Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive AZ

There is currently a plethora of options for the Wikiproject talk page templates from the small option, to several Wikiproject banner options, to pages with just the plain banners. When an editor created the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} option he/she stated that he implemented it in banners but only after asking each WikiProject if they supported it. Now other editors are adding the option to every WikiProject banner without discussing it. Also there is the question of whether editors who have not contributed to an article should insert their preferred template. I think it's time to discuss this a little bit to reach some consensus. Personally I prefer this simple template:

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click on [show] for further details

and I'm extremely active in WP:NBA. In my opinion talk pages aren't billboards for WikiProjects. There are a lot of people who don't like the clutter, or the small option. I think it's important to bring it up here, because it seems like the only discussion going on is mostly among WikiProject members and I think (in some cases at least) there is a COI issue there. Also there are now so many options for displaying the templates and some confusion as to how each page's templats are decided upon I think it could use some discussion. If we could discuss the process that a system for each page is decided upon, I think is that would be great. I think the consensus is that if you haven't contributed to an article you shouldn't change the template system to your preferences, and that a change should be discussed on the talk page of each article first.

Here some relevant discussions: here, this whole page is relevant:Template talk:WikiProjectBanners, and here among many others. I want to get the opinions of the general community as well as the people who have worked hard on these templates and the WikiProject members, as it concerns them as well. Quadzilla99 00:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And to clarify a little bit, the consensus seems to be that no "shell" needs to be added to an article if there are only one or two projects that tag the article. If there are three or more, one of the options is often implemented.

The three options that I've seen are a) hide all project banners: {{WikiProjectBanners}} b) hide all non-essential tags: {{Hidden infoboxes}}, and c) hide the banners except for one line each: {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, but more then all, I want an agreement on what we are gonna do. It's a tad annoying to have all these various methods. There is also a gigantic amount of duplicity in in project banners in general, perhaps it's time to tackle that as well. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. can't we have some sort of "autocollapse" like we have for Nav boxes when there are more then 2 ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also as I discussed with Satyr before if the BannerShell could have an option to display as the banner above does I think that would be great. If the user doesn't want to see all the banners they chould have that option. I think that would be near perfect. Quadzilla99 00:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate the flexibility of {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. When you open a {{WikiProjectBanners}}, it's like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get. Additionally, a nested style doesn't take up too much space, and gives the project ratings. {{WikiProjectBanners}} has no such functionality. I'd be fine with adding a "collapsed" option to WikiProjectBannerShell; it's an easy addition, by the way.

An idea I've had recently would be to standardize project banners (to an extent) so that a project that wanted a banner that did xyz could just make the appropriate calls to the "superbanner." For example, {{ProjectBanner|image=FreeCheese.jpg|enablesmall=no|topic=Cheese|class=yes|importance=no}} would give a standard wikiproject banner with a class rating system and transclude articles to the appropriate category, but wouldn't accept importance parameters. This obviously wouldn't work with some of the more complex banners, but it's an interesting idea. I'm sure people could build on it; for example, if someone added a default-infobox parameter to the superbanner, an article talk page call of {{WikiProject Cheese|needs-infobox=yes}} would result in an article talk infobox that suggests the proper default infobox. Additionally, nested would need take priority over any additional boxes, or would cause the additional boxes to be integrated into the primary template box. I'd think some code would need to be duplicated in {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} (such as the currently-supported blp and activepol) so that the various common (superbanner-supported) boxes would also be supported there. Anyone like any of these ideas? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One issue that I can see with BannerShell is that it can be somewhat counterproductive in reducing the clutter of wikiproject banners in instances when articles have more than a couple of projects. As an example, the Barack Obama article has been added to six Wikiprojects and when TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) replaced Banners with BannerShell it increased the clutter by quite a bit in comparison to Banners.[1] In my case, it pushed the table of contents off my 1280X1040 screen. --Bobblehead 00:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That brings up my other point editors are changing talk pages of articles they haven't worked on. What is the policy for deciding which banners appear on each individual talk page? Quadzilla99 01:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also I agree that the Shell Banners bring some of the clutter back that's why I like the smaller banner template option. I'd prefer the option to be able to see the templates appear as they do above. Quadzilla99 01:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and wrote the code for a precollapsed bannershell. It's in a user sandbox here: User:Disavian/Sandbox/BannerShell Test2. Is that acceptable? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I have a problem with TonyTheTiger making the change without having edited on the talk page before. It's just a function of being bold. I do, however, like Disavian's modification to the bannershell template better than the current version. --Bobblehead 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you :) and I wrote it in record time, too! —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of Disavian's version, though I totally admire his ability to whip it together like that! The point of BannerShell was to combine the functionality of {{WikiProjectBanners}} (which reduces the clutter) with the need of WikiProjects to at least have their name out there. Having it collapsed reduces it to the same thing as WikiProjectBanners - projects are hidden. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That would make me happy Disavian, however I started this as more than just a way to satisfy myself. I hope we can keep this going and reach some consensus. I would say that if you're not a contributor to a page you shouldn't insert a different banner style (especially on a well trafficked page) until you comment on the talk page first. Also there are still some pages using the small option, I would think that should apply for those talk pages as well. If there are no banners or small optioned templates on a talk page it should be fine to format them in your preferred style. But if an editor has inserted a style that it should be discussed first and in particualr if you're not an editor to a page you should'nt sytematically format pages to a certain style. Also what to do concerning the fact that we have some pages in small option templates, some in the form of the Banner above, and some in the Shell format is something that should be discussed as well. Quadzilla99 01:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does there need to be two related templates at all? Disavian's modification seems to make having two separate templates obselete which is a win-win situation if you ask me. It gives editors the option of having the names of the wikiprojects visible, or to hide them completely if that is what they want.:) --Bobblehead 01:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) One point I'll make is it seems like many users want the option of not having to see the banners and opposing that I think reveals a little COI. Why is it so important that the option of not seeing the banners be taken away from people? Quadzilla99 01:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, all of the methods being discussed (with the exception of the small option) give users the option of not seeing the banners; the question, as usual, is what the default should be. Kirill Lokshin 01:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Shell option can't display as the template above does currently, there's a new one by Disavian that would do that. Also I think we need to make clear how it's decided on each page what system to use. I guess it's done on a page by page basis and that discussion should be done first, particularly if an editor has inserted a certain style. Am I correct? Quadzilla99 02:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with last two above)A couple of opinions, from what might be one of the worst offenders for placing banners on articles he hasn't worked on.

