitating localization for each language).
5. The text is difficult to read at my resolution/screen size.
6. The text is completely redundant with the actual template's wording.
7. The intended display size is far larger than the 30px icons used in the various page status tags. As a result, the template's minimum size would be larger for many users (thereby pushing the actual content further down the page).
8. Jossi has proposed the use of gold coloring for policies and silver coloring for guidelines. This would reinforce the widespread misconception that guidelines are "ranked lower" than policies and can be disregarded by anyone who dislikes following them (because they're "only guidelines"). While it's true that guidelines sometimes have more wiggle room than policies do, they generally should be followed unless there's a good reason not to. The use of green and blue doesn't reinforce the notion that guidelines carry no official weight. Gold and silver (or any other "lower" color) would be counterproductive.
9. I also believe that the connotation carried by the seal imagery itself is inappropriate. Another widespread misconception is that our rules are sacrosanct laws that must always be followed to the letter. To me, this new icon seems indicative of such a situation, while the checkmarks convey the reality that these are mostly consensus-based checklists of concepts determined to be appropriate via use and discussion (descriptive, not prescriptive). —David Levy 00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry David Levy, but you might have wanted to disclose the fact that you've had a hand in the adoption of the Green and teal checks for use in tagging policy pages. (→Netscott) 01:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned that more than once in the aforementioned discussion. In case you didn't realize, I didn't design the checkmark. I merely converted it from an SVG to a PNG (which renders properly in IE6), created a blue version, and added these to the templates. I also had absolutely nothing to do with the icons' adoption at any of the other wikis. —David Levy 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a version (#2) without caption and with ribbons as requested by some editors:

Looking very good. (→Netscott) 01:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice icon, but it resembles an award of some sort. —David Levy 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the ribbons aren't truly necessary.... but let's see what others think.. (→Netscott) 01:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, of course. —David Levy 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Let it be known, I am not attached or feel strongly about making a change. Only that I think that as the project evolves, and our content improves, we need better graphics as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, the proposed change seems like a step backwards and a solution in search of a problem. (No offense intended. As I said before, I'm incapable of designing an SVG approaching this level). —David Levy 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, David. But exploring possibilities, has the potential to discover them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No argument there. I'm just expressing my opinions.  :-) —David Levy 02:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with all of David Levy's objections; particularly the cross-wiki consistency, and size/colour comments. However, (just to be difficult!), how about draft#3, in white instead of gold, with the green/blue tick in the center? I'd still be recognizable and minimal, but would get the redesign-proposal's point across. --Quiddity 04:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have only one thing to say about this, KISS. The checkmark is humble and it is simple. Fanfare to a minimal. If you want to use something else, ok, but do not forget the awesome power of simple. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ned Scott which is why I'm tending to prefer this image . (→Netscott) 04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about your display, but on mine, that looks remarkably like a depiction of the sun. —David Levy 04:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I mentioned this to Jossi and explained that it would be good to make a better more well defined version for smaller sizes (like above here)... he explained that he wanted to test the waters here before he extended more effort on this idea. (→Netscott) 04:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think the gold seal looks rather silly on a policy page, and at any rate it's not such a good idea to affix any kind of Official Seal Of Authority to our policy pages. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. >Radiant< 12:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see that there is no traction for this proposal. At least we have now a dozen seals in the public domain at commons... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Last attempt I did yesterday night, below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

This I like. Checkmark as a clear sign that it has approval, gold seal showing it's official. Definitely makes it a clearer distinction at a glance from guidelines. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As Radiant and I noted above, a gold seal carries a connotation that's best avoided. And again, the "distinction" to which you refer already is far less significant than many people believe. Additional emphasis would be highly counterproductive.

As Ned Scott noted, simplicity is good. There's no need to replace a small, sober icon (the dimensions of which have been standardized across our page status templates) with a large, fancy distraction that increases the tag's size and pushes content down the page.

And frankly, a seal with a protruding checkmark makes little sense. —David Levy 23:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm more for keeping it as a simple check mark. It gets the point across nicely without being distracting. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

GO to anything so policy and guidelines are more distinct from one another. Put a frowny face on one and a smiley on the other, but make them look different! (And Radiant!, since when aren't we a bureaucracy... God forbid anyone should ever try to print hard-copies of all our guidelines and the few, way too few, policies.) // FrankB 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, support seal with checkmark. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 18:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the seal with the check mark too. Its pleasant but no too distracting. Yaanch^Speak! 01:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In commenting on another of Jossi's proposed policy icons, SMcCandlish perfectly conveyed the problem with using a seal for this purpose:

"...I think it sends the wrong underlying message whatever it would look like - that some far-away body of comptrollers in an ivory tower has declared something inviolate and sealed it forever and with regal authority (look into the origin of 'seal' in this context and you'll see why that implication is present). WP policy doesn't actually work that way."

That's what I was trying to say above, but SMcCandlish did a much better job. —David Levy 02:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a method in place already to censure people for using deletion tags incorrectly, repeatedly? I find it is an incredibly common problem - if I see something on TV that is notable and yet does not have its own article, I usually try to add it. Every single time I add an article, someone tries to have it speedy-deleted instantly. We are not talking about random, meaningless articles here; instead we are talking about content that is universally approved and accepted as notable, except it does not have sources yet. When I go back, and do more work that the other person could have helped with, and add sources from Google, there is no dispute.

There are dozens and dozens of editors who go through new pages and just wantonly apply speedy deletion and prod tags to new articles that are short, temporarily unsourced, or otherwise don't meet their approval. Despite the fact that they are not candidates for regular deletion (let alone speedy), these same editors constantly mark things for speedy-deletions regardless, assuming that someone else will come back behind them and clean it up if it was a mistake.

This is hugely detrimental to the project, and it is a form of newbie-biting. Do we have a force in place to correct this behaviour specifically? People who have no idea what the speedy-deletion criteria even ARE should not be using speedy-deletion tags, and yet they are doing it, because it is an easy way to get their edit count up without contributing, doing research, or doing any real work.

So please tell me I'm overlooking a place where I can report these habitual abusers? I wish there was a specific unit or group of people specifically watching for this sort of thing, because it literally happens with /every single/ article I have created, both as an anon (previously) and as a registered user (now).John the Apostate 22:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re the spur of the moment unsourced new articles. Have you considered starting the article in your sandbox, finding and adding sources, before creating the thing in Wikipedia? This might prevent speedy delete tags for lack of references.

As for the New Article Patrols; I don't know enough to comment but there is a lot of cruft created each day, somebody has to get busy with the broom. LessHeard vanU 22:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My point, really, is that this is against policy and they shouldn't be doing it. While I could write the whole thing in notepad and add sources before I pressed 'save,' why should I have to? I am not the one violating policy, they are. John the Apostate 22:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The onus for sourcing is, always has been, and always will be, with the person creating the new article, and not the person nominating it for deletion. Chris cheese whine 22:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So if I wrote an article about Hitler with no immediate sourcing, and someone else came by and wanted to speedy delete it as 'patent nonsense - db1,' you would find this acceptable? Because to me, that's completely misunderstanding the policies on deletion, and especially on speedy-deletion.John the Apostate 22:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but then we've got a perfectly good one already. PS - you lose. :-) Chris cheese whine 22:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably? Meaning you would find that acceptable, to speedy-delete it as 'patent nonsense' simply because it didn't have sources that a simple click on Google would turn up? I suggest you read the article for deletion page again, because it specifically warns against doing that, in several ways and places. I will note that I am new here, and I thought this was a place where I could get actual constructive responses. I am a bit baffled by the flippancy, as I thought this would be a forum to communicate seriously. Is this a gag page, or is it just you? John the Apostate 22:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done several articles in a userspace sandbox before posting them. Sometimes you do come across something you think it might be interesting to make an article on. But we require that article content be attributed to sources. Not sometime, not before they get ready for their FA nomination, but from the very first edit. If you want to start a draft, but aren't ready to source it yet, just start it off in userspace, and source it at your convenience, without any worry of deletion. As to speedies, if you think one was requested inappropriately, add {{hangon}} to the article and make your case. If you would like any of the deleted articles userfied so that you can find some sources, let me know, I'll be happy to do so for you. Generally, so will the admin who performed the deletion, unless the article was an attack or copyvio. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If I saw a new article on Hitler saying random gibberish or biased political rantings, then I would immediately nominate it for speedy deletion. When I am on the prowl, I look for articles with absolutely no context whatsoever (often created by vandals), articles that appear to be autobios (often created by newbies and which I simply move to their userspace), or I look for articles which do not assert their notability (among the biggest mistakes, in my opinion). I believe that users should take their time creating a new article and try to work out its kinks before making that first edit, so-as to prevent misunderstandings such as what you have experienced. If an article has not existed for the several years that Wikipedia has been around, I'd be pretty confident that no one is going to create it while you're typing it up.

I do not know what the original incarnation of your article looked like, but the vast majority of the existing text on Nina Clifford does not seem to assert any notability -- with the exception of the last line: "Ms. Clifford was memorialized in the 1980s with a play, and then a musical, about her antics. It was entitled 'Nina! Madam to a Saintly City.'" For that reason, I believe it attains notability. It provides links, which (I assume) provide references (though they should be wikified, but alas: I, too, am guilty of rarely formatting references properly). --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Try the administrators noticeboard first, but make sure the taggings are, in fact, false. Have your argument ready or you'll be dismissed outright. WP:RFC would be the next step after that, although it's typically a waste of time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also try {{inuse}}, on your very first edit. Αργυριου (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! I will keep them in mind. John the Apostate 23:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's actually rare that a speedy delete would occur in five minutes and it would certainly mean that at least one editor and one administrator found the article worthy of deletion. One problem I saw with your article was that there was no notice of notability (notoriety, yes; notability, no). Lots of uncited stubs survive, but non-notables tend to get waxed. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is not whether the article qualified for a suggested deletion. The problem is that it clearly (and the other ones too) did not qualify for speedy-deletion, and yet people are very very quick to slap a tag on there, usually within thirty seconds (!) of creation. That is wholly inappropriate, and even if the nonsourced article would have been deleted following deletion policy, so be it. But tagging it as a speedy-deletion and then doing it over and over to other articles just to get your edit-count up is the problem. I know how to proceed now though. Thanks! John the Apostate 23:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, no admin deleted my content. I was miffed by constantly being faced with erroneous speedy-deletion tags on content that was NOT patent nonsense, and yet was tagged that way by new page patrollers of the regular-editing variety. John the Apostate 23:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) You're sort of missing the point of WP:ATT if you write the article and add sources later. Ideally, you should be writing from sources, not writing and then finding sources to back up what you say. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

However, if an article has real content, CSD nonsense only applies to true nonsense (sjdgfoseuaygfs sfdhp234io), not coherent content, so you could definitely argue agaist deletion based on misuse of the criteria. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(responding to comment further up) Articles get looked at as soon as they're posted. If you'd like to work an article that's not ready to be read, it's best to create it and work on it as a user subpage. Maybe it's a little surprising to see articles tackled right away, but this is a wiki, we all work together, and if you want an article for yourself for a bit, don't put it in article space. --Interiot 00:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait... what's this? "create in userspace"!? Doesn't that amount to "Please don't actually use the wiki to make an encyclopedia?"

OUW!

We're here to work together to make great articles. Not to race each other to see who can delete articles fastest. Focus here folks! :-)

Articles are started in the main namespace, and when you see one, your first question should be "how do I improve this?", not "which CSD tag shall I apply today?".

My first article on wikipedia got wikified and tidied practically before I released the submit button. That fast! Was I hooked? Boy was I ever. I'm still here editing years later :-P

--Kim Bruning 02:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This suggestion to only create article in the user space until they are of feature article status is utter BS'ing. In this regard, I completely agree with you Kim. We are here to create great articles, and they have to start somewhere. The whole point of Wikipedia was to avoid having to go through the incredibly painful process of Nupedia where you had to write the article completely, submit it for "peer" review, have it rot away for a while, go back and re-edit the article, add more sources and improve the content, and then finally get the thing for approval. Again, how many Nupedia articles actually got written in this process over the course of more than a year and a half? And yes, I was there back when Nupedia was first started. I was so intimidated by the whole process that I decided to bag it and not even bother trying. It sounds like some people here would like Nupedia to start back up again, as if Wikipedia never happened, or even understand why Wikipedia was started in the first place. --Robert Horning 05:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This editor specifically said

"if I see something on TV that is notable and yet does not have its own article, I usually try to add it..."

and then goes on to say that they then look to see if there are references they can use. If folk are going to be allowed to add "interesting facts not previously noted" without context and to be referenced as and when sources are found (and just left hanging if there is nothing? Are these people going to go to a major library or just do a Google search for their citations?) then both WP:Not is going to need rewriting and the article stubs people will be needing counseling.

The sandbox is the ideal place to consolidate and polish up a new article, and many people (me hopefully included) are better editors for having early contributions removed/ripped to shreds; as per the comment in the edit box. I also think the people patrolling new articles are performing a useful service in keeping the standard of surviving articles to a reasonable standard, it gives a useful mark at which to aim, by removing non-par contributions. They would likely be delighted to come across more new articles that have already been worked on and do not need any attention from them. LessHeard vanU 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Every deletion is a person displeased, and some of those people will make no further contributions, and frankly when I see things like this and this and they're hanging around for months and years I have to wonder if all the policies and guidelines on content aren't just pretense. Cryptonymius 05:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Whoa! I think we can have a middle ground here. No one's saying "Create in userspace until it'll be ready for FA on the first edit." The issue here is sourcing. We should be writing from sources, not memory. What userspace creation does help with, is preventing needless deletion (and whether anyone likes it or not, there is a lot of garbage coming in. See for yourself.) When one is doing newpage patrol, and seeing tons of one- or two-line articles coming in, most of which are in the vein of "John is really cool lololol", yes, sometimes the trigger finger gets an itch, but that's not without reason. It also helps future editors (there's a source right there, write some more from it!) and helps to weed out hoaxes (the more articles that come in sourced, the closer of scrutiny can be placed on those that don't.) The arguments often seem to exhibit the false dichotomy and straw man fallacies. There is a middle ground between "Create a sourceless one-line article that barely even explains what it's about" and "Create an FA on the first edit." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I know all about the itchy trigger finger phenomenon. I've done most kinds of admin-type patrol too. I might have occaisionally gotten one or two complaints. Shootout on Deletion Review at high noon? Who me? <innocent look>. No Requst for comments or Arbcom cases though <knock on wood>.. You do need to make snap decisions though, because it's like mopping the floor while the tap's still running. If you mess up, just undelete quickly, no problem. Or only go by proposed deletion in the first place, that's what it's here for, sanest system around!

If those don't really work out anymore, then we've got a problem. We're supposed to be helping editors, not hindering them, of course. Moving away from the wiki-pedia model is probably not the best idea though. :-/

I still might know some tools (& who to bribe to work on 'em) to help with making admin tasks easier, and maybe we can make improvements to RFA itself. Do you have any specific ideas on what might help (tools, processes, attitudes, or pure blue sky thinking) , yourself? --Kim Bruning 06:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

By far, the best thing that could be done is a similar attitude toward sourcing as there is toward NPOV (though this may be blue sky thinking). If someone sees a glaring NPOV problem, they know it's a problem, and it needs fixing sooner rather than later. This is good. As a reference work, we should be placing a tremendous amount of importance in maintaining a neutral stance. Yet many of these same editors, upon coming across a sourceless article, won't even do so much as place an {{unreferenced}} tag on it to call attention to the problem, and become very agitated about the removal of unsourced information (or sometimes even just on fact-tagging it!) Sourcing is not only as critical as NPOV, it is critical to NPOV. If what is in an article is sourced, there is no need to question editorial bias-we're reporting what reliable sources said, not what we think. It also helps future editors immensely, as quite often there's more information in a source for what that editor wishes to add, and it's right there. It's also extremely beneficial to readers, if they read an article and want more in-depth information, a reference list tells them right where to find it. I don't think this could be done through policy (hell, it already is policy), but I'd like to find some way to get people to understand the importance of sourcing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it-someone proposed, a while back, that we could have a "Draft:" namespace, that articles-in-progress could reside in until they've met the minimum sourcing guidelines. I think that just might help-that way, the decision isn't just between "Delete it entirely" or "Keep a sourceless article around", if no one can readily find sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There are very legitimate reasons to delete "articles", especially if they aren't encyclopedic or even somebody just writing random garbage. But writing a draft version of a legitimate article just doesn't seem to me to be one of these. There are many, many articles that are legitimate stubs (and mostly even labeled as such). While having sources is a very good thing and should be strongly encouraged, deleting good faith contributions is not the best way to help encourage new people to try and contribute here. This includes POV edits, as in many cases all you need to do is simply educate the new contributor and try and let them know some good examples of NPOV articles and what the general philosophy actually is. Article deletion is the easy way out of this process, which is why it is done perhaps far more often than it should be. --Robert Horning 22:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why I like the idea of the "Draft:" namespace (though, it would be easy enough to userfy unsourced articles, even without any code changes). That should address the concerns on both sides. For those concerned about unsourced articles, it gives an easy way to get them out of the encyclopedia, without deleting them entirely. For those contributors who contribute unsourced information, it lets them keep what they've written, but sends a firm message "Source it, then put it in an article, not the other way around." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So how would you deal with red links? By keeping them in the main namespace, you would at least have the blue-links for those articles which are stubby, even if they don't have all of the sources you are insisting on here. I'm not objecting to disclaimers and templates warning that the article is stubby in nature or incomplete. For me, a "Draft" namespace would be better used to help calm down edit wars where people are going back and forth with very unstable articles and moved to the main namespace once there is something close to concensus that has been achieved. I know that the red/blue link is something that could be fixed in software, but it does indicate that more thinking needs to go into this idea, and needs to be more than just creation of a new namespace.