(1) I am aware of any number of banners I have placed on articles (generally Saints, Biography, and 1.0 Editorial Team) where I have not worked on the articles. In these cases, however, I believe that the banners have been validly placed, because

(1) the Biography banner often indicates whether an article needs a photo, which generally isn't already known there,

(2) the Saints banner (with some argumentats, admittedly) is being added to articles which I hope, one way or another, will all be shown on the Portal:Saints in one capacity or another, so that they will get some attention they often might not otherwise, and

(3) the 1.0 banner hopefully will reduce the number of existing banners for the WPCD, v0.5 and successors, core topics, and so on.

(4) many of the projects have article lists, which can then be used as the basis for determining what changes are being made to articles. I have reverted vandalism to Martin Luther several times already on the basis of that article being included on the Saints project list.

(5) often, the person placing the banner is doing so on the behalf of a comparatively new project, which is specifically intended to deal with articles of that type. In that case, the editor placing the banner may be doing so on the behalf of the majority of the people who have worked on the article already, but doing it in their stead.

On the basis of all of the above, I find that the question about whether an editor has contributed to an article should determine whether they can place a banner is probably not the best one.

Regarding some of the other points:

Personally, although I value seeing in the "nested" option the existing quality assessment, I would think that they, tending to be relatively consistent, may in a sense be less valuable than seeing the various importance assessments, and would greatly value being able to see them in the "compressed" version.

Lastly, I wonder whether it might be possible, in some way, to try to create in some cases a "subject area" banner for several similar projects. Certainly, the Jesus article would probably technically fall within the scope of some several dozen projects, most of them being Philosophy/Religion and Middle Eastern. If we could create a version of the Military history banner, with "tabs" for the various, in this case, Christianity/Judaism/Islamic projects out there, that might also help reduce clutter.

Otherwise, I rather prefer the "nested" option, and would add it to more banners I use if someone could show me a simple version of it I could copy to other banners. John Carter 02:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The point I'm making is a lot of these changes are currently based on personal preferences or personal views. At the very least I think these changes should be discussed first except in cases of obvious errors. Do you propose these changes first or do you just make them? Also if an editor reverts them what is your course of action? I'm asking this to mine your opinions and experience not to be confrontational. Quadzilla99 02:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Generally, I only add a banner if the article is already clearly in the scope of a project, either through categorization or inclusion on a wikipedia or reliable outside list. In those cases, it's kind of hard to question the inclusion of the banner, except when people question the initial categorization. In those cases when that isn't the case I try to add text to the article to indicate the justification for the new category and banner, preferably with a reference to indicate that I'm not being weird. Generally, there's no need to propose those changes, as the articles are, more often than not, not featured articles in the first place. In one case recently, regarding a mythical Scandinavian king whose name I can't for the life of me remember, someone removed the categorization and banner despite the fact that the existing text indicated the subject's extant feast day. He commented on the removal of the category and banner, and, when I discovered it, I placed my response regarding the feast day on the talk page. Once in a while, doing some things for national based projects, once in a while someone questions a banner, but generally not very often. In most cases, though, I regret to say, I probably don't myself notice on way or another. John Carter 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not being clear John, what I'm saying is in regards to changing from banner templates to banner shell templates and from small optioned templates to bannered templates. I wasn't speaking specifically as to what WikiProjects should have their templates on a talk page, but the formatting of the banners. Who decides what and so forth particularly when several styles are currently considered acceptable. Let's say I come across a talk page and all the banners are in the small option and so forth and I want to put them in a banner or vice versa, etc. Quadzilla99 03:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is not at all my field. Sorry. Generally, when I add banners, they're more or less the first ones on a given article. As such, I don't "compress" them into any of the banner templates, because there aren't that many to compress. My apologies for having not understood the question. John Carter 15:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The code you add to a banner to enable the nested option is shown on Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell#"Nested=". —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. John Carter 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I just make the changes. If someone reverts it, then I either just shrug and move on, or ask for opinions on the talk page. I personally don't think regular editors have any more say than a one time editor and there is always the option to revert the modifications if someone doesn't like it or complains about them.. --Bobblehead 03:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think stronger guidelines for banners and how to use banners would solve the bulk of this problem. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, as indicated above. The problem is how to make those guidelines enforcable in the current system. John Carter 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about creating such a template for a while. If you need a bot operator to make the merge happen and there is consensus Ill gladly make the bot run. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You're speaking of the one Disavian created correct? Quadzilla99 05:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that one standardised container needs to be decided upon. Those of us who write automated tools can then move to support that template (whichever it is) whereas at the moment it's not clear what we should be doing. --kingboyk 14:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If I might make a proposal there, I've noticed the Military history banner. Would there be any way to reformat a "generic" banner such that, for the less complex projects, it would say something like:

"This article has been assessed at "B-Class" on the assessment scale by the following WikiProjects:" and then have "drop-down" tabs for the projects who have done so, possibly with the little icons included next to their names? I know NOTHING about the logistics involved, and apologize if what I propose is unworkable, and know that some like Military history and Biography are probably too complicated to be included, but if the various projects which might be involved could agree to a standard list of category options included in the template, then maybe all that would have to be done would be to insert the name of a particular project for an assessment to take place. Provided, of course, that anything like that is even remotely workable. John Carter 15:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be technically possible, but there are a number of issues with such a design; the most obvious is that while quality ratings may be consistent among projects, importance ratings are not, so the template would need to support separate ones for each project. Frankly, I think the difficultly of actually using such a template would outweigh the net space gains.

(Shameless plug: WP:WPREF would result in a more limited, but still sizeable, consolidation of banners.) Kirill Lokshin 18:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am late getting to the table. I apologize for any issues with my editing of Talk:Barack Obama. I have been the leader of WP:CHICOTW. This has grown into a role as leader of WP:WPChi. I just created Category:Chicago articles by importance & Category:Chicago articles by quality and am going about setting policy for assessment at WPChi. My first order of business was to make sure that the 5 inaugural top rated articles (Barack Obama, Michael Jordan, Sears Tower, Wrigley Field and Chicago) had clean talk pages. I decided to follow the BannerShell format I noticed on a recent page. I endorse BannerShell over Banners, but will go along with the majority consensus since I am new to talk page debates. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry for coming late to the discussion and for limited participation (my house is flooded). I prefer {{WikiProjectBanners}} because it is the cleanest, most of the Project templates are just cluttering talk pages making them hard to use, and few Projects help maintain the articles they tag. I disagree that banners should not be used at times when there are only two projects; some of the WikiProject Banners are SO massively ridiculously enormous and convoluted, that at times, a banner is needed when there are only one or two Projects. And, regular editors to an article should be able to decide via consensus if they want one or two massive Project templates hidden. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Sandy has a point. The more I think about it {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} is redundant because quality does not differ across projects. If it could be changed to show importance it would be more useful. {{WikiProjectBanners}} is probably better until such time as space clutter through redundancy can be eliminated. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire - quality does differ between projects. WP:Film is rating entirely different things than WP:Bio, which is different from WP:MilHist.

And as I stated above, {{WikiProjectBanners}} entirely defeats one of the main reasons projects put banners on articles - to recruit. Without recruiting, projects die. If the banners are hidden, casual readers (the ones projects are trying to recruit) don't see them at all. {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} was created to mediate between hiding the banners altogether and showing all the full banners. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(added) The banner for a particular project can opt to show the importance as well as/instead of the quality on its one-line summary. Let me know which banner in particular you're interested in doing that for and I can make the change. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Update Currently a couple of dedicated editors are actively inserting the shelled format into talk pages all across the project:[2][3] I'm not saying this is right or wrong I'm just bringing it up. Quadzilla99 01:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I've been working on this for weeks and have a list of articles with more than four banners where the banners have the nested option. Is that a bad thing? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well basically you're converting all the talk pages to a new format. There are some people obviously who still prefer the old banner format. I'm not going to comment on it but I thought it merited mentioning as it's definitely related to the discussion at hand. Quadzilla99 04:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And to be fair, other users are actively inserting {{WikiProjectBanners}} into talk pages all across Wikipedia. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you provided the wrong diff as an example, that one doesn't support what you're saying. Quadzilla99 06:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I agree with SatyrTN, the original {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} seems to offer the best compromise. Вasil | talk 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that when WP:Films was presnted with the "already taken decision" to hide WP Banners, our consensus has been Shell because of recruitment needs, easy visual check of class and of projects involved. So if we stay on the general principle that hiding project banners is for when more than two projects claim the article, Shell is our preference. I have also argued that clutter has no meaning in talk pages where there is no talk, as is the case in most of films stubs. Maybe this could be given further thought here. Hoverfish Talk 19:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course WikiProjects like them (duh), they turn talk pages into billboards for their projects like the OP said. That's the basic thing people keep saying, I don't like the shells/nested junk let's keep it simple and not take away the option to hide the stuff from people. Also Hover don't act like you talk for a large group of people your vote/opinion is that of one person. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 00:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform#The scope, regarding WikiProject scopes getting off track. I think a lot of stuff can be cleared up by better work load distribution and less redundant tagging, and the WikiProject scope is in the center of that. -- Ned Scott 00:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So what's going to happen? I like Disavian's option. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 09:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to bring here what was discussed by a few only members in WP Films. The first discussion is here: Template talk:Film#Small alteration to your banner. There were 5 members including me, one was for Satyr's proposal, the rest expressed some doubts. Then there is the second discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Another Banner Question, where only Nehrams and me took part. Even this was no vote or poll, but opinions we were asked for. I still think that if you don't use the nested option and you hide all (including maintenance templates) you will slow down the development of film articles and the participation of new members. I do not say this as an opinion, but out of knowing what is going on in WP Films. When I first joined there was only a handful of active members. Now it's full of life and part of it is some new members who like to go through thousands of articles, look for missing things and place a maintenance tag in the talk page. Having in mind the banner issue, I tried to discourage creating new templates and adviced just placing a category in the talk page. But no, they want the template and they are happy with it. I don't know why. I let it up to you. Hoverfish Talk 13:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As an active member of both WP:GEORGIA and WP:ATL, let me say I was pleasantly surprised when Disavian's code to support nesting under {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} was added to those two templates. It is a perfect compromise: the names of the WikiProjects are still readily visible, but it greatly reduces the clutter on a page such as Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.. It should be the default standard. -- Satori Son 01:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well call me Captain Obvious but that's clearly disputed above by multiple users, a strong desire by editors to take away the option of not showing the templates is a little telling to me. Quadzilla99 22:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