On the other hand, I would support a "Published:" namespace or something similar that would only get content that has achieved some level of review and acceptance of several users. And to have articles in this published namespace to only link to each other unless the article hasn't reached a "published" level of acceptance. A user preference could then be used to stick with just the published articles or go to the "raw" articles under development, with default settings to only search for the published articles. Articles would have to be "republished" again if they have changed and the users find a new version acceptable. Of course, the devil is in the details about how this would happen. --Robert Horning 00:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The devil always seems to take up residence there, of course. Basically, what would happen is that articles with no reliable sourcing whatsoever would reside in the "Draft:" namespace (or alternatively be userfied and added to a category). There, the editors could take as long with sourcing as they desire, without having to worry about the article being deleted for lack of sourcing. If they need a few weeks to wait for an interlibrary loan to come in, that's fine! They're not restricted to a 5-day AFD process that way. On the other hand, that also ensures that we're not presenting totally unreferenced content as encyclopedia articles. To solve the redlink problem, perhaps it could be set up so that if there is not yet a mainspace article, but there is a draft, the reader is directed to a page stating something like "The article on this subject is a draft. Its information is not verified or sourced and is likely to contain inaccuracies. If you would like to view the article or help with writing and sourcing it, please click here." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think user pages and user subpages should be searchable on Google. Some people like to keep private versions that lean towards a POV not approved by consensus. In at least one case the user subpage appears higher in Google search rankings than Wikipedia's own article. It should be relatively easy to fix the software to treat user pages and subpages like talk pages and not let them be searchable. Thoughts? --Ideogram 12:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So, how do you stop it? Realistically. I know, there is the "Robots.txt" file that is supposed to set up rules about what can and can't be searched by "legitimate" search engines on any given website, but I don't think it necessarily applies in this situation either.

What goes into any page here on Wikipedia, including user pages, is very much a public page. Perhaps that needs to be made more clear on the edit box itself, but if you are posting information here, expect that all of it including the user pages is going to be read by anybody and everybody, including employers, government law enforcement agents, ex-spouses, children (even grown up children), parents, friends, enemies, political opponents, and others. Even if these pages weren't made searchable, there is nothing that the Wikimedia Foundation can reasonably do to stop others from going into these pages and seeing what you may have written.

In addition, all of this content is not only made searchable, but you can even download it all in one massive file for all user pages, and some interesting searches have been made recently of user pages of a statistical nature to try and find out the demographic make up of Wikipedia contributors. If this policy of prohibiting a google search of user pages is to happen, you should also prohibit even the ability to download user pages as well. --Robert Horning 13:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I went to WP:USER and would have thought that having a POV fork of a page in your userspace would have been listed as bad. You probably could WP:MFD the POV page and claim that it's a POV fork and/or the temporary work in progress isn't actually being worked on (depends on the edit history). I don't think limiting searching is a good idea. Being able to search in Google for items that may be contained in userspace is useful, especially with the current state of our in-house search. --MECU≈talk 13:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that if the POV user pages show up in a standard Google search someone might go to them thinking they are legitimate Wikipedia articles. This can be alleviated by tagging them with {{Userpage otheruse}} (which I have done) so at least there is a partial solution. I'm not opposed to them being available in general, I just don't want them confused with real Wikipedia articles. --Ideogram 14:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree in concept, but if the person searching is paying any attention and has and sense about them, they will note that the page they are looking at is headlined with "User:SoAndSo" or what ever the user's name happens to be. If I saw that, I would at least look into whether or not it was an actual article about the topic or just a user who happened to have the same name as the topic for which i was searching. SpadePrince Talk ^{Contributions} 16:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember that a lot of people are new to Wikipedia (Wikipedia and Wiki are the most commonly viewed pages). Most people are stupid. (Actually, they just aren't paying attention, but the result is the same.) --Ideogram 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Since when did Talk pages stop being searchable in Google? That doesn't seem to reflect any part of Wikipedia's configuration (neither robots.txt nor meta tags prohibit indexing talk pages), but they do appear to be largely missing. Compare "Talk:Earth" on Google and the same on Yahoo. It appears that Google has independently decided not to index the article talk pages. Oh, and yes, POV forks in user space should be deleted. Dragons flight 16:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have archived all those contents in edit histories. The materials should no longer be possible to be searched on Google. Please consider retreating your MFD nomination. Thanks. — Instantnood 22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• This should be on bugzilla. >Radiant< 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, this has been around before; see here, here, and here for old discussions, none of which really came to a satisfactory resolution. Of the top ten google hits for 'Opabinia regalis', I'm #3, 4 (or 3.5), and 10. [1] Opabinia regalis 05:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does anyone associated with WP want to have the user pages searchable in the first place?DGG 02:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have recently noticed that a Wikiseek is now the default action for text entered in the search box that appears to the left of each article.

Is this helpful to our users while Wikiseek typically produces inferior results to the Go button?

[Wikiseek is a search engine that has indexed only Wikipedia pages, plus a very few pages that are linked to from Wikipedia. It was created by startup Searchme, Inc.

Despite press reports to the contrary, it has no affiliation with the charitable organization Wikimedia Foundation or private corporation Wikia, and is unrelated to the never-released web search application Wikiasari.

Wikipedia users are cautioned that using the Wikiseek button often produces an inferior result to using the Go button on Wikipedia.

An ironic example of this is if one enters "Wikiseek" into the search button of Wikipedia; choose the Wikiseek button and no useable results will currently be displayed, choose the conventional "Go" button and you are taken directly to this article!

Further examples of futile searches with Wikiseek (even though there are eponymous articles) would be "Amber House" and "Cabragh House" (even though these particular problems were reported in 2006...] W. Frank 17:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand - for me, the default action is still the Go button. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 22:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you've got some malware installed on your computer which is altering the way Wikipedia displays for you. There is certainly no "Wikiseek" button in Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "allegation":

al·le·ga·tion /ˌælɪˈgeɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[al-i-gey-shuhn] *Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

• 1. the act of alleging; affirmation.
• 2. an assertion made with little or no proof.
• 3. an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove.
• 4. a statement offered as a plea, excuse, or justification.
• [Origin: 1375–1425; late ME < L allégātiōn- (s. of allégātiō), equiv. to allégāt(us), ptp. of allégāre to adduce in support of a plea (al- al- + -légāre, deriv. of léx law; see legal) + -iōn- -ion]

• —Synonyms 1, 2. charge, accusation; claim, contention.

(from dic.com)

Wikipedia's official guidelines regarding the use of the term:

Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity—they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear.

...

O.J. Simpson allegedly murdered his ex-wife and a friend of hers in 1994. [In the context of crimes, alleged is understood to mean "alleged by government prosecutors".]

(Taken from WP:WTA#So-called.2C_supposed.2C_alleged.2C_purported)

Currently on Wikipedia, there are some articles with that word in their article name. Noted:

• Allegations of Israeli apartheid
• Zionism and racism allegations
• 1993 child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson (note that this is the legal use of the term)
• Allegations_of_Satanism_in_popular_culture
• Allegations of apartheid
• George_W._Bush_insider_trading_allegations
• Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism
• Allegations_of_tourist_apartheid_in_Cuba
• Allegations_about_the_2000_Fijian_coup_d'état
• The Allegations section of Template:Antisemitism

and on and on. Please see this google search to find lots more

These articles discuss the allegations, and then give examples of when the term is used.

But, there are also articles like this:

• Islam and antisemitism (see discussion on talk page)
• Christianity and antisemitism (see discussion on talk page)
• Islamofascism (see discussion on talk page)
• Islamophobia
• State terrorism by United States of America (Note that Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America is a redirect to said article)
• State terrorism in Sri Lanka (First sentence of the article is "Several groups have alleged [emphasis mine] that there have been instances of state terrorism by Sri Lanka")
• Holocaust
• New antisemitism
• Pallywood
• Homosexual agenda

etc.

So I was wondering, what is the current status of these articles? I don't think it makes sense for some articles to have "allegations" in the title, while others don't. I think either they all should, or they all shouldn't. Thoughts? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How does Holocaust fit into your list? --Dschwen 20:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It fits because the Holocaust is alleged to have happened. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not "alleged" to have happened, it did happen. WP:V applies here, as I explain below. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the definition of alleged, it has been alleged to happen. There is a considerable minority of the world which do not believe the holocaust occured. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking frankly here, I think this was a productive discussion until you made your last point. Obviously there are events that are universally acknowledged by scholars as real and should be treated as such (e.g. the Holocaust) and there are interpretations of historical events (e.g. most of the items of the first list) that are inherently allegations. We need to have a discussion about "criticism of x" and "allegations of x" articles, but if we can't distinguish between things that are certainly true and things that are certainly alleged we'll end up with either "Allegations that the Earth is Flat" or "Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center". GabrielF 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You say "certainly true". WHO decides whether something is certainly true? Sources? Wikipedia editors? "Certainly true" is something which is contestable in and of itself. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 16:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is critical here. "Allegations" is perfectly acceptable in article titles where the article exists to document an unverifiable, albeit possibly noteworthy, belief. An example of this would be Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The existence of "Israeli apartheid" apartheid at all is itself quite questionable, but the question being posed by many on the political far left and political far right is a valid subject for Wikipedia to document. The ideas themselves are unverifiable and thus cannot be accepted as fact within Wikipedia, but the argument can certainly be made that the allegations are noteworthy enough to justify an article about the allegations themselves. Conversely, Islam and antisemitism, Christianity and antisemitism and The Holocaust are not allegations, they are historical (and in the case of the former two, also present) realities. Thus, per WP:V, they can be considered fact.

I'd argue that the "State terrorism" articles ought to be moved to "allegations of..." but beyond that, it looks good the way it is now.

The subject of the article is coalesced in its title; "Allegations" articles document the allegations themselves, whereas non-"allegations" articles document facts. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "unverifiable". What is "unverifiable" about Israeli apartheid? For some people, it is considered a fact. Opposite goes for Holocaust. Some people don't consider the holocaust of fact. I think these selective titles may be an example of Systematic bias (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias) --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It fails WP:V and is therefore unverifiable per Wikipedia standards and policies. The criteria for what makes information verifiable for the purposes of Wikipedia is clear and remarkably simple. Remember that Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I have seen no exceptional sources suggesting "Israeli apartheid" exists and therefore it fails WP:FRINGE. Sorry. Systemic bias isn't an issue here, it's Wikipedia's content policies that you have a problem with. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional according to who's definition? I could say "I have seen no exceptional sources suggesting that "holocaust" exists and therefore it fails WP:FRINGE". --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I definitely do not want to start titling articles like Holocaust with the words "allegations of" before it. To me, "allegations" a term that should be reserved for very specific legal instances. In the case of "Israeli apartheid", it's a descriptive term that's in use in different political circles. Those who use it are not alleging that Israel is an apartheid state, they are insisting it is. That term and its associated debate deserve representation in an article titled after the concept itself. The controversy can be discussed in the article, much as it is in Islamofascism. Tiamut

Tiamut, I must say that was my point in bringing up Holocaust. Thanks for putting it in better words than I have. I also would NOT like to see Allegations of the Holocaust. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Note how Allegations of the Holocaust doesn't even redirect to Holocaust. I just realized that now. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nor does Allegations of Holocaust exist. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

An "exceptional" source is defined according to Wikipedia consensus. The applications policy are subjective, but the fact is nonetheless they are subjective of consensus more than they are subjective of any individual editor. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. The consensus is subject to systematic bias. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting? Destroying WP:V and WP:CON because they don't allow for the views of a political fringe to be accepted as fact in Wikipedia articles? I'm sorry, but no one will go for that. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it extremely offensive that you consider Israeli apartheid as fringe; notable scholars such as Noam Chomsky have spoken of it. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, look at WP:FRINGE. It has the apollo moon hoax, creation science, and the paul is dead hoax as examples. Are you seriously suggesting that the discrimination towards Palestinians in the occupied territories is equivalent to those nonsense theories? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Official discrimination by the Israeli government with the intent of wiping out the Palestinian population over a long period of time so that the Jews can have all of Israel as God intended, then they will expand their colonial empire from the Nile to the Euphrates as the Bible says and destroy all who stand in their way? Yes, I am saying that argument is as credible those nonsense theories. Sorry if I sound condescending, but if you want something treated as fact in Wikipedia it must conform with WP:V and not fall into the category of WP:FRINGE. If you don't like Wikipedia's policies, you have two choices:

1. Don't edit. There's no mandate from god or from your government (wherever that may be) compelling you to edit Wikipedia.
2. Propose changes to policy. If you think policies get in the way of Wikipedia being successful and accurate, propose changes to them. Policies are not implicitly "perfect", but they're all we have at the moment. If you have a better approach or a better way, propose it and see if it gains consensus. Either way, if you want to edit you have to follow the policies that do have consensus.

Editting Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Whether or not you follow policy in your editting is the prime criterion for determining whether or not you deserve that privilege. Just because it is given by default does not mean you are owed it; and if you don't like our policies, and decide that you don't want to follow them while editting, it may be taken away. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Telling me "don't edit" is inane. Please don't be a total dick and tell me to go away. How would you like it if I told you "don't edit". Your belief that Israeli apartheid is WP:FRINGE is just that; a belief. Also, last time I checked, this is the village pump regarding policy, so instead of saying "follow policy", why don't we discuss the policies instead? That's the whole fucking point of even bringing this up.

Also, I don't like your condescending attitude (as evidenced on this page) towards me. Please read WP:AGF. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 16:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Even Israeli apartheid should not have "allegations" in the title. It's superfluous, non-neutral and unprofessional. We should write in an objective style without implying a point-of-view. — Omegatron 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Roughly speaking, if the subject of the article is just the allegations, then it may be appropriate to use that in the title - realistically, Allegations of Islamofacism should be a subarticle of Islamofascism - where the parent article explains what it is, while the daughter article talks about who's been accused of it, why they've been accused, how they've responded, et cetera. Generically, you'd only split off the daughter if the parent is too big. Labelling everything with qualifiers like allegations because the subject isn't completely agreed upon is dumb, because no subject is completely agreed upon. Would anyone take the encyclopaedia seriously if we had an article called Allegations of Gravity with Gravity as a redirect to it? And yet generically putting allegations of in the title of contraversial articles will lead to that sort of thing - if you dig, you'll see every article is contraversial - Allegations of the Coriolis Force, Allegations of Pizza Delivery and so on ... WilyD 21:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Having reviewed it, I see Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is probably well titled - it just talks about who makes the allegations and why, it doesn't talk about the Israeli apartheid hardly at all. WilyD 21:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, a huge amount of the article is devoted to the allegations. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • So Wily, do you think it is permissible to separate Allegations of Israeli Apartheid from Israeli apartheid? And also, should then, conspiracy theorists be allowed Allegations of the Holocaust (the content could be merged from Holocaust denial) That's even more interesting of a title which raises questions. Can we have an Israeli apartheid denial article as well? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know enough about the subject to say whether WP:NAME would place the article at Israeli Apartheid or like Israeli treatment of the Palestinians or whatever. Generically, if Allegations of Israeli Apartheid got too long, you might need to spin out Israeli Apartheid Denial - although again, I'm not sure this is the preferred term per WP:NAME. Maybe it is. I think I understand the generic issue here because I've seen it come up in other places a few times, but I don't know enough about Israeli politics to make off the cuff specific statements. WilyD 21:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Of the above examples, Zionism and Racism allegations seems like it shouldn't have allegations at the end, for instance. WilyD 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Going even further with this point, there's even Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial. Can we have Criticism of Israeli apartheid denial as well? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If you can't differentiate between historical fact and political rhetoric, then there's hardly a point in responding. The Holocaust was a terrible historical event. "Israeli apartheid" is a political epithet. Please try to use less egregiously offensive and, frankly, silly arguments in the future. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

By making an article about a subject, we are making an implicit claim that it exists, and that claim must pass the acid test of WP:V. If it cannot pass that acid test, it cannot be on Wikipedia. "Israeli apartheid" cannot be verified to exist, and therefore an article suggesting it does has no place here. We can, however, discuss the allegations made by some that it does exist, which is what we do. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your "implicit claim that it exists". We have articles on creation, aliens, etc. etc. and not Allegations of creation, Allegations of aliens, etc. etc. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The subject of an article could exist in fiction or in popular thought--The only thing that matters here is that it can be verified that it exists therein. I can verify, by checking the first Star Wars film, that there is indeed a character called Luke Skywalker. I cannot verify, however, that "Israeli apartheid" exists in any world, real or fictional. Remember, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Israel apartheid DOES exist in popular thought. Many notable scholars have used the term. Also, just because it's not popular where you live doesn't mean that it isn't popular in other places. Again, an example of Systematic bias.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • "If you can't differentiate between historical fact and political rhetoric, then there's hardly a point in responding. The Israeli apartheid is a terrible historical event. "The Holocaust" is a political epithet. Please try to use less egregiously offensive and, frankly, silly arguments in the future. Thanks."--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So...are you proposing a page move or what? If you are, just make your proposal at WP:RM and be done with it. The discussion here seems more like soapboxing. --Minderbinder 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing anything, besides consistency. I don't want to swarm WP:RM with several hundred pages with "allegations" in them. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Consistency" isn't really something that can be proposed as a blanket rule of all articles. "Allegations" is appropriate when the topic dictates it, there's no reason all or none should have it. What are you hoping to accomplish, getting the word removed from articles that have it, or adding it to others? --Minderbinder 21:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, either they all have "Allegations of" in their titles, or none of them do (except in legal uses of the term). Either way is fine with me. (but admittedly with a bias towards those words being removed). --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if you could somehow define "they all" whatever that is (All articles? All articles anyone disputes?), it's never gonna happen. You're tilting at a windmill here (or at least making your stink somewhere trafficked enough to get your ranting read by a few people). Nothing to see here folks, let's stop feeding the troll. --Minderbinder 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Any article that has WP:NOTABLE notable disputes should have "Allegations of..." in the title heading. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Any article that has WP:NOTABLE disputes should be brought to WP:AFD, and then the matter should be settled. WilyD 21:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. Didn't mean to have the "WP" showing.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, don't be a WP:DICK by accusing me of being a troll. I have been on Wikipedia for quite a while now, and have no history of blocks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know where this is headed. but it seems to me that there are very clear cases where the word "allegation" can be used. Leave these to be discussed in the specific articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Here's how I think we should make the distinction between allegation and a fact.

• If the event/condition/issue is debated by reliable (preferably scholarly) sources, then it should be an "allegation" or "controversy".
• But if the event is disputed only by wiki users, on unreliable sources, then wikipedia considers it as fact, but gives all POVs due weight.

What do you gusy think about that?Bless sins 22:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• • No, if the article discusses X it should be named X - if it discusses allegations about X, who makes those allegations and why, they history of doing this, then Allegations of X should be used. Allegations of Calculus, for instance, should not give a history of the development of Rienmann sums - Calculus or History of Calculus should do that. Meawhile, an article about how Crackpot McGee claims calculus doesn't exist because otherwise he won't meet course requirements at the University of Assbacks, Ontario that results in a lot of press coverage might reasonably be titled Allegations of Calculus. WilyD 22:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wily, that sounds about right. But look at the Islam and antisemitism article, which is filled with allegations that Islam is antisemitic. What do you think of moving it to Islam and antisemitism allegations?--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I think you're on to something, but don't know if I follow your point on "But if the event is disputed only by wiki users, on unreliable sources, then wikipedia considers it as fact" . Can you elaborate? Majoreditor 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That part is right, but the first point isn't. The article should only Allegations of ... if it ignores the subject and only talks about the debate about whether or not the thing exists. Allegations of North America should not have the population of North America - that's rightly placed in North America, but the debate about whether Columbus was in a new land or Japan might reasonable be titled Allegations of the Amercas. WilyD 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Alright, I think I understand your view now. I'm sorry if I come off as condescending by asking too many questions. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Not at all - better to ask too many questions and understand each other better than necessary than the reverse. WilyD 22:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(Resetting indent). There's an important distinction here. At least 90% of the facts that give rise to the idea of apartheid are not under dispute - characterizing it as "apartheid" is an interpretation that by its very nature is subjective. The Holocaust is a proper name for a series of specific events that are accepted by 99.99% of anyone who calls himself/herself a historian. (Oh, and Noam Chomsky quite clearly holds fringe positions, and isn't even a historian, nor - as it turns out - such a great linguist). --Leifern 00:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, just because Chompsky is terrible at a lot of things doesn't mean he's a bad linguist - the reason people listen to him when he hasn't a clue what he's talking about is because he's such a good linguist. Anyways, I sort of agree - realistically, Israeli Apartheid should redirect to Treatment of Palestinians in Israel or whatever, not Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, which seems to be the right article at the right place. WilyD 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've long believed that we should avoid using the word "allegations" in article titles. There will obviously be the need for some exceptions (eg. the 1993 Michael Jackson article), but the word is too easly co-opted for political ends.

The Allegations of Israeli Apartheid title is a bad compromise, and was chosen during highly politicized negotiations last summer. At the time of the article's creation, the concept was relatively marginal. Since then, it has been referenced by a former American president, a United Nations report, and countless journalists. And yet, the "allegations" title has been retained, due to ongoing political divisions on the page itself.

It may be noted, by way of contrast, that the disputed concept of New antisemitism is not referred to as Allegations of new antisemitism, notwithstanding similar objections that have been raised around the concept's viability. CJCurrie 03:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie, that's a good point. I've added New antisemitism to the list uptop. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing the Holocaust as an "allegation" undermined your own cause. Speaking of which, this whole proposal is an attempt to make a WP:POINT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, important distinction here. The term "New Antisemitism" doesn't attribute antisemitism to a particular group, or entity. If the title had been Robert Fisk's antisemitism (and I'm not claiming he's antisemitic), the comparison would have been apt. --Leifern 10:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't attack the user, who is not (at least here) violating WP:POINT - he's trying to make a good point in a constructive, nondisruptive way. There is an inconsistancy that comes from editors who try to apply WP:NPOV without having read it. WilyD 13:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting away from what is by definition a POV argument... let's look at this with complete dispassion: In naming articles on Scientific topics, we do not add "Allegations of..." in front of theories held to be factual by mainstream consensus. We should do the same for historical events (or theories) held to be factual by mainstream consensus. Since the vast majority of historians hold that the holocaust did in fact occur, we should not lable it as an "Allegations of..." article. Now, there might be some argument that the opposing view could be an "Allegations" article (ie "Allegations that the Holocaust did not happen")... except that such an article already exists in a much more NPOV manner as Holocaust denial.

In fact, that's why I tried to talk about topics where Allegations of X sound funny. But I will say on scientific topics, we don't use Allegations of ... for non-mainstream stuff either, or even false stuff. MOND is not Allegations of MOND, Caloric Theory is not Allegations of Caloric Theory, Aether is not at Allegations of Aether and so on ... WilyD 15:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I do think we need to think about the propriety of having any "Allegations of" articles... so many of them are thinly veiled POV forks... but that is a different issue. Blueboar 13:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, I understand your concerns. But what about science which has mainstream consensus among scientists, but not among the general populace? I think it would be incredibly silly and stupid to have an Allegations of Evolutionary theory article. As gracenotes said, I think that if there is relevant, sourced, notable dispute of a subject, then the article should not allege it as a fact. For instance the holocaust is considered fact by the vast majority of historians. But there is a notable minority which disagree with the extent of the holocaust. But that does not mean that the Holocaust article should be moved to Allegations of the Holocaust. And the holocaust itself is such a controversial subject that a move to "Allegations..." would be offensive. And that is my point with the Israeli apartheid article. Most historians agree that Israel has isolated and separated the Palestinians in the occupied territories. But there is a notable minority (mostly from the United States and Israel) that claim there is no persecution of Palestinians. But moving the article (as it currently stands) to "Allegations..." is offensive. As user Tiamut earlier above said: "Those who use it are not alleging that Israel is an apartheid state, they are insisting it is. That term and its associated debate deserve representation in an article titled after the concept itself." --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 14:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Those who use the phrase are still making allegations, regardless of whether or not they believe them to be true. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I find the allegation that I am violating WP:POINT to be entirely self-defeating. The whole point of the Village pump is to discuss issues BEFORE doing something major. If I had went and move all those articles to "Allegations of..." (or vice versa), that would have been a WP:POINT.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 14:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've found this: WP:WTA#So-called.2C_supposed.2C_alleged.2C_purported. Added to top.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 14:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Added Pallywood.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You forgot Islamophobia. I added it for you. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If you find anymore, feel free to add them. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The article Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is, strictly speaking, about the allegations rather than the actuality of any discrimination or colonialism which would be better served by an article entitled something else. At least, that was the reason behind the writing of the article by my understanding. That isn't even considering the compromises that reaching that title entailed. Islamofascism is about the neologism, Islamophobia unfortunately conflates a neologism with a real phenomenon along with allegations of the phenomenon, and New antisemitism is similar. --Coroebus 20:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why Pallywood is included in this discussion. The article is admittedly problematic - it's a neologism used almost entirely by blogger-activists and promoted in a self-published video essay by an academic working in a personal capacity as a political activist. The notability of the neologism, the video essay and the academic's activism is questionable to say the least - it emphatically isn't widely used or recognised beyond the blogosphere. (See Talk:Pallywood#Notability questions for details - comments from other editors would be very welcome.) However, it seems to me to be in a rather different category from the one that Kirbytime sets out above. -- ChrisO 02:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Although the article itself states that it is about the word "Pallywood", reading the discussion page it seems clear that many users including SlimVirgin and Leifern have decided that they want the article to be about alleged incidences of what might be called Pallywood, hence the dispute about referencing articles that don't even mention the term (e.g. here and here. This is extremely problematic as Wikipedia really shouldn't be adopting partisan neologisms as the titles of articles about things, unless the article is about said neologism. It is one of the main source of conflict on articles such as Allegations of Israeli Apartheid (where the same editors consicuously take the opposite view insisting that the sources must include references to Israeli apartheid) and Islamophobia and Islamofascism. --Coroebus 14:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time to put all of the "Allegations . . ." articles up for Afd, as they all violate our rules against WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position, codified at WP:SYNT.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sign under the statement with which you most agree. Discuss in comments section.

1. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

1. --Sefringle 02:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with most of the current titles. The topics which there is serious uncertianty about have alleged in them. The ones where uncertianty is uncertian do not. Calling the Holocaust, for example, alleged, is giving undue weight to antisemites.--Sefringle 02:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC) The term is so frequently used in newspaper accounts regarding criminal activity, that it by now has acquired that connotation, and should only be used when specifically criminal accusations that have not yet been decided are the topic Many of the uses are more general, and hence inappropriate.DGG 02:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I was recently editing some articles and came across a number of geographical locations (primarily unincorporated towns) that were tagged {{importance}}. I seem to recall in the past several people arguing to keep such articles when they came up in AfD debates by saying that geographical locations are inherently notable and do not require additional "proof of importance" beyond the fact that they exist. I have been looking around in the policies and guidelines and I am having a hard time finding where it is stated that this is the case. Is it an actual policy somewhere, or is it merely consensus? If it exists in policy I would like to know where so that I can reference it. It would also be very helpful to know what the policy is regarding geographical locations and notability. Thanks! Arkyan 23:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So Mrs. O'Leary's Barn is not notable enough for you? I say that tounge in cheek, as I don't think nearly every outhouse and barn is necessarily notable in every instance, but there can be some significant exceptions. On the other hand, unicorporated towns are something that is a real problem to determine notability. Some of these can be quite big, such as those found on Oahu, because the entire island is considered one very large city, but it is divided into several geographic regions and neighborhoods that would normally be considered seperate cities anywhere else. In going through U.S. Census records, I've seen unincorporated areas having populations of close to 100,000 people. Of course, I've also seen incorporated towns with a population of just three families (I knew a 16 year old fire chief once from one of these towns).

I don't think you can come to a good concensus on where to draw the line here, although if you had to mark some of these within the USA, I would suggest that statistical data must be available by the U.S. Census bureau for that geographical location, and a similar kind of standard could be used in other countries. I could imagine a tougher standard, but that is at least something to start with. --Robert Horning 00:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Although it was marked "inactive" today, you might find Wikipedia:Places of local interest and its talk page a good starting point.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• It may be worth reinvigorating discussion on WP:LOCAL. Despite heavy objections from (mostly) a single user that objects to every notability guideline, LOCAL seems reasonably well supported as well as used in practice. >Radiant< 12:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There could be other shades to this as well. See Boca Raton, Florida, a resort city for which roughly two-thirds of the residents who share the Boca Raton postal address actually live outside the city limits in unincorporated Palm Beach County land and have no right of access to city services such as police, firefighting, sanitation, or libraries. Durova^Charge! 15:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Radiant's post above, I can confirm that it is used in practice, as I cited it in this afd debate just the other day. I haven't been following the debate at WP:LOCAL, but one user's objection does not a lack of consensus make.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help thus far. I went and looked at WP:LOCAL as well as the discussion there, and it feels like there is still some need for clarification and consensus. I'm hoping to spark some discussion on the issue again, so I've commented on the talk page there. Would really appreciate any constructive thoughts and ideas anyone would have! Thanks! Arkyan 17:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The bot which created an article about every place in the US 2000 census was supported by consensus, and all articles which have come up for deletion have also met consensus keeps. It may not be posted in a policy anywhere, but there has long been consensus to keep those articles. A real place is important due to its existence, unlike most other things which fall under question about notability. You would need a strong consensus to delete them. Corvus cornix 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find what you are looking for here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes: "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size." The general rule is that towns are notable, but things in the town like minor streets, buildings, etc. generally are not, with "notable" exceptions, of course. Dhaluza 02:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

See User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not a blanket. Uncle G 14:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a serious issue with the promotion of articles to Good status, which no one has been able to address to my satisfaction. I am concerned with the fact that a GA candidate can be passed or failed by a single editor. Even speedy deletes have the grace of two editors, and AFD discussions rarely close with less than three contributions. I would like to know in which forum I could pursue this discussion with the end to change in GA policy. Thanks. Denni^talk 06:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a specific Good Article, bring it up at Good Article Review. I disagree that the process needs any changing. The promotion of an article as a "Good Article" makes no changes at all to the mainspace appearence of an article. Good Articles are not listed on the main page, and the status as a Good Article only appears on an article's talk page. The analogy to the deletion processes is faulty, since the WP:SPEEDY and WP:AFD processes make rather drastic changes to an article. The process is decidedly unbeaurocratic, and this is deliberate and intentional. The criteria for Good Articles is clear and unambiguous, and if you trust the judgement of your fellow editors, then one should trust that they know what it takes to review and promote or fail a Good Article. It is my experience that other Good Article reviewers take their jobs quite seriously, and are very throrough and judicious about reviewing articles and applying the Good Article Criteria (I am a frequent reviewer, and I feel I am both throrough and judicious as well). Again, if it is a specific article you have a problem with, then please go to WP:GAR to see what to do about this. If it is a problem with a specific editor who is promoting or failing articles in an inappropriate or disruptive manner, talk to them at their talkpages first, and if the behavior does not cease, then report them at WP:ANI or WP:RFC. If you feel that in general your fellow editors should not be trusted to make these decisions, see WP:AGF. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 08:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. The GA process isn't an attempt to showcase the best of Wikipedia, but rather an attempt to promote "good" article before they advance towards FA or A class status. It is built primarily on trust. If you feel a certain decision or editor is being unfair, either may be a subject to a review. There has been a lot of discussion on the process here, which resulted in a consensus not to overhaul the process nor add any defined criteria on the reviewers themselves. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• This pretty much demonstrates the pointlessness of "good articles". They're just "articles that somebody happens to like", and this has never really been different since the inception of GA. >Radiant< 12:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I quite disagree. If that were the case, there wouldn;t be any criteria that one is supposed to apply. Good articles should meet WP:CITE and WP:ATT requirements for referencing, and should be free of images of questionable free or fair-use status. They should follow the Manual of Style and be reasonably representative of the current state of scholarship on the subject, not omiting any major points. Again, none of this has any basis on how much an article is "liked". To say so assumes that that the editors involved in said project cannot be trusted to make decisions on the application of said criteria, and are largely acting in disregard of the criteria for their own personal gain or betterment. That is a ludicrous example of assuming bad faith, if you ask me. If the criteria is being misapplied in specific cases, there are means of redress. But that does not mean the entire project should be ignored, scrapped, or insulted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, there is a minimum of 2 users that think it should be GA, like CSD: the nominator and the promoter/reviewer. --MECU≈talk 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that since meaningful edit summaries are not optional policy, perhaps the default for new users ought to be to require them? --BenBurch 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We had been discussing this higher up on this page and a forked post at village pump technical, now archived. See (above discussion) here, and the VP/T fork, here (you have to scroll to the relevant section). Not much has yet come of it, but where multiple people come up with a suggestion separately, that says something about it in and of itself.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooops! Should have looked harder. Thanks! --BenBurch 00:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• This may be worth adding to WP:PEREN by now. >Radiant< 13:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to an edit on my Talk page, & as I researched the facts around it, I became more troubled at what happened. Maybe I'm behind the times, coming from left field, etc., but I don't like what I have found.