After tonight's unfortunate incident with User:Robdurbar (or his account?) it seems that it might be wise to prevent blocked admins from unblocking themselves. Otherwise it seems we have little recourse against rogue admin accounts. The downside to this would be that vandals with access to an administrator account could block admins to cause trouble, but I think this is minor compared to having the mainpage compromised for minutes (since the vandal would have a hard time blocking all the active admins before someone bloced him). ^L_Wizard @ 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what stewards are for. --Kim Bruning 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is a bad idea. What if I (hypothetically, standing in for any admin) blocked every admin with a bot, going backwards through admin logs. Then I could start doing some damage. It would be worse disabling many admins, and we would still need the Steward. Prodego ^talk 00:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Y (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) recently blocked Chronic The Wedgehog (talk · contribs), citing that it was a violation of WP:U because it was a "drug reference". WP:U doesn't prohibit drug references, and when I inquired, he stated that it was the "Promotion of a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view" clause. I'd like clarification that the cited subclause of the policy is not meant to protect the project from this particular threat. Thoughts? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Y's interpretation of this username in relation to policy, even if one did exist that covered drug references, was a case of Fishing. In my opinion, if the username was more like "smokesomeweed" or "get high on marijuana", "meth is cool" or "coke shooter", then I can see the block. In cases where a drug reference (there by controversial POV) is not as obvious as a man in a chicken suit at a Microsoft Board Meeting, then it's a no go. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 00:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This was not a proper block. >Radiant< 10:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this exactly what WP:RFC/NAME is for? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We have an admin with "Get High" in his username. The blocking admin should take a chill pill. SchmuckyTheCat 02:40, 20 April 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
• Allegations of Islamic apartheid (added March 29, 2007 --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 22:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

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
• Armenian massacre

etc.

Also, consider these articles:

• Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

"Most historians agree that Israel has isolated and separated the Palestinians in the occupied territories."

The article isn't titled "allegations that Israel has isolated the Palestinians", the article is titled "allegations of Israeli apartheid". Most historians do *not* agree that this isolation/separation constitutes apartheid. Ken Arromdee 19:20, 23 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)
2. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Andeggs 08:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Inherently non-neutral. — Omegatron 15:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

1. --Sefringle 02:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
2. -- Ken Arromdee 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
3. -- Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
4. -- ScienceApologist 19:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
5. -- AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 21:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

1. --  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment- That makes you part of the first category. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 19:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If anything, it makes him part of the second. Nice try, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Nice try"? Please tell me, what exactly am I "trying" to do? In any case, asking for deletion is a change.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Mangoe 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

1. NDCompuGeek 13:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Give me more time to think about it, although I am kind of tentatively edging towards the "something needs to be changed" side of the house....

1. Black Falcon 04:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Although I know that disagreements there are the reason this issue came here, I think the issue of renaming such controversial articles should be handled on each article's talk page (and, if necessary, taken through dispute resolution). A blanket policy allowing or rejecting the use of the word "allegations" in titles is counterproductive and would not apply well to the dozens of articles which do or could use the word in their titles.
2. 6SJ7 16:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC). Each situation must be handled on a case by case basis. That is not to say that situations that are obviously similar shouldn't be handled similarly (e.g. "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" and "Allegations of Apartheid"). However, disagreements over whether two things are similar (such as Israeli Apartheid and Islamofascism, which I believe should both have "Allegations of..." although others disagree) should not overwhelm the discussion of the articles themselves and become the main focus of attention. Also, "Allegations of..." is sometimes useful as part of a compromise, which is why "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" has the title it has. Many articles on WP have compromise titles (see History of South Africa in the apartheid era for another example of a title that nobody would have come up with in the absence of a dispute.)

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 refuse to take part in a poll which asks me to judge the existence of State terrorism by United States of America (for example) and Holocaust as equally debatable.Proabivouac 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Pages called "alligations" should be about the alligations, pages without should be about the thing. aligations that I am a baboon should be about the claim I am a baboon, baboon should be a page about baboons themselves. It's not saying something is less true, it's just definieing the focus of the article, is it talking about a thing? or talking about talking about a thing?

I agree with you. But the problem is, Zionism and racism redirects to Allegations of zionism and racism Zionism and racism allegations, when they are "allegedly" two different subjects. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 21:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, "Allegations of" should be only for articles about the allegations. So what to do about the articles focusing on events? Note that these are primarily not debates over fact (though they include factual disagreements) but debates over naming. So I propose the following division: When a term itself is controversial, "x" and "alleged x" are POV; though the latter is more so. So, when a term is loaded, find a less loaded term, and allow an unadorned redirect (Death Tax -> Estate Tax (United States)). This is true even when an unadorned term is less notable (Israeli apartheid -> Status of Palestinians in Istrael); but NOT when the term is widely accepted (Woman -X-> Female human, despite Womyn); or when the article is primarily about the term itself, not the content (eg Islamofascism); or when any less-loaded term is inevitably untenably awkward (State terrorism by United States -X-> Illegal violence against civilians perpetrated or sponsored by United States).

ps. The holocaust is a non-issue, it is verifiable fact by wikipedia standards, the fact that it is also a bit controversial is immaterial. Making it a redirect to some less-loaded term like Organized killing of civilians in Nazi territory wouldn't even make deniers happy, so what's the point? --Homunq 08:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What I see missing from this conversation is the point that while Wikipedia is WP:NPOV, it is also bound by WP:RS and WP:V. Meaning, namely, that outside sourcing and attribution is the key to what is considered "controversial" and what is considered "settled". Majority opinions are presented as majority opinions and minority opinions as minority opinions. When the majority opinion is in opposition to the subjects discussed in an article then the article is appropriately titled with "allegations". Therefore, articles with the term "allegations" in their title are articles that are necessarily about minority opinions (and subject to WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, etc.) We are bound by the mainstream nature of Wikipedia and the principle of least astonishment to label and title articles about subjects that are generally considered to be "allegations" as such. Likewise, when the majority in the relevant sources consider a topic to be uncontroversial (c.f. the Holocaust) it is inappropriate to give undue weight to the minority by titling it with the mitigating "allegations" wording. Editors who disagree with this principle need to realize that NPOV is not a policy of accommodation. It was for this very reason that User:Fred Bauder started an encyclopedia that includes articles written from a sympathetic point-of-view. It could be argued that this is the only way that one can truly fight all systematic bias. However, Wikipedia is biased: it's biased towards the research and towards the sources that are extant. In effect, Wikipedia is a mainstream source: not a place that accommodates all presentations equally. --ScienceApologist 19:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• An article about the Holocaust should be called The Holocaust; not Allegations of the Holocaust.
• An article about nationalism should be called Nationalism; not Allegations of nationalism.
• An article about Bigfoot should be called Bigfoot, not Allegations of bigfoot.
• An article about Israeli Apartheid should be called Israeli Apartheid; not Allegations of Israeli Apartheid.