First, I am against spam -- in Wikipedia, in my email, anywhere. No reputable business knowingly uses spam to advertise, pure & simple.

However, it appears that it is far easier for a website to be listed as a spammer than it is to remove it. In the case I encountered, someone on an IRC channel claimed that the website "touregypt.net" was identified as a target of a spammer. Another Wikipedian (who, I want to point out, was acting in good faith) acted on this claim & began to "delink" every link to that website, without regard to who added it; the editor obviously was working as fast as she could. (By "delink" I mean that a nowiki tag was inserted so that one could not click-thru; one could still follow the link by copying the text of the URL into the browser.)

As a result, in several articles, talk pages, & many other places where it was clearly part of the context we lost references (I believe several of these edits have since been reverted).

Note: I have no problem with IRC being used to quickly respond to emergencies. in this case, ifa spammer had been obviously adding links to this website in Wikipedia, alerting Admins to this fact would be very much appropriate, but then the site should be nominated for inclusion in the spam list, & discussion follow before it is added.

This editor was contacted by several established & knowledgable Wikipedias, who demanded an explanation. She explained about the IRC channel, & referred them to this site on meta, where the website had been listed without any sign of a discussion that I have been able to find. This forum for discussion is not well-publicized (unlike, for example, WP:AfD), & a Wikipedian can contribute for a long period of time without even knowing meta.wikipedia.org even exists. However, there is currently a petition by a number of Wikipedians (some of whom have demonstrated extensive knowledge of Egyptology) to remove this website from the spam list. In short, four things happened that I think are wrong:

1. This website was blacklisted on the basis of something said in off-Wikipedia locale. Not every Wikipdian has access to IRC, or chooses too use it. Further, in a recent ArbCom ruling, it was found that Wikipedia IRC channels are not part of Wikipedia. If you want to set policy for Wikipedia, do it on Wikipedia where the rest of us can be expected to participate.
2. Unless it is clearly the work of a spammer, don't "delink" the links. This is not necessarily a subjective judgement call: there are some very simple rules one can follow:
   1. All of the edits are made by the same person;
   2. if it's in the "External links" section; or
   3. the link is added without regard to context.
3. Concerned editors were forced to find out why these edits were made, then forced to find the location (which was unexpected) where they could participate in the decision process.
4. Lastly, despite obvious clues to the contrary, they bear the burden of proof that the links are not spam.

As I said above, I admit that I may be out of the loop here. However, I feel that this is a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia -- where we discuss & create concensus upon matters. Some Wikipedians claim that they are smart enough to know when they can safely ignore all rules in order to improve Wikipedia; in this case, I think it is clear that rules were ignored & stupid edits were made which harmed Wikipedia. -- llywrch 17:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I, being another editor with interest in this particular deletion, am also upset by the way things were dealt with here. Hundreds of links, installed over years by numerous editors for the sake of citing content, should never be mass deleted, especially not because of some IRC discussion. This is yet another example of a systemic problem on wikipedia- very few or even one editor can do somthing, and the burden of proof somehow rests on those who object!
In this particular case, dozens of pages have been affected, and one featured article has been de-sourced in such a way that one could technically move to de-list it because of the removal of this "Spam". For pity sake, how hard it is to realize that specific citations by definition cannot be spam....? Thanatosimii 22:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

These mass deletions are quite destructive and senseless. It is unclear why touregypt.net was targetted, yet good work by many gets corrupted,- really an internal form of vandalism. I suggest that the criteria for the spam list need to be sharpened. Ekem 02:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

May I say that Llywrch has very accurately delineated the issue. The blacklisting process, currently at the unvetted pleasure of individual administrators, appears to be flawed: see Talk:British Museum. Though www.touregypt.com does have a villas-for-rent spammy-sounding name, what is to be made of blacklisting the consortium of European national libraries - libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org - the EU's official National Libraries site, brought to my attention by User:Johnbod, one of Wikipedia's most dependable editors? IRC continues to veer out of control, damaging Wikipedia at every thoughtless lurch. --Wetman 02:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Like has been stated on meta 50> of touregypt is advertising, and the site was designed to sell product. using spam as a ref doesnt mean that its not spam. quit your complaining about anti-spam we have identified and reverted numerous spammers, the theeuropeanlibrary.org has been massively added by employees of that group. The fact that more than one user adds links doesnt meant that its not being spammed if you have a issue with the meta blacklist take it to meta. en.wikipedia has no control over meta, or meta admins. so if you want to argue for your spam site please take it to meta as that is where it was blacklisted and all the huffing and puffing that is done on en.wiki means nothing TAKE IT TO META. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

May I assume that you were the person who decided on IRC that links to this website were spam? -- llywrch 04:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Its clearly a meta issue. Please take it there. And IRC continues to veer out of control, damaging Wikipedia at every thoughtless lurch is jumping to so many FUD conclusions, I can't even begin to approach how wrong it is. JoeSmack ^Talk 04:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is currently ongoing on Meta. I raised this issue here out of concern that a decision affecting a Wikipedia project was made off-Wiki, & that the need to fix a problem on en.wikipedia must be taken to another Wiki -- if one knows the place, that is. That is why I omitted the name of the Admin who unknowingly started this problem, to focus on the utter indifference to transparency here. This is not an issue of a disgruntled user who lost a debate; it's an alarm set off by a long-term editor who sees the potential for mischief & harm here. -- llywrch 05:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning, WP:BEANS discussion to follow. So lets say I wanted to disrupt wikipedia. I mean really screw it up, not just the kind of page-at-a-time vandalism that gets a quick block and doesn't really do any damage. I mean the kind of systemic damage that could bring the site to its knees, doing across-the-board damage to hundreds of articles, included the best featured articles the site had to offer. Its quite simple. Simply find a domain that is being used by hundreds of pages, one that has a wealth of good information, a real honest-to-god, vetted, reliable source, and start spamming it. Everywhere. Behave like a spammer, drop links like "come visit my site for great poker action" or something like that, and leave links on hundreds of articles. But make the actual links to great reliable sources. Some well meaning editor or admin, already overwhelmed with the good work they do at wikipedia, sees what I am doing, and thinks that my link is genuine spam. Heck, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, right? So my behavior gets the entire domain blacklisted... and suddenly hundreds of featured articles are left without reliable sources, pages cannot be edited until the "spam" links are removed, etc. etc. Sound unlikely, probably, but with thousands of well meaning, highly respected admins, I only have to sucker one of them and then sit back and watch the damage I started. It would appear that this kind of vulnerability exists, and all because of the way that the spam blacklist is handled. The very fact that the European Union official libraries site was blacklisted, the functional equivalent of the Library of Congress being blacklisted, shows that such vulnerability exists for someone to explout. Something has to be fixed, and fixed soon...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayron, you have just described a joe job. All the more reason to be concerned. -- llywrch 05:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion considers two seperate cases, which indeed show resemblance. Since I am involved in one of the cases, I will offer my view on this case.

When spam is being identified, first of all all links that that spammer added are being removed. There is no question whether that link is a good one or a bad one, these will go, per the english wikipedia spam guidelines:

Main pages: Links normally to be avoided and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.

That is what happened with the links added by the COI spammers that added theeuropeanlibrary.org. AFAIK no links added by other persons were removed (if that happened, it happened in an external links section where these links are questionable anyway, per the english wikipedia guidelines on external links, "If the site or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source first." and I am sorry if that happened). Now theeuropeanlibrary.org is a good site, and a careful examination of the situation was made. At that time only 10 links to the europeanlibrary.org were available, and the only ones added at that moment were by the addresses which have a COI, clearly suggesting promotion of a site that was not yet linked on wikipedia. The edits by the COI-editor have been discussed with the editor, and s/he was pointed to the appropriate policies and guidelines. Since the spamming by these addresses continued nevertheless, the site was blacklisted on shadowbot.

As a further note, shadowbot reverts once, and adds a message to the users talkpage. If the user readds, shadowbot does not remove (except when in angry mode under a heavy attack, but then its operation is even more carefully monitored; that is an exceptional situation). Normally, repeated addition gets reviewed by shadowbots operators, and when appropriate, will not be reverted. The europeanlibrary did not get blacklisted on meta, the spam is not (yet) crosswiki (and even then, it might be really inappropriate to do that). But I could stuff some more beans in it, when you want your own site not to be used as a source, consider spamming your very own link across several wikis, that really helps the community forward (maybe wikipedia has to consider not using such a site as a source and keeping a lacune in its contents). I have suggested my contact at the european library to reconsider his/her stance, and I promised him/her that we would make sure the site gets removed from the blacklist when the COI-spamming stops (it will also be removed when shadowbot reverts too many (which may be 1) good edits to articles).

For touregypt.com: I have not seen the spam-records for this addition, but I am sure there are records for that. But when the spamming is cross-wiki (i.e. also on other-language wikis) addition to meta is considered. I will for now assume good faith and think that the person who added it to the meta-blacklist considered the site carefully.

Blacklisting on meta means, that the link can not be used in a document at all; pages with that link can not be saved, even when the editor does not add that link at that very moment. When touregypt.net was meta-blacklisted a user provided the service to clean en.wikipedia from that link; otherwise other editors would run into the problem of not being able to save the page on wiki; that is completely besides the question whether blacklisting was appropriate (and the same user is already helping finding alternatives).

Blacklisting happens speedy, I am sorry, but first discussing for 7 days results in a lot of spam being added before something can be done about it (WP:SNOW?). That results indeed in some mistakes being made, we know that, and we are more than willing to correct the mistakes. Seen the layout and contents of the sites in question (and the style of writing and the purpose of the site in the case of touregypt.net) I expect that many facts stated there can also be verified with other sources. By the way, we don't have to provide a deeplink to an external document in a reference, if I state that Jennifer Couzin wrote an article about opening doors and native knowledge and add the reference "Jennifer Couzin, Science, 2007, volume 315, issue 5818, p. 1518-1519", anyone can find the source, and verify my statement, a deeplink is only a service and a nice extra for a non-paper encyclopedia.

So the only problem that stays, is that the system can be tricked/wikipedia can be disrupted (per the beans-case above), but that can be done with every policy and guideline we are working under here. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Beetstra, you say that you haven't seen the "spam-records for this addition, but I am sure there are records for that." I respectfully ask that those records for this be produced, & either added to the discussion on meta, or a link added there to them, so that all parties may review the evidence. -- llywrch 21:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have provided some data I could find on meta (here). Hope this explains a bit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I also object to the removal and blacklisting of the Egypt links. Please restore them. Badagnani 18:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia was started as a resource anyone can edit, but the fact is I feel it's time Wikipedia abandon this. Full stop. There has been simply too much bad-faith editing and outright vandalism by anonymous IPs and everytime this sort of thing hits the media, it makes all Wikipedianss look bad. Case in point: a vandal posted that the actor Sinbad had died. Although it was caught and corrected and the article is currently locked down, it was too late to stop the AP from reporting on the situation: [2] and in turn this story is appearing on forums (I saw it at TrekBBS of all places) where it's being used as ammunition by people who would like to see Wikipedia either disappear or become basically a clone of traditional published encyclopedias where only people with PhDs are allowed to contribute and articles take months or even years to be approved. As someone who regularly has to revert anonymous edits and who now treats every non-registered edit as "Vandalism unless proven otherwise" I feel a good 90% of the bad press regarding Wikipedia and it's alleged inaccuracies would be eliminated if we simply required people to get a username. There are vandals who do register, of course, and Special:Newpages regularly shows nonsense articles created by registered users ... but they still comfortably fit within the 10% minority. 23skidoo 17:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How would requiring users to login first have prevented the Sinbad problem? --Interiot 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. A casual glance at Special:Newpages indicates that having an account does little to prevent editors from making random nonsense articles. Friday (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The extra step it requires to log in discourages the spur-of-the moment "drive-by" vandalism, accomplished before thought sets in. Logging-in would not have prevented the Sinbad problem: it is quite simple to "create" a news story in such a fashion. I see no reason to assert that logging-in violates any core principles of "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I also feel that, under present circumstances, any article vandalized more than twenty times a month should be semi-protected for a limited period of months.--Wetman 18:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:PERENNIAL --Minderbinder 18:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What will it take? Oh, for the wheels to come to terms with the fact that there might be something justified behind all these "perennial" complaints. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A point of comparion: On June 4, 2005, a registered user revised the Walter Mondale article (and a few others) to state that he was dead (see user's edit history); after the hoax report was added to candidates for In the News, the item actually appeared on the main page for six minutes before an apparently honest editor realized their error and removed it. That was a much more serious slip than the Sinbad hoax, which (as I've noted elsewhere) was reverted within two hours; I'm not sure whether vandalism can be consistently reverted any faster unless each article were to be on the watchlist of numerous contributors scattered over the globe. MisfitToys 22:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What will it take? An act of God, most likely, although an act of Jimbo may be sufficient. --Carnildo 19:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it will take an injection of common sense. — Deckiller 19:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course there's something justified behind your complaint. That does not mean that your proposed solution to the complaint is in any way the correct one. Now, take for instance Wetman's suggestion earlier, that the category of "vandalisms which only occur because they are done on the spur of the moment before thought sets in" is a significantly populated one. If there was any way to show that yes, that category does account for a significant amount of vandalism, then the proposal to require logging-in to edit would be very seriously considered. However, I am aware of no such evidence, and I for one very much doubt that a significant amount of the vandalism we see from IP editors would have been prevented by the tiny amount of time it takes to register. I think if we reduced anything with your suggested change, it'd be the number of helpful edits made by casual browsers. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just been doing some recent change monitoring. Most of the anon IP edits were good ones, and by far the worst vandalism was from a logged-in user.--Runcorn 19:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a frequent recent changes patroller and a long-time vandal hunter, and it is my experience that something on the order of 90% of edits by IP addresses are good edits, and of the remaining 10%, 9% are good-meaning but poorly executed edits. Of the remaining 1%, about .9% are test edits of the "can I really do this" variety, leaving about 1 in 1000 IP edits as actual malicious acts of vandalism. To prevent what amounts to 90% of good edits to stop 0.1% bad edits seems like a very bad idea indeed. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I wanted to make this marginally more meaningful, so I did one decidedly unscientific poll. I looked at the 50 IP edits found on the Recent Changes page made around 04:48-4:49 17 March 2007 (UTC) and I found:

• 30 Honest-to-God good edits.
• 8 poorly executed, but well intentioned edits.
• 6 "Test" edits that were problematic, but showed no definite malice
• 6 "Vandal" edits that showed (IMHO) a direct attempt to disrupt wikipedia in a malicious way