Article titles with "allegations" in them are inherently biased. Even if the title is accurate because the entire article consists of information about those "allegations", it's therefore a POV fork and should be merged into the article the allegations are about. — Omegatron 20:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have created a new proposal, hoping to garner support for the declassification of disambiguation pages from article status. Please contribute at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages aren't articles, thanks :) — Jack · talk · 21:09, Sunday, 15 April 2007

Isn't this mostly a feature request, and therefore a matter for bugzilla? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know this was a problem, but now I know, I support it. It is kind of silly to count disambiguation pages in the article count. Taking them off would make the count more accurate. Also, if it counts category pages, those should be taken off too. As for whether this is a policy change or feature request, I'm not quite sure. Kevin 23:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you mean count those pages in the Category: namespace, then the software doesn't. If this were to occur, one of the side effects would be (obviously) that the article count would decrease. For the uninitiated to the specifics (aka the general public and the media) this could be taken as a bug in the software. Wikipedia loses 200,000 articles! Slashdot and Digg would be like wildfire. Harryboyles 17:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be better than the media reporting "Wikipedia lies! They have 200,000 less articles than they claim!" Punctured Bicycle 06:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does it seem that there's a frightening proliferation of polls and surveys lately? Everywhere I turn, the search for consensus is being subverted by calls for a straw poll or surveys, often very early in the process. And people need to be reminded again and again that edits and policy are not determined by number of voters, that in fact we're not voting at all. Also, discussions on article deletions, moves, etc., are often being closed quickly, as if there was a race to determine the result of a discussion between a few "voters," rather than seek out broader discussion. Perhaps the hubbub over the attribution policy poll has inspired a lot of editors to turn to polls for their decision making? zadignose 04:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A discussion is ongoing about a possible guideline about Wikipedia:Attack sites. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I vaugley remember their being a policy about Fair Use images couldn't be above a certain resolution. Could anyone direct me towards a page or policy that confirms or denies this? The Placebo Effect 01:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No exact value is given, but WP:FU and WP:FUC basically say "only use what is needed". If a non-free image is being used to show someone swinging a golf club, we only need enough res to be able to see that (and possibly other things that might be important, such as who is swinging the club, but not what brand name is on the golf club, etc). -- Ned Scott 01:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this belongs in the Village Pump, or if it's more of a feature request (I forgot were those go anyway), but I was wondering if a little fuzzy logic could be put into our search engines, like Yahoo and Google have. For instance, if someone types in "manuver", they'll only get articles that misspelled the word like they did, instead of any suggestions such as "did you mean 'Maneuver'?", or if it's really proactive (or rather, annoying) like other search engines, simply search for Maneuver without even asking you if you wanted that spelling. (P.S. I spellchecked this entry. No sense having an entry on spelling with misspellings ;-) Oh, and on a similar note, any chance of getting a spellchecker to prevent those with edits from accidentally misspelling words, or should we just leave that up to other editors? Kevin 00:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a spell-checking facility in MediaWiki but it is disabled for performance reasons. x42bn6 Talk 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have spell checking ennaybled (sic) via my browser (Firefox), and (although it defaults to Americanisms, which does not help in British dialect articles) it caught all the misspellings in your query. It also failed to recognise the word "spellchecker", and a couple of others, but I can live with the limitations. It may be best if editors used their own spellchecking software and kept Wiki out of it. LessHeard vanU 12:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Install dictionaries for en-au, en-ca, en-gb, in addition to en-us.
2. Install Dictionary Switcher extension. — Omegatron 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. LessHeard vanU 20:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Create lots of redirects. If I typo or mis-spell a word I make a redirect. SchmuckyTheCat 02:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirects? — Omegatron 23:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Schmucky meant Ridyrex, or is that Reedirecks? LessHeard vanU 22:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what I do whenever I fail on my initial search. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

After several weeks (months?) of discussion, there's a proposed guideline to govern conduct of editors on Wikipedia's Reference Desk. The proposed guidelines are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines. Comment, expressions of support or disgust, and suggestions are welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines#So, what is it then.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Should the Sizing of images on articles be fixed, or left to user preferences? See prior discussion Andy Mabbett 17:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Image_size already exists. Maybe you could add your thoughts there? Mister.Manticore 18:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be absurd to have a fixed size for images as they vary in type and shape and function. How many reference books have all the images the same size? Aviara 21:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a conflict between the authors who want to have control of the image sizes (this is the most important painting of an artist that has a lot of small details, it needs to be BIG; these are not important lets make them small) and the viewers (I have a high res monitor and a fast internet, I want all my images to be BIG and BIGER; I have a 640*480monitor and a dial-up, I want all the images to be small, I can click on them if needed). Would it be nice the have an ability to scale images relative to the User's standard thumbnail size. E.g. [[Image:image|thumb|300%... would be shown as triple the thumbnail size set in the user options. If Alice set the standard thumbnail as 300px it would be shown as 900px, but if Ben set it to 50px the image is to be shown as 150px. Similarly [[Image:image|thumb|50%... would be shown as 150px to Alice and 25px to Ben. That way both authors and iewers could adjust their preferences Alex Bakharev 01:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:NYCS essentially takes one argument, for instance A, and produces [[A (New York City Subway service)|A]]. (It also has a few more little-used features.) Now this seems somewhat useful, since the template usage is a good deal shorter. The main problem is one of overlinking, as I detail on template talk:NYCS. I have created redirects, so you can type [[A (NYCS)|]], which is almost as short as the template call, to link to the service.