Even lumping the test and vandal edits together, that still leaves 38 edits by people whose interest was in directly improving wikipedia, or 76%. Not as good as I thought, but still a sizable majority. Still, would you rather throw out 38 potentially useful edits (or 30 really good edits) for the sake of 12 easy to fix bad edits? I am not willing to do that. As an aside, two of the "good" edits were actually IPs fixing vandalism: A doubly good job, in this context. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

For a much less rosy picture with slightly more data, see this survey. I'm still hoping someone will redo this at a more sane time of day (a lot of vandalism seems to happen while US schools are in session). Opabinia regalis 05:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your stats show a MORE rosy picture than mine. I found 76% edits(of 50) whose intent was to improve wikipedia by anon editors. You found 82%(of 250) that showed intent to improve. We can work with intent to improve. An new editor who is trying to improve wikipedia will learn the rules and eventually make better edits. Even if it is original research or unreferenced, that person is interested, and can learn how to do better research. Am I willing to scare of 82% (or 76%) of all potential new editors that can learn to improve wikipedia for the sake of keeping out the 18% (or 24%) who are here to damage? Not at all. Most vandals get bored, or find something better to do, and stop after a few weeks or months. Good editors, if nurtured and allowed to grow, can continue to contribute for years. I am not willing to give that up so I can hit the undo link a few less times a day. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish I'd kept better track of the contribution quality when I did that, but looking at 250 diffs is tedious ;) The disclaimer may well be the most important part of that data. A substantial majority of those 'content additions' - registered and unregistered alike - would have been reverted on sight if they had been made to any article I wrote, because they were full of original research and nonsense. I do agree with you in general, though, that the plurality, if not the majority, of anon edits are minor but productive contributions. Opabinia regalis 18:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, what will it take to ban unregistered editors? Cold day in Hell, to be honest. I see plenty of well-intentioned edits from anons. The biggest problem I see from anons is inserting junk such as their pet's birthday, or adding their favourite entries to list articles. Not exactly "vandalism" per se, just a misunderstanding of what WP is. Vandals (of the kind that blank pages and replace them with "fuck you all, you suck cock", or add "and your mom" to serial prose) are still in the minority, and while that is still the case I don't see a reason to block them out - blocking article creation is enough. Chris cheese whine 05:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Antaeus Feldspar: valid complaint, but I don't think requiring registration is the solution. In a way, unregistered users have less anonymity than registered users because their IP address is public. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 08:27Z

I figure, 90% of vandalisms are from IP editors - but 90% of IP edits are valid. --Golbez 08:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It also depends a lot on if we count Special:Newpages (which is, of course, 100% registered editors). If you think registering somehow prevents people from writing crap, have a look there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I figure IP edits should not be banned. After all, isn't Wikipedia "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit"? What Seraphimblade says above is absolutely true. There is a lot of controversy surrounding IP editors, but many contributions made by IP editors are valid and important. I also agree with Seraphimblade when he says, "If you think registering somehow prevents people from writing crap, have a look there.Special:Newpages" Nol888_(Talk)^{(Review me please)} 18:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest lowering the bar for indefinite semiprotection. There is a problem with some types of articles, especially pop culture articles, that are stable and therefore not widely watchlisted. And while there might not be a high volume of vandalism in absolute terms, the edit history might be 80% reverts. Semiprotecting this kind of page would be very useful. Squidfryerchef 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I disagree with the idea of banning IP addresses, I don't understand why Wikipedia can't still be "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit" if it did. If you can get on the internet, you can create a wikipedia account, and therefore edit wikipedia. ANYONE (who has an internet connection) can. You don't even need an email address. However, I've noted that the IP edits tend to be honest. They're usually the ones that correct little details and the like. Registered users often register to stop their IP address from showing. IP users know that their IP address is going to show when they edit. Also, a lot of users only become users to create vandalism pages for wikipedia. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 21:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Anyone who wants to join the "IP editors are vandals" crusade need only look at WP:LTA. Chris cheese whine 23:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can still register and then vandalize, then removing ability to edit without registration wouldn't reduce vandalism, and would in fact make it harder to fight vandalism since whether an edit was made by a registered user is currently one of the easiest Features (pattern recognition) (fast and accurate recognition). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-21 07:17Z

There is currently a push to change WP:BLOCK to allow short blocks without warning upon any incident of vandalism from IP addresses, and indefinite blocks without warning for any registered account that has only made unconstructive edits. Input would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. TomTheHand 20:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's not a change, we already do that. >Radiant< 13:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Are mailing lists encyclopedic? I was drawn to this questions regarding this afd, and the corresponding article. A question being raised in the afd is the existence of several other articles on mailing lists. Wikipedia:Notability (web) doesn't mention anything specifically about this. So, my question to others is: what is the community's opinion on the notability/encyclopedic nature of articles on mailing lists? Can they considered worthy of a wikipedia article? What criteria should apply to them? Thanks. --Ragib 08:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Mailing lists aren't all notable or all not notable; it depends. Slashdot is notable but most webforums aren't. I think it's the same issue as any other online forum/community and should be covered by Wikipedia:Notability (web). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 08:21Z
• Stop looking for blankets. Notability is not a blanket. Uncle G 15:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have a rule that one ought to clean up an article before adding anything new to it? I've seen too many pages fall into disrepair because people keep dropping in their own contributions when there are still obvious spelling errors, citiation requests, pastel boxes, and just plain unwikified text. Squidfryerchef 18:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's good practice, but what would it mean to make it a "rule"? - Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - even if this was a policy (which it never would be), people would still add things. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What if there was some guideline we could trot out when reverting new edits. We could say, even if the new edit was good material, reverted per WP:"FIXIT" or something and the new material won't be let in until the existing page is sound. Squidfryerchef 23:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would work. People have different gifts: some are copyeditors, some provide new material, some dig up references, and so on. Let each contribute in their own way. Raymond Arritt 23:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with Raymond, but was saying the same thing. This is not practical. --Kevin Murray 23:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixing up articles is important, but it is not important enough to stop people from doing good-faith edits to improve the content of the article just because the article needs to be fixed. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm favor of the intent, but not the enforcement. Having done a spate of adding information to a number of related articles, I can provide some feedback here. Sometimes I found it was simple to add information to an article: it was well-organized & needed little if any drive-by copy editting. Sometimes the article is such a mess that I refused to even touch it. And sometimes, it isn't until I clicked on the "save" button that I noticed a sentence or a paragraph that badly needed help; if I had the time, I'd go back, but then Real Life often intervenes (or tries to), & the article inadvertently suffers.

Maybe we could mail cookies/biscuits to people who do what Squidfryerchef would like to see, as an incentive. -- llywrch 19:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How about fried seafood? Squidfryerchef 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In the link Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Proposed_Change, Radiant! 'just blew off a well intentioned suggestion' that certain steps should be added to process, and damned the matter as a perennial suggestion that comes up once an month, effectively closing the discussion with that judgemental dismissal. If he's right, that indicates there is a body of thought thinking similar to myself, that the current practices are very wrong to keep and retain good and knowledgeable expert editors which can otherwise move the project to a higher average quality. So I'm asking some Admin to set up a straw poll, on whether this, and further, that the voting be split into a section by whether the respondent is an Admin, or a regular editor. I have the utmost respect for that group of editors, and frankly feel they are the most victimized group within our community, but as a rule they are the most active and most influential. In this case, I feel short term self-interest may be biasing what is a better practice for the long term health of any Wiki project and the greater interests of the community as a whole need to be thought through carefully. This is a matter which BITES people and alienates them repeatedly, and should not be born because of convenience. Like a little gas-pedal pressure, it has great effects on the long term results--if held in place unchanged we'd see one result--if modified at some point (now, or at 90 mph, etcetera) another different outcome. // FrankB 18:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Do you want a straw poll to decide whether admins should vote in a separate section to other users at CfD, or are you asking whether active editors of a category should be contacted when it's nominated for deletion, or is there an issue with the general way in that changes are made to policy? Tra (Talk) 19:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the point is that it is a perennial suggestion that comes up once a month. So is censorship, for instance, and so is standardizing on English spelling, and so is everything else on WP:PEREN. We have that page for a reason, you know. >Radiant< 13:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there any limits on what qualifies for a WikiProject? Wikipedia:WikiProject Centrist Party appears to have one participant, a person apparrently actively involved in the party; on the talk page of the article about the party I had, some time ago, raised questions about notability that I don't believe have been addressed. I'm not going to fight to get the article deleted, but what (if anything) does it mean for this to be a WikiProject? - Jmabel | Talk 19:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

3 articles and one user doesn't really make much of a WikiProject. Raise this on WP:RFC. The project is new, but there is a well-defined procedure for starting them. Chris cheese whine 19:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(The following message, but not the replies posted below it, was copied from Wikipedia talk:Maintenance by The Transhumanist   00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC))...

I have a couple of friends who work in the visual electronic entertainment industry. I now avoid watching anything with them because instead of enjoying the film or television program, they sit there commenting on technical features in the film, lighting, cuts etc. I think that with people who regularly edit Wikipedia articles instead of viewing articles for the information they contain (as most readers do) they view the article for how well put together it is and if it can be improved.

One manifestation of this I have noticed, which in my opinion is the growing tendency, is to add what are editorial comments to the article page instead of on to the talk page. If a person edits an article page and write in plain text. "This page is not good enough it needs more information" the comment will either be moved to the talk page or it will be deleted as vandalism. However if a person puts a template at the top of a page then they feel that is justified (eg {{cleanup-bio}}, but in essence it is contributing nothing more to the article than the plain text does.

There are exceptions to this, for example I think that the {{unreferenced}} placed in a "Reference" section at the bottom of an article, serves a dual purpose. It is a maintenance template but it also adds information that a passing reader of the page (who is not familiar with Wikipeda) needs to know. But a passing reader does not need to know {{wikify}} "This article (or section) may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." Comments like this should in my opinion be placed on talk page. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Tag clutter is a growing problem, and it detracts from the quality of the encyclopedia. So if an article has unwiki formatting, someone comes along and adds a tag or two that make the article even worse and more unencyclopedic. Clean up projects are misnamed, as they are virtually spreading litter everywhere. Pretty soon we're going to need clean up projects just to clean up the mess created by the current clean up projects. The Transhumanist   00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I do quite a bit of WikiGnoming, which means I spend a lot of time nosing around in categories like Articles needing to be Wikified, etc. From an organizational standpoint, I think that these could easily be just categories added to the page, rather than huge banners at the top of the page. However, if a new user comes across a page that has no wiki markup, that user might think that this is the style he or she should strive for while editing. Really, the article's content serves two almost opposing purposes for editors and for readers. And, I admit, I've added necessary wiki tags to articles for purely political purposes, meaning that I disagreed with the content of the article but rather than risk any sort of edit war or conflict, I just added cleanup tags so that someone else would take care of it! -sthomson06 (Talk) 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps what is needed is a little icon that can be placed in the top right corner of articles needing work. The presence of the icon would indicate that there are tags which need to be addressed on the article's talk page. The advantages would be that at 3/8" x 3/8" it would be fairly unobtrusive, and would also take the place of multiple tags. One icon fits all. The Transhumanist   00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting thought. There is a division between those tags that are of benefit to the readers and those of benefit to the editors. Indications of a lack of references or a POV problem are of benefit to the readers. Orphan article, merge suggestions, expansion requests, and wikification are really only of benefit to the editors. (Though any of them may encourage a reader to become an editor, and the benefit of that is significant.)

Accordingly, I'd start by classifying the two types of templates into those two broad categories. The editor only ones could be moved to such an icon (with an invitation for the reader to become an editor/help fix them), but the reader caution ones should not go to the same type of single icon. A different common icon might work for those, but I'm not certain. GRBerry 00:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the little icons can be color coded: red for those tags that are of benefit to the readers and other colors that benefit to the editors. The shape of the icon might also be used (e.g. stop sign shape for more serious tags.) It might be nice if the icons linked to actual tags on the talk page. A division between those tags that are a must to appear on the article page and those that need only be icons might help as well. -- Jreferee 01:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it could be expandable? If a registered editor clicks on the little icon, it would pop out a box with the standard template, like a cross between the popups tool and those template boxes with the [Show] link at the top to expand them. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The templates serve to both inform & remind the casual reader that the article/site is in continuous development, and also act as a lure for curious-readers to become new-editors. Some of the templates could use an aesthetic update (See Wikipedia:Template standardisation/article. I really like flamurai's fairly recent 'blanca' additions), but moving them all to the talkpage would be dishonest and disadvantageous. --Quiddity 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not if the icon used is documented well throughout Wikipedia's help and support pages. We'd have to make it ubiquitous so everybody knew what it was. The only problem I can see is with the mirrors. We could link the icon itself to an explanation page on what the icon means. If it's done right, that page would automatically be included in the mirrors. The icon might be especially effective if it included the word "Alert!". The Transhumanist   04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"More icons" is not a popular solution to anything, especially in the top-right corner. See Template talk:Spoken Wikipedia for how contentious even that one is; only the featured stars have fairly unanimous approval. And the mirrors can take care of themselves. --Quiddity 09:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Tags are visible for a reason. They invite people to edit. >Radiant< 09:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Radiant, having the tags on the page does encourage people to fix it. I know I don't look at the talk page of ery article I go to, most editors won't either. However, I think it would be a good idea to create smaller versions of some templates, for articles that need a lot. Some articles have so many tags the tags take up the whole window. I think if they are going to be stacked (cleanup, wikify, sources, notability) then they should use smaller templates, to avoid obscuring the content. Something that only takes 1 or 2 lines with no images. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• This all goes to a pet peeve of mine about proper tagging and documentation of when these IN-YOUR-FACE trash tags go on the page. Most do not note on the talk with a section describing their gripe. So it's a lazy way out. Perhaps they do invite others to edit, and so have they admittedly goaded me, but there is a corollary responsibility... some clues left behind for the others who have to Guess what the editor applying such is thinking. At the very least the current crop of cleanup tags should shout an error message if they are not given a valid talk page section title to merge into a link input. The current crop defaults to the talk page where ninety-nine times out of a hundred there is no section discussing what the tagging editor believes as a problem—letting umptine dozens of editors who happen by later to guess at what the problem may be. I've found articles tagged clean-up for over 15 months and somewhere over 130 edits... so the system clearly needs some adjustments.

As a related aside I was going to post below, See {{DATE}}, which should help make that problem solution more effective, if people use it. Virtually all the cleanup tags I'm familiar with will be satisfied by that template which needs substituted, but that will come out loud and clear the first time one doesn't! <g> It produces date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} as a reminder, and "date=February 2007" when applied like this: {{clean|{{subst:DATE}}}}, for example. That date= after the pipe is precisely the input parameter most of the the IN-YOUR-FACE tags are designed to take. The tagging overloading a page can and should be handled by using a version of '|small=1' switching which is common to an increasing number of tags should they be kept on main pages. Another alternative there would be the hide/show tagging modes many navigation templates are sporting these days.

The date tagging of such templates has been a good impulse in the right direction, but created need for patrolling parties and BOTs to check on that. But I agree strongly with Phillip, most Banner templates are deleterious to our reputations with the occasional reader and even the regular users. They aid the press perception that we are unreliable. So I like Transhumanist's idea of a iconic tag, but would not make it a right margin tag, but a left margin simple message: Editor attention needed which would be a link to the article talk page Section where the cleanup and such tag resides... See for example: {{Commons-gallery}} and the smaller but Brassier {{Gallery-link}} (style meant for category page tagging--not shown, see Category:Saxony for that). {{Commons-gallery|United States Navy ships}}So I'm thinking of the laid back style of these two Commons-gallery tags (which are showing combinations of three different operations modes between the two examples here), with the size and plain link of that one in the category. As can plainly be seen, the text wraps right about them.

{{Commons-gallery|flowers}}::That Iconic notice could be even more sophisticated in assuming service page similar to the /doc pages now being used for template documentation. That is a local sub-page, an {{/cleanup}} page, which acts as a storage register to some hypothetical {{clean-status}} 'display template' in a page's head section-- if the register's got includable content, then the 'display macro' on the article places the edit message automatically and once put in place, never need be removed, as it depends on the content in {{{{PAGENAME}}/cleanup}} for activation and a link to display. So it would hold a simple #if: test like are frequently used in testing for named parameters, if there is nothing to include... the article is clean without a tag display, which stays silent.

The Talk page would hold the actual tag in the section, but the 'in your face templates' could then all be put on the talks, and some notice still be given to browsing editors with a few minutes to spare. Whether the categories show the page or the talk page is immaterial--both are article related, so anyone patroling those can do so easily enough.

The little extra trouble the editor's who are making, what is after all, 'a serious judgment call', will create an impetus to justify their actions since they have to slow down a bit to initiate the talk page section, regardless, and if necessary, install the indicator template per The Transhumanist's suggestion. For my part, I figure anyone adding any such tag in a hurry without judicious consideration, is not someone I want hanging them at all, ever. I would suggest the 'cleanup page' be "dirtied" by a link to the talk section our (now, hopefully, more) dutiful editor tagging the article has to define first.

Since in the new version tagging templates for talk pages, there should be a edit link to the {{/cleanup}} page, his/her tagging would include adding or editing the talk page section title into the cleanup page to become the end of an autogenerated link in the {{/cleanup}} page. Such an extra page edit is minor and handled by a click, paste (page section title), and save... followed by saving/closing their rationale in the talk. Thus the articles would become less of an eyesore to the readers, and so forth... still satisfying: Tags are visible for a reason. They invite people to edit. At least for most of the people who count in such cases... the people who already do. We can recruit editors some other way, such considerations should not drive our policies, but what makes the project better overall, and these IN-YOUR-FACE-DUMMY templates crap all over it looking from the outside in.

Handling multiple taggings in the {{/cleanup}} page is easy enough too. The oldest tag is kept on the active part of the page. Additional talk page section titles would simply be added on the noinclude part of the page, oldest listed on top. When a cleanup/expert/copyedit/disputed tag is cleared, before it is deleted, it's self-link to the {{/cleanup}} page can be used to delete the matching section title. The obvious exception is the merge tags, which in the latest generation are far more unobtrusive and less detrimental than most banner tagging.

So to me, The Transhumanist's proposal is technically feasible and sufficiently easy to implement that it could at least be tried for a few weeks or months. The other side of this coin is simple -- what proof exists that any of these banner tags have caused an newcomer to begin an editing career? What proof is there that given the link as I propose and that simple message Editing help needed, the reader-customer won't follow the link out of curiosity. If it leads to a few lines describing whatever deficiencies exist, then they may be emboldend to go ahead and make some changes as the tag hanger indicated are needed. Cheers! // FrankB 09:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

---

See Wikipedia:Template standardisation/article. This sort of input would probably be welcome over there. Also, what does everyone think of this? --Random832 00:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As this section is getting close to its sell by date, I will cut and past to there, so that there is a record of this exchange. Please post any additional comments on that page --Philip Baird Shearer 13:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The following is quoted from the discussion of 1 Essjay should step down from Arbcom at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay/Straw Poll#Discussion:

Can we get an exact timeline here? He was appointed what, a week ago? This was a delayed scandal, really, I am pretty sure we knew he was "Ryan Jordan" before he was appointed to ArbCom. It just took a while before someone wrote the Wikipedia article and I guess everyone found out and this became a trainwreck. So I am currently thinking Essjay was appointed to ArbCom with Jimbo knowing about the identity thing. --W.marsh 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation was known on February 1, well before the ArbCom appointment, see here. In fact, it was slashdotted on Feb 7 as well. It just didn't gain traction because Brandt has not yet mananged to browbeat the New Yorker into issuing a correction. It has been discussen on Essjay's talk page many times between then and now. Dmcdevit resigned on the 14th. Thatcher131 14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you lead me to the slashdot article? I missed that article. SYSS Mouse 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Let me look for it. Thatcher131 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears as a comment in this thread started on Feb 7. Commenter appears to be Daniel Brandt from all appearances. Thatcher131 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The exact comment by Everyman (197621) appears to have been at An example of Wikipedia's problem.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It was noticed by January 11th, and I posted about it on essjay's talk page around february 5th. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I was recently editing some articles and came across a number of geographical locations (primarily unincorporated towns) that were tagged {{importance}}. I seem to recall in the past several people arguing to keep such articles when they came up in AfD debates by saying that geographical locations are inherently notable and do not require additional "proof of importance" beyond the fact that they exist. I have been looking around in the policies and guidelines and I am having a hard time finding where it is stated that this is the case. Is it an actual policy somewhere, or is it merely consensus? If it exists in policy I would like to know where so that I can reference it. It would also be very helpful to know what the policy is regarding geographical locations and notability. Thanks! Arkyan 23:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So Mrs. O'Leary's Barn is not notable enough for you? I say that tounge in cheek, as I don't think nearly every outhouse and barn is necessarily notable in every instance, but there can be some significant exceptions. On the other hand, unicorporated towns are something that is a real problem to determine notability. Some of these can be quite big, such as those found on Oahu, because the entire island is considered one very large city, but it is divided into several geographic regions and neighborhoods that would normally be considered seperate cities anywhere else. In going through U.S. Census records, I've seen unincorporated areas having populations of close to 100,000 people. Of course, I've also seen incorporated towns with a population of just three families (I knew a 16 year old fire chief once from one of these towns).

I don't think you can come to a good consensus on where to draw the line here, although if you had to mark some of these within the USA, I would suggest that statistical data must be available by the U.S. Census bureau for that geographical location, and a similar kind of standard could be used in other countries. I could imagine a tougher standard, but that is at least something to start with. --Robert Horning 00:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Although it was marked "inactive" today, you might find Wikipedia:Places of local interest and its talk page a good starting point.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• It may be worth reinvigorating discussion on WP:LOCAL. Despite heavy objections from (mostly) a single user that objects to every notability guideline, LOCAL seems reasonably well supported as well as used in practice. >Radiant< 12:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There could be other shades to this as well. See Boca Raton, Florida, a resort city for which roughly two-thirds of the residents who share the Boca Raton postal address actually live outside the city limits in unincorporated Palm Beach County land and have no right of access to city services such as police, firefighting, sanitation, or libraries. Durova^Charge! 15:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Radiant's post above, I can confirm that it is used in practice, as I cited it in this afd debate just the other day. I haven't been following the debate at WP:LOCAL, but one user's objection does not a lack of consensus make.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help thus far. I went and looked at WP:LOCAL as well as the discussion there, and it feels like there is still some need for clarification and consensus. I'm hoping to spark some discussion on the issue again, so I've commented on the talk page there. Would really appreciate any constructive thoughts and ideas anyone would have! Thanks! Arkyan 17:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The bot which created an article about every place in the US 2000 census was supported by consensus, and all articles which have come up for deletion have also met consensus keeps. It may not be posted in a policy anywhere, but there has long been consensus to keep those articles. A real place is important due to its existence, unlike most other things which fall under question about notability. You would need a strong consensus to delete them. Corvus cornix 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find what you are looking for here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes: "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size." The general rule is that towns are notable, but things in the town like minor streets, buildings, etc. generally are not, with "notable" exceptions, of course. Dhaluza 02:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

See User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not a blanket. Uncle G 14:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is currently a discussion regarding non administrator closure at WP:Deletion process here. Regards, Navou ^banter / _contribs 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been proposed we move Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons → Wikipedia:Biographical information on living people —(Discuss) to better emphasise that the policy applies to all information not just in biographies. There appears to be existing consensus for move but decided since it's a critical policy it's better to list it just in case since. Discuss in the BLP talk page, not here Nil Einne 16:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no policy on articles about words. I wanted to propose that we actually create such a policy, but I believe the chance of it happening is approximately zero at this point. In the meantime, I've written an essay about this, Wikipedia:Articles about words, which attempts to explain what our general practice is on word articles. Please come read this essay and then use the talk page to tell me how much the essay horribly sucks. --Xyzzyplugh 20:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We do have a policy on articles about words: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 02:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Though, if you read the essay, it acknowledges this policy, points out some inconsistency in its application, and addresses exceptions that are generally permitted.zadignose 04:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I need some clarification on our policy regarding open proxies. m:Meta:No open proxies should be clear: "Open proxies are banned from editing Wikimedia projects. Anonymizers and other companies or organizations that offer open proxies may be blocked indefinitely by an administrator." But the policy is vague regarding whether soft or hard blocks should be imposed. The discussion at Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall is germane. The problem is we have a lose-lose situation. Perhaps the majority of cases brought to WP:RFCU involve open proxies, much of the time Tor proxies. We get a ton of vandalism and other nasty behavior (see, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Verdict), with miscreants creating sometimes dozens, perhaps hundreds of sockpuppet accounts, and then proceeding to use them at will on easily accessible open proxies. The obvious solutions is simply to hard-block the open proxies. But what about our users behind the Great Firewall? With the vagueness in the policy, some of us have been hard-blocking, while others of us have been soft-blocking Tor proxies in particular. I've found myself reversing other admin's decisions, or being reversed myself; so far, no unpleasantry has ensued, but I'd really appreciate some sense of the community on this, or at least a pointer to established policy. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Persoanly I block OP's as AO AC disabled Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this approach is that it does nothing to stop banned vandals such as Verdict (talk · contribs) and all his very many abusive sockpuppets. That said, I have generally blocked OPs as AO, AC-disabled as well. I no longer believe this is appropriate, I believe open anonymising proxies should be blocked with hard blocks. I'm not discounting the problem Chinese users and other such people face, however. --Yamla 19:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I also block OPs as AO, AC-disabled. Obviously, they cannot then be used to create accounts.--Runcorn 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I block everything: (AC off, anon only off). Prodego ^talk 01:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can some people please give some outside opinions on the use of this and this picture on the Human feces article? (at the article talk page)

People have been removing the pictures because it's gross and because they claim it's irrelevant. However, being gross shouldn't matter, as per "Wikipedia is not censored". As for the relevance, what could be more relevant on an article called "Human feces" than a photo of real human feces? Of course, there's the option of having drawings instead (as we do on the articles about sex), but it would be sort of difficult to draw human feces and have it look obviously like human feces...as oppossed to just a lump.

I have a feeling that when we take away the "the pictures are gross" factor, it is really within Wikipedia policies and completely relevant to have those two pictures on the article. Two earlier request for comments from last year are on Talk:Human feces and seem to show there was consensus to keep an image of human feces on the article.

But then again, we do have Wikipedia:Profanity, which says "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." This is clearly a case of including offensive material, but i'm not sure whether it's also a case of "being offensive" or not. So some more opinions would be nice. --`/aksha 05:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture is offensive indeed, but, beyond that, it is also needless. It serves no informative purpose, as everybody (every human being on this earth) knows what feces look like. As I've said several places, there is no other serious reason to keep those shit images in the articles than to provide amusement and adverse reactions under the pretext of needing article images. They are also a potential source for vandalism.--Kamikaze 09:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got to agree. These images are just for shock value, they really don't add anything particularly informative to the article. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This image is not necesary at all. As someone said, we all know what human feces are and what they look like. Wikipedia isn't censored of course but it has an encyclopedic mission. Being offensive when is not required just for the sake of shocking and entertainment isn't part of that mission. I propose the images (there are two of them) to be deleted.--Raja Lon Flattery 19:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of having a photo of a person's hand on the hand article then (for the record, we do actually have a photo of someone's hands on that article)? I would have thought it was considered a 'good' thing to have every article illustrated by a picture/photo of the article subject. I know people find the pictures offensive. But the question i'm trying to ask is whether this is just a case of the pictures being offensive, or us being offensive by including them? --`/aksha 10:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the main illustrations in the hand article all serve some more specific purpose of showing details of anatomy. The less informative photograph of "just somebody's hands" is somewhere down in the gallery. It serves no real purpose there but at least it doesn't do any harm either. This is the point: having "every article illustrated by a picture/photo of the article subject" is not a "'good' thing" in itself. Having illustrations that serve no real purpose other than having an image for the sake of having an image, is something that can be tolerated where it does no harm. But where such images are offensive, that makes all the difference. "WP:NOT censored" refers to images that are offensive but necessary; it doesn't mean we should ignore the fact of an image being offensive and litter the project with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. The images have absolutely no informative value ergo no use. Furthermore, they are offensive but needless.--Kamikaze 12:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:IHATEIT is not an acceptable argument for removal of images. Or articles either, for that matter. Wikipedia is not censored covers this pretty well. Corvus cornix 17:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP what? Obviously, the image is both offensive and useless.--Kamikaze 17:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

When it is proved that there are non-human Wikipedians who have never had the opportuinity to observe human feces, then such an illustration might have encyclopedic value to inform them of what a pile of shit looks like. For now, it constitutes original research, when labelled "The above-average volume of this stool was probably due to a diet high in dietary fiber and/or cellulose." on the image page for image number one.The second image is out of focus and illustrative of nothing meaningful. They can be deleted as original research, especially since they add no information to the article. Edison 17:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, it's in commons. How the frak do we get it deleted from there?--Kamikaze 18:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You head over to Commons and list it for deletion. Full instructions are available at commons:Commons:Deletion requests. Keep in mind that Commons tends to be very slow-moving, so it may take a month or more for the deletion discussion to be closed. --Carnildo 22:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia needs to make a statement and a policy on "___ in popular culture" or "_____ in fiction" sections. As it seems policy on them is currently entirely piecemeal and random.

Many articles (particularly mythological concepts) quickly acquire long lists of appearances in popular culture or fiction, the list eventually spins off to it's own page, then eventually gets nominated for deletion and is either removed or merged back into the original page and it all starts again.

I think it's clear that some policy decision needs to be made on this.

On one hand I think it's clear people are interested in the section, that they can be relevant and understanding sometimes means understanding how it is used in culture or fiction. But they are also very long lists, and have no promise to us that they stay manageable. If something was genuinely important in 700 different stories, it seems wrong to remove that information, although it makes an eyesore, I mean, no object promises to just be in 10 or less stories just to give us a nice looking "see also" list.

On the other hand, EVERYTHING ON EARTH has been referenced by family guy. And it is hard to see serious topics dwarfed by lists of every time apu on simpsons mentioned it. And making another page makes sense, but often the page eventually gets nominated for deletion as listcruft, maybe justifiably. Still, they are often lists many people helped write, that many people find interesting, and if they contain more than just a title they can even be encyclopedic to some degree (it could, for example be worth mentioning that Pan is referenced in a Shakespeare play, but if that is important, where is the line?).

Is there any sort of policy that could be written about this? so many pages have these lists, and they disappear and reappear pretty much at the passing taste of editors, growing until they grow ugly then either being deleted or splitting and growing again until they get unwieldy and end up deleted until eventually someone sees the page and says "ahh, this was an important concept in such and such anime" and throws a section in mentioning that, starting the whole cycle again.

Honestly, I don't know what I'd recommend, as people DO seem to want the information on the lists, and I think it may be some people's first wiki-edits adding something to them but at the same time they are horrible eyesores that are inappropriate in serious articles and separate pages of them are unencyclopedic listcuft. Owlofcreamcheese 19:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What do people think?

As much as possible, any notable reference should be spun as prose into the main article. For other pop culture items the stuff in the trivia section is often just some facts about the subject that don't "fit" in the main article. We need to keep those facts, it's part of the "work in progress" nature of article writing.