I propose to delete this template, but I don't want to cause unnecessary conflict. I would like some opinions on whether this template should be kept around, deprecated (and thus depopulated slowly and carefully), or changed all at once (which would not fix the overlinking problem if done automatically). Thank you. --NE2 20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Templates vs. redirects. --NE2 01:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that you have also recreated deleted redirects, which shows nothing but laziness and that you don't abide by the rules seen at Tfd. And if you think about having any template deleted, I will revert it and have you blocked. Remember, you don't own this place. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that NE2 is proposing to delete, but is asking for opinions on the matter first, I think the threat to block is way premature and an overreaction. That said, proposals to delete should go to WP:TFD. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 09:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise, I'm still keeping an eye on him. A lot of people have the same problem with him for the same reasons I do: Stubbornness, frustration and he always thinks he should get his way. Trying to mediate with him is like trying to talk to a wall, he won't listen. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Imdanumber1 has in the past compared tagging for deletion to vandalism: User talk:NE2/Archive 3#Your CFD; User talk:NE2/Archive 4#Subway template issue. I've tried to explain why it's not, but "he always thinks he should get his way". --NE2 14:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with 100% of the things that are done around here, but I realize it is a group effort, and it can't always go my way. Seevral other people have questioned NE2 in the past. He doesn't listen to anyone but himself, and if that continues, he won't get positive feedback from others, and no one will consider his ideas. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a third (or fourth, I guess, since Northenglish registered semi-apathy on my talk page) opinion about whether articles like Interstate 287 and Interstate 295 (New Jersey) should include current plans for repaving. My detailed reasoning is at the end of User talk:Route 82#"Future Improvements". --NE2 14:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Shortly, I think it deserves a mention. If roads are notable, their history and future plans are too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but standard maintenance need not be mentioned. Any sort of special maintenance, like adding in traffic sensors, using a new type of pavement (rubberized asphalt, etc.) are notable instances. Doing patchwork on a 2 mile stretch and filling some potholes isn't. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 20:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder - renovation, even small and classical one, seems worth mentioning, particulary if article coverage is wide.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel as if we shouldn't cover minor resurfacing projects. Oklahoma 74 has been worked on four times in the past seven years alone (two patching rounds, one tarring in cracks, one complete chip seal application), and that's just the section from Goldsby to Purcell, other projects I don't know about offhand have probably happened. Major things, such as a realignment, complete tear-out and rebuild, new interchanges, and other major projects should be mentioned, though -- but repaving isn't notable enough to justify inclusion in an article. In my opinion, anyway. —Scott5114↗ 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

These days, most state highway departments have a website where they list ongoing projects. A link, in the external links section, to the appropriate page on such a state website would certainly be sufficient, if such a page exists; text in the article would not be needed. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a collector of indiscriminate information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Do we have any external reliable sources on the repavement? By which I obviously don't mean the government agency deciding upon such. >Radiant< 11:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, we shouldn't give it undue weight. A massive repaving project, reported in several independent and reliable sources, should be noted. A minor one that little or no reliable and independent material is available on is just filler, and should be avoided. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Many companies seem to have turned to intentionally altering wikipedia to support their products. Microsoft is a high profile example; however, if one looks at articles concerning Neotame, or any of a great number of recently released pharmaceuticals (those whose patents are still in effect), one can easily find similar biases.

To combat this intentional and often subtle form of vandalism (as it seems to often be written by those with experience in the area; though a clear bias is often presented, and opinions that would harm the product are often stifled out) I ask that labels questioning the neutrality of these articles be encouraged.

Perhaps articles could be correlated to patents and those articles concerning products with patents upon them could be made such that anyone--or anyone with an account with a certain number of edits attributed or some other indication of desire to aid wikipedia--could set such a label to an article with questionable neutrality (a vote could be set, but how could one know that a corporation wouldn't simply have their employees make multiple accounts to swamp the vote, as occurs occasionally in debates). Though this last suggestion seems extreme, it should also be noted that as the actions of corporations to use wikipedia as an advertisment tool become increasingly extreme, the opposing reaction must become more extreme if wikipedia articles are to remain neutral.

I agree that pharma have the staff and money to spend promoting their goods, but there are also many people happy to pump an anti-point of view with original research and links to poor sites. Having looked through some of the medication articles recently I find lists of horrific side effects without verification, I find links to sites of anecdotal evidence. I'm not worried about a lack of balance, but I am concerned that there's a lack of wiki quality in some articles, and it's difficult to tackle. People seem to want to push "The Truth THEY Don't Want You To Know!!!1!" and there's no reliable source for that POV. Dan Beale 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, see Vonage. I'm tempted to insert some actual product feature description, but damn, right now it's just such a perfectly neutral-pov, well-cited anti-Vonage screed. --Lexein 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We need the support from neutral persons. Even admins of this side delete "wrong" opinions even from the discussion page (!).

"I have placed higher-level warnings because you still persisted in engaging in unproductive debate despite adequate warnings by me and Howard. All of you have been duly advised. --- Tito Pao 05:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Touché. Wikipedia is not Plaza Miranda. Very good hehe. --Howard the Duck 06:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC) OK, I will stop posting my political opinions, but may I be frank, I think this is very unfair, you are suppressing my right to freedom of speech, OK, I will not post anymore of my political opinions, I would like to say something else, I think this article will not be truthful, because the one's incharge of this article will not listen to as you call it "political rantings." One more question before I go, do you know websites were I can express my "political rantings?" -- Greg - 5:10PM - 29 March 2007

- It begins that the papers of the opposition shall not be used as sources f.e. "The Daily Tribune" (www.tribune.net.ph). - All the evidence of the worsening economy for the majority is deleted etc.

In the first parts the article reflects the opinion of the (probably not-elected) government without referring the side of the opposition. The Philippines are the second dangerous country for journalists (after Iraq). Therefore imo they need the support from outside.