Other times, a separate article is appropriate. I've made several, specifically to remove them from serious subject matter (like I care about a comic book reference when reading about the United Nations). It would be unfortunate if they were deleted as liftcruft, because they create an interesting and useful cross-reference point of cultural intersection. SchmuckyTheCat 19:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a big problem is that things don't promise to be a pleasing length. If there are two important stories that feature such and such that makes it look nice, if there are 25, it makes a sprawling list that is unsightly and dwarfs the article itself, but it's not like it should be punished for having the audacity to appear in more things and be more culturally significant! Owlofcreamcheese 19:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• If it's that long, you're better off pointing out that it's widespread (like the AK-47, ubiquitous in movies) and citing a few choice examples that fit the rule. You need a source to attribute the rule to though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If wonder if Owlofcreamcheese's concern be addressed by a rule that cultural references in certain shows (e.g., "Family Guy", "The Simpsons", etc.) be placed in their own articles, & references to that subject in those shows be discouraged. That way, first-time editors could be sent to these media-centric lists to make contributions, while significant pop allusions to a given subject or event could be kept. Now I wonder how many television shows have allusions to Hamlet. ;-) -- llywrch 20:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

we're not a directory, though, and there's no value in just listing every reference. We're here to synthesize knowledge into a useful resource, not catalog every minutiae. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Night Gyr. A page was recently deleted entitled List of boots in media and popular culture. This painfully documented every occasion on which the author(s) had spotted a pair of boots on tv or seen mention in a publication. Such lists are so all-encompassing as to be worthless. What's next ... trousers in popular culture? Tt 225 01:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been a pet peeve of mine for a while, at least when done poorly. I've had to remove the sentence "Yul Brynner is mentioned in the song One Night in Bangkok" from the Brynner article numerous times because such a mention is so completely insignificant. It can't even explain why he's mentioned because there really is no reason, as far as I can tell. Anyway, I wrote about this topic on a subpage of mine, with examples of when references are significant, see User:R. fiend/Mentions in fiction for my feelings on this (User:R. fiend/Listcruft: List of people associated with water is a tongue-in-cheek look at a similar phenomenon). If nothing else we must put an end to this "so-and-so was once mentioned on some TV show" crap that finds its way into every article. I'm just imagining a list at the bottom of the Coca-Cola article that mentions every time coke has appeared been mentioned on TV, film, and in print (to the tune of 7 GBs of info). -R. fiend 01:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that, when spun off as a separate X in popular culture, such lists are immediately detected as listcruft speaks for itself. These lists of references to the word "nymph" don't just become cruft when looked at in isolation: they are cruft already, for no editing change has been made. The fact that a Simpsons episode alludes to the Odyssey is relevant to that particular Simpsons episode and should be linked there. It is not relevant at Odyssey. Very hard concept to explain to the simple. --Wetman 06:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This problem (and IMO it is a problem) is even when when dealing with articles on sports cars. There seems no way to win the battle against "Appearances in video games" sections, even though these days (almost) every video game features (almost) every modern sports car, to the point that these sections become useless trivia. Zunaid©® 09:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps guideline WP:AVTRIV is relevant. In general such lists tend towards the pointless, I mean come on every fantasy-style RPG has a griffon these days. >Radiant< 13:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to see some kind of general consensus on these kinds of things, as there has been a veritable rash of them appearing on AfD as of late. Sometimes I feel like a broken record trying to make the point again again again! It feels like a lot of users are interpreting WP:AVTRIV as a prohibition on trivia sections but not trivia articles and are using the X in pop culture articles to circumvent the guideline. It is my understanding that the whole point was to reduce the amount of trivia fluff on Wikipedia, not to fork them off to their own articles. Am I in the wrong here? Admittedly I may have something of a bias against these sorts of articles but they simply do not feel like they have much of a place in an encyclopedia - at least as they stand.

There are some exceptions to the rule, and those are the ones that treat X in pop culture as real content rather than a repository for a list of appearences. Satan in popular culture, for example, attempts to deal with the subject in an encyclopedic manner rather than spewing out an indiscriminate lists of every time the guy has shown up on the screen. Granted the article is in need of help, but I feel that it is immensely more valuable and encyclopedic than the run-of-the-mill pop culture articles that I believe are the source of this discussion here.

Perhaps some kind of clarification that distinguishes between real content and laundry lists is called for? Arkyan 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a guideline -- don't datadump, referenced at Wikipedia:Public domain resources, but I think it applies to more than just mining PD resources to create articles. If someone creates a laundry list, & it stalls at that point, never becoming either a proper list or an article -- deletion should be considered. The AfD process is a cruel alarm clock for sleeping editors who are invested in the article, but if no one cares about a poorly-written list of pop cultural allusions, then we might as well get rid of it. (Did I just suggest a new deletion category?) -- llywrch 21:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Be careful in wholesale condemnation of an entire class of articles simply for the inadequacies of some in that class. At least one article that began life as a "XXXXXX in popular culture" has been eleveated to Featured status: See Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc This proposal also reeks of instruction creep. Guidelines exist for acceptable lists WP:LIST for example, and others. Lists also need to meet all of the same requirements of any other article, such as WP:ATT and WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. There are good lists and bad lists. There are good articles on pop culture references, and there are bad one. It is wrong to throw out the baby with the bathwater, even if the amount of bathwater far exceeds the amount of baby. If you find a bad article, send it to AFD or PROD it, or best yet, fix it yourself... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'd say we should provide some guidance with the awareness that there will be exceptions. The rare pop culture trivia article that is found to have merit, and is preserved for its encyclopedic quality, should not serve as a precedent to encourage the proliferation of countless pop trivia articles to list every instance where one work referenced another. The fact that many articles get shot down in AfD demonstrates an existing consensus against indiscriminate trivia collections. Our standards and expectations should be made as clear as possible, to provide guidance, and to try to address the problem in a consistent way.zadignose 13:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems, as it appears to me, is that there is a widespread belief that simply listing a whole load of examples of, or occurrences of in film and on television, of a particular concept or thing, magically, after some mystical critical mass has been reached, creates an actual encyclopaedia article about that concept or thing. This belief comes about, I think, from people seeing existing articles that are no more than lists of occurrences of a thing in film and on television, that editors have ammassed over the years, and thinking as a consequence that (a) that is how encyclopaedia articles should look, and (b) that is how encyclopaedia articles are constructed. In other words: Bad articles are used as guidelines for new articles.

Some offending articles in the past have been Aviation joke (AfD discussion), Portrayals of Mormons in popular media (AfD discussion), Elephant joke (AfD discussion), Shaggy dog story (AfD discussion), and What is black and white and red all over? (AfD discussion), for examples. All of those were, when they came to AFD, simple collections of variations upon, or occurrences of, the thing that the article was supposed to be about. As can be seen from both the discussions and the articles as they stand now, what makes an encyclopaedia article is something markedly different.

The difference in article construction is one of effort. It is easy to watch a television series, see a character that is supposed to be (say) a Mormon who blows xyr nose, and to think "I know. I'll add a bullet point to Wikipedia's article on Mormons saying that there's a Mormon character in this episode of this television series, who blows xyr nose.". It is comparatively harder (albeit not very difficult on an absolute scale) to actually go and find secondary sources that have analysed a wide range of Mormon characters in film and television as a serious academic exercise, and then condense and summarize those sources into an encyclopaedia article. It is, however, the path of greater effort that needs to be trod in order to create a proper encyclopaedia article upon a subject. Simply amassing raw data, and hoping that an encyclopaedia article will magically arise from it, doesn't work.

I think that there are at least three important maxims to bear in mind:

Fiction is not fact.

The representation of a concept, person, place, event, or thing in works of fiction, especially in works of comedy fiction, does not necessarily bear any resemblance at all to its existence in fact. Adding occurrences in fiction to an article about a factual thing does not necessarily improve that article. Indeed, the fictional representations may make it misleading. (This is not to say that we don't want to discuss plot devices. See Government Warehouse (AfD discussion), for example. But such discussion should not be misrepresented as discussion of anything other than a plot device or trope as it occurs in works of fiction. Contrast government warehouse, for example.)

Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis.

The raw data can be examples, that demonstrate the analysis. (There are some elephant jokes in elephant joke, for example.) But simply amassing huge piles of them doesn't make an analysis. What makes an analysis is finding the works of experts in the field who have done analyses of the raw data, and then condensing and summarizing their published analyses into the article. (Collecting raw data and then producing our own novel analyses of those data is, of course, original research that is forbidden here.)

Moving bad content into a separate standalone article does not get rid of the bad content.

It is in several ways a lazy way of addressing the problem. It is the encyclopaedist's equivalent to sweeping dirt under the rug. And as we have seen, the next stage of the cycle is a consensus to trim the standalone article and merge it back in. Lather, rinse, repeat. Getting rid of bad content involves having the boldness to actually tackle the bad content in the original article in the first place.

Turning bad articles into good (or at least fair) articles often discourages or even stops this cargo cult article writing, as editors see what articles should actually look like, and how they should actually be written. The rate of addition of protologisms to LOL (Internet slang) decreased once the article itself became more than a list of word variations, and started to contain actual analysis. Similarly, chav now suffers far less from original research (excluding outright "My friend is a chav!" vandalism) now that the article shows by copious example that what we want is content based upon sources.

Uncle G 03:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For a current example of this problem, and ongoing ways to deal with it— or perhaps not to deal with it— see Icarus (mythology), an egregious example of an instantaneously-recognizable trope worn tissue-thin by overuse. --Wetman 04:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Please comment on the discussion currently taking place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy#Banning spoiler warnings completely. Kariteh 21:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, spoiler warnings are handled on a case by case basis. WikiProjects have developed their own consensus on this matter, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. Please do not bring the whole of Wikipedia into a decision that needs to be (or already has been) made by a WikiProject. It is a debate that has been done countless times before. A few projects decided not to use them. This is just going to waste valuable time that could be used editing articles. — Deckiller 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I am very disturbed over holding another wikipedia-wide debate (just on a different battleground) is because the same issues will be re-addressed, and the same groups will be for it, and the same groups will be against it. I understand that the occasional IP address will come in and reintroduce the warnings; they probably see them across Wikipedia, and expect it's done everywhere (otherwise, they would probably not know the templates exist). Most of the time, we explain the stance to these IPs or newcomers, and most of the time, it's a one time issue. If people disagree and bring it up on the talkpage of a WikiProject Final Fantasy article or reintroduce the tags, then those people are locked into the discussion and should rightfully be pointed to the talkpage. However, we have not had a lot of incidents recently; the reason the discussion of something that already had consensus among the WikiProject was resurfaced was simple: we wanted to see if anyone had objection to not including them at all, and not just excluding them in sections labeled "plot". Again, a relatively minor change, especially since most of the WP:FF articles and editors removed them all to begin with anyway. — Deckiller 22:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that an editor is not allowed to copy information from the web "word for word." But, i found that someone did this a while ago and since then the article has changed and evolved.
This Diff [3]
Was copied from this website[4].
But that was August 4, 2006.
Since then it has changed. Do i remove that info since it was copied? Or do i leave it because it has been changed since then? Yaanch^Speak! 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If the current copy has no copyright violation, then the issue is a phantom. --Wetman 03:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It might have a copyright violation. I dont know. So what should i do? Yaanch^Speak! 21:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is a copyright violation, follow the guidelines on Wikipedia:Copyright violations. You can also mark them with {{copyvio}} and clearly state where you think the original source of the copyright violation is at. This is one of the purposes for having administrators on this project, to review these situations after they have been marked up and delete them from the project... including deleting individual edits from the page history if necessary. --Robert Horning 23:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sure the answer is somewhere already, but I am having trouble locating it. What is the copyright status of screenshots, such as this? Thanks! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If the program itself is copyrighted, then the screenshot is too. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Then my next question would be, what tags are available for images where the license provided is questionable? In that example, the author claims it as his/her own, but it appears to be an image of a copyrighted product. I suspect the user believes that a screenshot taken by his/herself is therefore his/her own copyright. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 00:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The correct licencing tag would be {{Windows-software-screenshot}}. See Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Fair_use#Screenshots for more information. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the fair use should be as little as possible. A full sized screenshot would not qualify as fair use.++aviper2k7++ 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that it would not qualify under fair use per Wikipedia policy. For more details, see Wikipedia:Fair use. --Iamunknown 02:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted such a thing here, about dealing with already banned users who continue to post and try to interact on Wikipedia as ban evasion. Please take a look, thanks! - Denny 15:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello... I posted an addition to the arguments to avoid in deletions essay, labeled as WP:FORTHEPEOPLE. Would more people be willing to look into this? I feel it has merit. - Denny 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that we don't include images in mainspace where they are purely cosmetic and add no value to the article? Chris cheese whine 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Such as what? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Such as this. Chris cheese whine 21:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those don't add any more than regular text could. I would suggest sending them to WP:IFD. I thought you might have meant images that don't really add any encyclopedic content to the article but do add some worthwhile illustration like the ones along the side of here. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The example you give, the articles don't necessarily add content, but they are at least illustrative, and do more than simply make the article look good. Chris cheese whine 21:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As many of you know, the policy pages Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V) were recently merged together under the title: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT), while the Guideline page Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS) was merged into a FAQ page attached to WP:ATT.

Jimbo Wales has expressed some concerns about how this was done. He has suggested a straw poll to determine what the community consensus on this is. The poll is still in the formative stage (tweeking the wording and format)... but should be ready for people to cast their votes soon. Please see: Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. Blueboar 13:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a community discussion to discuss several questions that have arisen concerning the recent merging of WP:V, WP:NOR (and to some degree the guideline WP:RS) into one combined policy page: WP:ATT. We are trying to determine if there was community support for this merger and what should be done with the Policy and Guideline pages that were merged. Please swing by and comment. Blueboar 12:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted these originally at WP:RFC/POLICIES but I'm told that doing so rarely garners a response because that page is used mostly to "advertise" new proposed guidelines and stuff. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Unprotection of WP:RS (and perhaps others): Page was protected along with WP:ATT on the basis of "stability" which is not a recognized reason for page protection at WP:PROT; a later reason that editwarring is immiment was brought up to preserve the protection, but there is no actual evidence of editwarring; rather, there is broad consensus to restore material that was deleted without consensus before the protection - even the person who reverted that restoration immediately before the block agrees with the consensus and said they did the revert for the "stability" rationale. Others, at both WP:RS talk and in a related, larger thread at WP:ATT talk, challege the blocks as unilateral (cf. Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#PLEASE - NO CHANGES RIGHT NOW), without consensus and against policy and process, and that disputes about the future of WP:ATT have nothing to do with whether the policies and guidelines that were melded to create WP:ATT, and which have been restored to active status, need to be protected from editing. Probably due to concerns about corewarring, WP:RFPP have been reluctant to get involved. The issues raised also extend to the protection of WP:V and WP:NOR. So, broader community input is sought on whether any of these page protections should remain, and whether WP:RS in particular should be unprotected immediately. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Update: The protection is also thwarting application of the proper merge tags to the various original policy pages, as discussed at WP:ATT talk and at at WP:RS talk. 18:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• {{Disputedpolicy}} on WP:ATT. Some parties to the debates relating to WP:ATT (which is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Attribution, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll and Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion among probable other places) believe that the {{Disputedpolicy}} tag should be placed on WP:ATT because of its disputed status as a policy (which is what the template is for, not for disputes over what a policy happens to say about something). Proponents of WP:ATT of course reject this idea. The result is a deadlock that cannot possibly reach consensus internally, and needs further community input. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Update: After discussion, the template was added. A party to the disputes then immediately reverted it, with a rationale that actually has nothing to do with the template in question. WP:RFPP has been asked to restore it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Update: Another party has independently pointed out that ATT needs this template. 18:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Protection of WP:ATT without {{Protected}} tag. Short version: Article was protected pending outcome of a poll. Req. made at WP:RFPP to tag the article with {{Protected}}, which is not only normal but highly appropriate in this case because WP:ATT is heavily disputed as to its status and as to its particulars (and {{Protected}} specifically references dispute as the defensible rationale for the protection under WP:PROT). An RFPP admin responded by doing the requested tagging. A party to the disputes at WP:ATT removed the tag. RFPP admin replaced it, dispute participant removed it again, and replaced it with a POV statement of the situation that is strongly disagreed with by other parties to the debates. Should the {{Protected}} tag be restored, and debate partcipants reminded to leave the article alone while it is protected, since the purpose of page protection is not to create an admins-only editing environment? The relevant RFPP material is here — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Update: The {{Protected}} tag was put back on this one (for the third time). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the title of this section, but haven't worked out my thoughts. I welcome others' contributions in advance of that. My question, essentially, is are there segments of the intellectual community that do not want Wikipedia to succeed. More broadly, the type of knowledge it represents. If so, what are we dealing with? I am not sure how this very general question could translate to policy, but maybe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ismark (talk • contribs) 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't think user pages and user subpages should be searchable on Google. Some people like to keep private versions that lean towards a POV not approved by consensus. In at least one case the user subpage appears higher in Google search rankings than Wikipedia's own article. It should be relatively easy to fix the software to treat user pages and subpages like talk pages and not let them be searchable. Thoughts? --Ideogram 12:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So, how do you stop it? Realistically. I know, there is the "Robots.txt" file that is supposed to set up rules about what can and can't be searched by "legitimate" search engines on any given website, but I don't think it necessarily applies in this situation either.

What goes into any page here on Wikipedia, including user pages, is very much a public page. Perhaps that needs to be made more clear on the edit box itself, but if you are posting information here, expect that all of it including the user pages is going to be read by anybody and everybody, including employers, government law enforcement agents, ex-spouses, children (even grown up children), parents, friends, enemies, political opponents, and others. Even if these pages weren't made searchable, there is nothing that the Wikimedia Foundation can reasonably do to stop others from going into these pages and seeing what you may have written.