Per my suggestion at WP:RS talk, WP:RS is rather too theoretical and often when discussing specific examples it (and our other policies) are no help. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples linked from it is not recognized as policy, and WP:ATT is disputed for many reasons not relevant here but preventing the rather uncontroversial and helpful examples from WP:ATT/FAQ#What_kinds_of_sources_are_generally_regarded_as_reliable.3F, WP:ATT/FAQ#What_kinds_of_sources_are_generally_regarded_as_unreliable.3F and WP:ATT/FAQ#Questions_about_the_reliability_of_specific_sources in being cited as policy. Therefore I have proposed merging those sections from ATT FAQ to RS EX and upgrading this to policy; with that we will have a nice set of examples that can help in cases where RS is too general to offer advice (and believe me I have seen enough discussions of 'this is reliable'/'this is not reliable' where both sides quote theoretical parts of RS and no consensus is reached to be completly sick of them).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that those examples are uncontroversial. In particular, I've objected to the part of WP:ATT/FAQ#Questions_about_the_reliability_of_specific_sources which categorically denies that Wikis may ever be sources. (Actually, it doesn't *quite* do so now, but attempts I've made to loosen it have been quickly deleted in the past.) I believe that Wikis should be allowed as sources under the circumstances described in WP:ATT#Using questionable or self-published sources:

1. Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I see no reason why a Wiki that meets these conditions should not be allowed as a self-published source (as long as a permalink is used, of course.) The FAQ thinks otherwise. Ken Arromdee 05:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as that wiki has a permanent link, than it is no different than any self-published source. I certainly agree with you on that. A Wiki trying to censor other wikis sounds... bizzare. I would not expect any such formulation to survive long.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It already has survived long. Ken Arromdee 20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that info boxes can be helpful in many situations. However, in some cases, I find them redundant and too much like "lists". In the case of theatrical plays, for example, some editors are insisting on listing all or many of the characters in a play, or every producer of a movie (which can be quite a few these days). I also feel that the over use of these boxes gives a feeling of dumbing down of an article - sort of like using cliff notes to write a report instead of reading the whole article. Listing all the scene locations for many plays would be equally cumbersome. In fact, for the most part, all the information in these boxes is typically found in the first paragraph or two of the article itself. Isn't this redundant? Are not these just more lists that duplicate the information in the articles? Are these boxes mandatory for plays and musicals? I am concerned that we are turning some articles from encyclopedia entries into USA TODAY stories with these little boxes that make it easier to avoid actually learning about the subject, as opposed to simply getting a few quick facts.Smatprt 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the use of infoboxes is not required. Discussion on the talk page of the article can be used to resolve disputes over their inclusion. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Should infoboxes be discouraged? --Kim Bruning 19:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. the problem is that many people and especially more novice editors simply don't understand infoboxes enough. For instance that fact that Infobox Television has a "cast" option does not mean that everyone that ever appeared in the show needs to be tossed into that. Another problem is often that if the cast gets very complicated (something like Lost (TV series) for instance), the infobox can simply not do it justice. It is common to link to a "page section" that lists the information in a proper way in that case, but many people simply don't understand that. It's problematic at times, but it's a "cleanup" task like any other in Wikipedia, so I don't see it as much of a problem. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a similar discussion going on at [[4]]. I am glad that info boxes are not required, as some of the problems raised by TheDJ are certtainly prevalent in the plays of Shakespeare. Presently out of 40+ plays and poems of Shakespeare, only 3 have info boxes, and in every case they simply do not do justice to the work. Shakespeare's plays have massive character lists, multiple locations, and there is very little agreement on dating, sources, influences, etc. I think the works of Shakespeare are ill served by an info box and I would support not having them. It's a case of the works being too complex t bol down to a list of facts that are often contentious.Smatprt 03:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Many info boxes are far too big in relation to the text. I find that they often create a lot of white space, giving a poor impression of Wikipedia's presentation. On the other hand, in some articles that have more content, there is an infobox, a logo, and a content table at the top of the article, all competing for priority, and the result is very messy presentation. Aviara 21:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In Visual arts articles, infoboxes are a positive menace. They are often added by people who don't know much about the area & think this is an easy thing to do. The information is often wrong, or off point, and any number of 19th century artist articles have the good picture that should be the lead pic displaced by a sprawling infobox with a dull whiskery photo. For very recent examples of what happens when info-boxes and templates come together, look at the truly horrible current versions of Philip the Good, Charles the Bold & other Dukes of Burgundy. Johnbod 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's gotta depend on the subject matter. If you look at articles on the elements (Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, etc) - the absolutely standardized info box is a godsend - it means you can compare elements with ease - and in utterly ensures that all articles about elements have all of the data that the Wikiproject for Elements has specified that they should have. There are other cases where they are clearly inappropriate - and grey areas in between. What is required is that subject matter experts (typically in a related Wikiproject) should put sensible restrictions on what goes into the article. So instead of a "Cast" field for TV shows - have a "Principle Cast" field and have the rule that only people whose names appear all by themselves in the credits get a mention (or whatever the guideline is). SteveBaker 01:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an attempt under way at Wikipedia talk:User page to add a section to WP:USER that would make "Extremely offensive material" deleteable on sitght. This obviously contradicts WP:NOT#Censored. Even worse, the proposal purports to prohibit any discussion of such content, saying "In such cases extended discussion on public forums regarding the material or its removal is inappropriate. Direct all complaints or concerns directly to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org" I object even more strongly to this part of the proposal. The idea that there are things so horrid that they cannot be discussed in public is the censor's best ally, and is completely opposed to the spirit of Wikipedia. Indeed this offends me far more deply that the substantive rule it purports to protect. I call on all editors to denounce this novel and complely unacceptable idea. DES ^(talk) 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See also This new RfArb. DES ^(talk) 23:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is a collective project aimed on creation an encyclopedia. It is not a blog. Userpages are suppose to improve the cooperation between users not to work the other way. Any material on the user page that is divisive and makes more difficult for others to assume good faith from a user should be removed. You do not WP:OWN your userpage. Alex Bakharev 01:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• I believe that the over-arching policy statement of "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" applies here. Deletion of "extremely offensive material" should be deletable on sight in as much as it prevents the building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect, and only when it prevents the building of a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. I think these situations would be rare and obvious. For example, a user page that declares something like, "I hate all _______ and _______, if you fall into one of these groups, LEAVE", detracts from such a goal and would be deleted on sight. So I don't think new wording in the user page guideline is necessary --- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not already covers this. Sancho 06:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• I support the change. Frankly, extremely offensive content on userpages can be deleted per WP:IAR without making a policy to cover it specifically. There is an unbridgeable gap between having legitimate offensive articles such as the infamous autofellatio versus tolerating userpages that say "penis penis penis." YechielMan 14:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that a user page that has nothing but "penis penis penis" has no value to the project, and indeed I think it could be blanked under the current WP:USER. Given the histroy here, I think that this is baing aimed at people who self-identify as supporters of political and social positions that some others find highly distateful, but that is not presented in a hateful form. In particualr a user page that indiactes a position or outlook or sexual preference that a user has (which may actually be of value in considering PoV issues in that user's edits) and which is not framed in an agressive way ("I am X", not "I hate all non-X") should not be removabel, at sight or indeed after discussion, but given the history here, that is exactly what I think this proposal is aimed at. The further provision that had been included (but was removed by another editor) that attempted to prohibit any discussion of such removals in public fora (Such as WP:AN/I) was IM even more offensive. DES ^(talk) 15:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is already going on at WP:USER, I see not point in having it in two places. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is partly a policy question, and partly a "how to find out where learn more" topic.