In addition, all of this content is not only made searchable, but you can even download it all in one massive file for all user pages, and some interesting searches have been made recently of user pages of a statistical nature to try and find out the demographic make up of Wikipedia contributors. If this policy of prohibiting a google search of user pages is to happen, you should also prohibit even the ability to download user pages as well. --Robert Horning 13:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I went to WP:USER and would have thought that having a POV fork of a page in your userspace would have been listed as bad. You probably could WP:MFD the POV page and claim that it's a POV fork and/or the temporary work in progress isn't actually being worked on (depends on the edit history). I don't think limiting searching is a good idea. Being able to search in Google for items that may be contained in userspace is useful, especially with the current state of our in-house search. --MECU≈talk 13:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that if the POV user pages show up in a standard Google search someone might go to them thinking they are legitimate Wikipedia articles. This can be alleviated by tagging them with {{Userpage otheruse}} (which I have done) so at least there is a partial solution. I'm not opposed to them being available in general, I just don't want them confused with real Wikipedia articles. --Ideogram 14:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree in concept, but if the person searching is paying any attention and has and sense about them, they will note that the page they are looking at is headlined with "User:SoAndSo" or what ever the user's name happens to be. If I saw that, I would at least look into whether or not it was an actual article about the topic or just a user who happened to have the same name as the topic for which i was searching. SpadePrince Talk ^{Contributions} 16:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember that a lot of people are new to Wikipedia (Wikipedia and Wiki are the most commonly viewed pages). Most people are stupid. (Actually, they just aren't paying attention, but the result is the same.) --Ideogram 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Since when did Talk pages stop being searchable in Google? That doesn't seem to reflect any part of Wikipedia's configuration (neither robots.txt nor meta tags prohibit indexing talk pages), but they do appear to be largely missing. Compare "Talk:Earth" on Google and the same on Yahoo. It appears that Google has independently decided not to index the article talk pages. Oh, and yes, POV forks in user space should be deleted. Dragons flight 16:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have archived all those contents in edit histories. The materials should no longer be possible to be searched on Google. Please consider retreating your MFD nomination. Thanks. — Instantnood 22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• This should be on bugzilla. >Radiant< 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, this has been around before; see here, here, and here for old discussions, none of which really came to a satisfactory resolution. Of the top ten google hits for 'Opabinia regalis', I'm #3, 4 (or 3.5), and 10. [5] Opabinia regalis 05:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does anyone associated with WP want to have the user pages searchable in the first place?DGG 02:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Some editors have created hundreds of subpages in their userspace to organize various things. Things get lost! --Quiddity 19:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WT:CSD#Alerting criterion R2 if you have any input on the matter; thank you. Gracenotes^T § 15:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A change has been proposed at WP:U for a slight expansion of the current ban on usernames which reference "reproductive and excretory functions of the body" to include flatulence and vomiting. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have penned a policy proposal that consists of two provisions in Wikipedia:Readability#Policy_proposal, in a section of the essay written by me. Please discuss it here or under Wikipedia talk:Readability/proposal discussion page. Thank you! Wooyi 22:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I, Jason Gastrich, politely request the overturn of my ban. I promise to stay away from Christianity- and religion-related articles, and to edit quietly under this account, and only this one.

No more sockpuppetry, or meatpuppetry.

I ask that the community seek forgiveness and let me return. --Jason Gastrich 11:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have made similar commitments before, which you have broken. Can you explain why you want to return to editing here, and what contributions you seek to make? -Will Beback · † · 13:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The user has already been blocked, so cannot reply here. However, I have copied his request to his talk page -- where, according to WP:BAN#Appeals_process, it should have been posted in the first place: "Generally speaking, the banned user will make the request on his or her talk page, which will be copied to WP:RFAR by a clerk." May I suggest that the process be continued from there? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, as I understand it, that means an RfArb clerk should copy the request from User talk:$$'s and sense#Unbanning to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on complaints that the policies were too lengthy, complex and convoluted, several people have revised the username policy page, to clarify it, remove redundancy, and incorporate material from a few related policies, in particular WP:SOCK and WP:DOP. This is not a change in policy, just a reworking of the relevant pages. The draft can be found at the link above; unless there are big objections, the intent is to move this over the present username policy as a new version; the second step would be to verify that it contains all relevant material from the related policies mentioned above, and complete the merge with a redirect. Please comment on the draft's talk page rather than here. >Radiant< 12:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done a little look for this. But after about 10 minutes thought it might just be easier to ask people who might know.

Are there any essays/guidelines explaining how editors should not use their personal authority on a subject (eg. as a politician, university professor, leader of a band's fan club etc.) to add Original research to articles without Attribution. I am looking for something that specifically deals with someone saying that they have in depth knowledge through personal experience on the subject, so it doesn't really matter that they haven't sourced their contributions, because they are "true".--ZayZayEM 00:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been an ongoing issue with Wikipedia and one that has VERY recently come full force into the spotlight, due to a recent incident which attained some media prominence. By and large, the policies of WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:ATT are what guide us -- and you already appear to be aware of all or most of those. If you can provide a verifiable reference to support your claim and the other user cannot find a reference of their own, then as best I see it: it sounds like you're in the right -- the burden of proof is now upon them to find information which runs counter to your evidence.

I have used the argument of "I know this because I do" quite often, myself. I use it only when I am truly confident in something, such as in cases where it is clearly apparent to absolutely anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge on the subject would know that I am correct. I do not use that approach in situations where users provide a reference counter to how I see it; though sometimes I may attempt to discredit a provided reference should its verifiability be up to debate. Users whom claim professional experience on a particular topic and wish to cite their own studies should have a published paper on the subject, published by a respected media. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 00:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And even if you yourself absolutely know it to be true, it still needs a source so that any reader who comes upon it, not just the ones with knowledge, can check it and not just take your word for it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There might be others, but this anti-appeal to authority proposal is possibly what you seek: Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials. --Quiddity 06:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! WP:IAC is exactly what I was after.--ZayZayEM 09:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer is very simple: no editor has such authority. -- Visviva 08:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Try User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Tips for editors, also. Uncle G 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that there are a lot of people with a lot of knowledge who are in professions without much in the way of professional, peer-reviewed publications available to cite as reference; there is also the problem that some knowledge inevitably does not make its way into those publications that do exist. To use myself as a close-at-hand example, I'm an infantryman in the U.S. Army. Say that I am creating or editing an article on battle drills. I could describe, in the article, a given battle drill as described in, say, the Ranger Handbook. But what if I want to point out that although battle drill X is described in such and thus a manner in the Handbook, it is often in the real world performed in a slightly different fashion? My knowledge in the matter would be professionally-based and learned from other, more experience professionals but I can see no way to include the material in an article without violating the "no original material" rule, unless I can find somewhere that such a variation is recorded in print so that I can cite it as a reference.

I'm not taking a position here; I fully understand why it's invalid to just say "I'm a professional, so take my word for it". But, the essential quandary is still there; how can editors contribute the knowledge that they have accumulated professionally but which represents the accumulated "oral knowledge", so to speak, of their profession? --Molon Labe 08:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have designed a new policy for choosing the TFA in a way that will make everyone happy and solve a lot of problems. Please add to the debate at Wikipedia:SweeTFA proposition!   David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm attempting to reopen the discussion orignally begun here. This is a proposed amendment to WP:FUC#9 and the proposal is located at Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals2. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no policy on articles about words. I wanted to propose that we actually create such a policy, but I believe the chance of it happening is approximately zero at this point. In the meantime, I've written an essay about this, Wikipedia:Articles about words, which attempts to explain what our general practice is on word articles. Please come read this essay and then use the talk page to tell me how much the essay horribly sucks. --Xyzzyplugh 20:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We do have a policy on articles about words: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 02:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Though, if you read the essay, it acknowledges this policy, points out some inconsistency in its application, and addresses exceptions that are generally permitted.zadignose 04:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that I HOPE could be considered as one of the ways to scale back vandalism on Wikipedia. A lot of the vandalism I see on Wikipedia I think are by people who just happrn to see an article and they perhaps just see the "edit" link, so they click it and type something simple which comes to mind and hit save. My suggestion is this: Wikipedia (I think I had read somewhere) is supposed to be open and allow anonymous submissions as well. However, I think one of the ways to curb vandalism but allow through real legit. (albeit) anonymous entries would be this.

If you're an anonymous user, (meaning you don't subscribe for a free ID) you'd still be able to submit entries for Wikipedia articles. However, the part that cuts down on vandalism would be--- that you must get TWO people (with real IDs) to nominate your anonymous submission for inclusion into the real live article. I was toying around in my head if the two nominations should be made by admins, or just anyone with a real ID but I figure that should be up for discussion too and their may not be enough admins to overlook all entries... (Although then again there would have to be enough admins to revert that same number of vandalism instances so this argument might be moot.) If the person is a vandal there's less of a chance they will get the two required nominations to make the vandalism part of the live article. But people who are anonymous and submiting real credible stuff will likely get their two nominations by someone. Does anyone think the idea could be workable? Again by becoming a legit user they can bypass the whole credibility check of their entry. Sure Sockpuppets may be an issue but they can be handled as they are now. CaribDigita 01:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Progress is being made on implementing 'Stable versions' of articles (a contractor has been hired – can't find another link at the moment), and there is a feature in the software to patrol edits (which I think will be tied into the stable versions), although it is not enabled here. mattbr 09:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's on the mw:MediaWiki roadmap as well. mattbr 09:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I spend time each day on edit patrol and sometimes I'll have to revert the same article three times in as many minutes, I never give it that third edit, I just report it, but my point is that the vandals are using bots as well, or at least it seems like it. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 00:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The one good thing I noticed that will hit back at the Vandalism-bots is I noticed now Wikipedia has one of those images-- with the made up text in the image... The one where you have to re-type what the image reads? Well now you have to do that with your submission as an annon. Try loging out and trying to submit something sometime. You'll see what I mean.  :-) CaribDigita 02:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You mean a captcha? I've seen people mention this before: the capcha only appears if a non-established user (new account, anonymous IP) tries to add an external link. Any other edits, I am told, do not trigger this. -- llywrch 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Spot on... That's what I guess it is called. Those things from what I'm told keep automated processes or bot type things from changing things. But I propose as a way to scale back vandals is have a 2 vote nomination process to add annonymous content to articles. Anon. edits which are credible will likely get the two votes. However aditions like "Hi George,sally says hi" or nonsense like that likely wont. CaribDigita 01:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this has been proposed before. People seem to love creating categories, and other people object to having huge indigestible wads of categories at the end of an article. Maybe the answer is to have a short list of visible categories and another link called "More categories". If you click on "more", you see that huge list. For instance, I could imagine the end of Turkey Vulture looking like this (but in blue):

Categories: Cathartidae | Birds of North America | Birds of South America

More categories

If you click on "More categories", you might see:

Categories: Birds of Canada | Birds of the United States | [snip twenty-odd additional countries] | Scavengers | Birds with good senses of smell | Birds commensal with humans | Birds that rock in flight | Birds that breed colonially | Examples of convergent evolution | Species that are imitated by other species | Species that appear in Thornton Burgess's stories | Species with scientific names of uncertain origin | etc., etc.

This would put the power of hypertext at the service of curious users without cluttering up the articles. Why shouldn't somebody who reads that the TV has a good sense of smell wonder what other birds do too? Why shouldn't they get an answer with a scroll and two clicks? Of course people would have to do the work. But there seems to be a strong impulse to work this way; maybe it should be indulged.

By the way, I thought of this when participating in the debate at Category_talk:Biota_by_country, which may need some more thoughts. —JerryFriedman 05:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• We are in fact trying to cut down on excessive categorization. See WP:OCAT for details, and if you see an overly-categorized article feel free to drop some of those categories on WP:CFD. >Radiant< 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a proposal to allow categories that you and I consider excessive. If they're hidden, we have the advantages of all those categories without the disadvantages. The hidden ones would be those deprecated at WP:OCAT (more or less—categories with only a few members and no room for growth might be forbidden even in hidden form). —JerryFriedman 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Having hidden categories is a good idea. Well I do have another proposal which is to re-categorize into flora and fauna by eco-regions described by the WWF (See: Eco-regions) and (See: reason). Luffy487 14:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I do not think that the show/hide system by itself would solve all problems as described. It is easily conceivable to picture the "more categories" display becoming simply too long to read for some articles. For example, imagine categories for every country, state, province, territory, department, division, and oblast where the house sparrow is found. When shown, the category list would be too long to read or use effectively. What is also needed is some type of organization mechanisms for categories that would present the categories in a more easy-to-read fashion. At the moment, categories are simply displayed as a paragraph-like mass of links at the bottoms of pages. Improved category formatting (such as displaying the categories as bulleted lists and sorting them into smaller lists) would help substantially. Coupled with the show/hide options described above, the system could be very useful. Dr. Submillimeter 14:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not to mention, having hidden categories will just encourage people to overcategorize. People will be adding more categories to the hidden cats than they would have otherwise added to non-hidden cats had hidden cats not existed. I'm talking about the "well, it's hidden anyway, so let's just add the article into every category that technically fits" line of thinking. I don't think it'll be all that helpful - categories are supposed to help with navigation. If you have 20 categories on an article, what are the chances they'll actually be useful to someone? It'll be much better to have just a few categories that are each useful, and readers can look at the categories, then look at the sub/super categories. Then again, i doubt many readers ever look at categories at all, regardless of how many or how few cats there are on an article. Cats is mainly an internal organizational thing for us editors... --`/aksha 15:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, but I think it will just shift the current arguments about what categories are important enough to exist into arguments about what categories are important enough to be visible. And there will still be plenty of categories created that aren't even fit for hiding. Postdlf 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, having sections of any sort that could be hidden or shown would I believe be the next evolutionary step to Wikipedia. For being not paper, this place sure does set everything up like it was, having to have a totally separate page for anything that doesn't quite fit in a main article. Owlofcreamcheese 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Too bad I'm not a programmer and can't do anything to take fuller advantage of WP's non-paper-ness. Various show/hide options (references, for instance) seem like an easy place to start.

To answer a comment above, I don't think this suggestion would end all the arguments, but it might produce a result that would work better for more people.

Anyway, if the present dissatisfaction in some quarters gets worse and more widespread, I hope someone will remember this compromise possibility. —JerryFriedman 05:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

All this would do would be to move the debate from deletion to which articles should be on the main list and which should be extras. LukeHoC 00:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

When I try to go through categories, I would like to point out another viewpoint here to try and resolve. Often when I go to some categories, I see that there are hundreds (or even thousands!) of articles that are in that category. This sometimes get to be very time consuming to try and find something specific if you are actually going to use the category system to look up a piece of related information.... IMHO the main reason to be using the category system as a reader. The point being is how many people here actually look on page seven (listed 200 articles per page) of the category listing to actually find an article? Even with alphabet bars and other navigational techniques, it becomes something nearly meaningless.

I don't think anything will help with that except 1) careful subcategorization and 2) displaying all the categories on one page so you can use your browser's search tool (when you know the word you're looking for). —JerryFriedman 05:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See Category:Biography articles of living people for a good example.

My question as it relates to these hidden categories is how would this help at all in this situation? To me, it would cause some of these categories to grow even more substantially. Perhaps there is some minor value added to these sort of monster categories, but I'm not sure what it really is. --Robert Horning 21:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This triggered an impression I've had before... the 200 per page limit is really too low. There is nothing to commend that ceiling number which I can see to justify it save that maybe it provides a bit of server unloading. But compared to a page's length in bytes, the length of any category is relatively trivial, even if huge. Making an educated guess, I'd presume it's because category pages may not be cached as aggressively as main space pages, thus require an on the spot database search for the category at the time of page access. Perhaps this needs re-examined and caching be considered in an quad-divided alphabetized scheme -- so there is a set of four virtual category sub-pages, if you will under any long category. Most of the time I want to search such a list, I get frustrated by not being able to just page down or mouse cursor down. Not being able to page down takes away much of their utility. And I'd double that disdain for the alpha sorted ones using the template.

While I'm making a wish list, add it'd be nice to have a click box on a cat page to display in two or four columns, not just three— where page titles vary suitably, and also another, so their is less vertical whitespace, perhaps switching to a smaller font as well... allowing more of the lists to show. // FrankB 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)