• I have seen that in the last two months or so, several sets of affiliated United States politician articles, especially for those that are a candidate for president, that used to have their own categories, as an aid for navigation among a set of related articles, had their categories deleted.
  I cannot find the various discussions in Categories for Discussion now--does anyone ever have an easy time finding these discussions?
  
• A consequence of the deleted categories, is the desirability of making navigation templates for each of these sets of articles, something that is a lot more work than a category. I don't know where to have a meta-conversation about the potential of changing the apparent policy on categories for individuals so that they survive review discussions. Where to go for that meta-discussion?
  

-- Yellowdesk 13:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My advice is to be bold and restore the categories. As a rule of thumb, any category that contains three or more related articles is likely to be useful. Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton already has more than 10 articles. Category:Barack Obama does not exist, but it could easily contain the main article, plus the one about his political views and the one about his presidential campaign. Meta discussions might be directed to WT:CFD. YechielMan 14:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yellowdesk 13:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in Rio de Janeiro - Brasil and here we speak Portuguese.

Sometimes I don't find the meaning of some subjects in Portuguese. I only find in English. It is very well explained since English Wikipedia is extremely larger than the Portuguese one.

I would like to know if it is valid to translate some subjects from English Wikipedia into Portuguese Wikipedia.

Thanks a lot for taking your time to appreciate my question.

I hope to receive a warning that my question was responded since I'm not sure I can return to this page easyly (I'll Try).

Best Regards,

Julio Borges — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jborges (talk • contribs) April 24, 2007

• I'll put on his/her talk page a link to this section, pending response by another. Yellowdesk 14:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, it is a permitted activity to translate articles. Since the Portugese Wikipedia is an affiliated Wikipedia, the copyright license for the text is the same, and re-use of articles and creating derivative works is a contemplated use of Wikipedia. It's desirable to mention the source of the translation and provide a link. -- Yellowdesk 13:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been involved in creating a local community web site.

We have started developing a WAP site (a site for use by mobile phone). I did a search for "mobile phone wikipedia" and as far as I can see the mobile phone version wapedia is a reformated version of Wikipedia.

So, although the appropriate place to put a link to our new web "site"++ might be wapedia or several other equivalents, they don't actually have their own information and just take their content & links from wikipedia.

_{:++(like most wap sites, even the BBC, there is vastly less than the main site - the difference between a newspaper article and a Birthday card!)}

So whilst I have put a link on Lenzie as in Lenzie WAP I think the subject needs a bit of discussion:

1. There is a growing number of users who are accessing wikipedia's content through wap pages for whom a WAP external link should be available.
2. I myself now have firefox with a wap module so that I can read WAP pages - so presumably many others also have this feature. So what is the policy on a link that most people accessing the site from the web can't read - whilst all those accessing through the wap can?
3. Assuming links to wap pages are permitted (as I think they ought), what is the appropriate way to create the link?

Bugsy 20:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but why do we need a WAP-specific website? Wikipedia is laid out with semantic XHTML, and the layout is done entirely with CSS; in theory, a mobile media-type style sheet could be developed and WAP/PDA users could just use the regular site. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Has there ever been a policy-discussion regarding bibliographical lists by subject? The current policies and guidelines don't adress those lists specifically leading to somewhat different interpretations in a current AfD. The basic question that I'd like a clear policy answer on is this: Should bibliographical lists that contain mostly books without own articles be allowed (perhaps best described as a reference section without an article)? Given the unique character of these articles I think it would be a good idea to have a clearly formulated policy answer. Subject bibliographies can certainly be useful (and useful in a very real, non-trivial, way), but, on the other hand, that kind of organization of research material might not necessarily be encyclopedic in nature. Pax:Vobiscum 18:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Some subject groups are able to keep fairly good control of these pages, with realistically firm criteria, but there is a tendency for enthusiasts to overbalance the articles with less notable works on their special topic. Perhaps a better approach is to do careful and up to date lists of further reading for articles on general subjects. DGG 07:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Can you give an example or two of which groups have done this well and where their criteria are spelled out? Also, could you tease out your better approach a bit more. I'm not clear on what that would look like.

The problem I have with bibliographic lists of non-notable books — at least bibliographies that are topical rather than concerned with a single author (e.g., List of books by P. G. Wodehouse) or a series of books (e.g., List of Oz books) — is that there are no clear guidelines to stop the "enthusiast" from making it a rather indiscriminate collection of information. In the Afd Pax mentioned, for instance, there are at least several hundred books on the subject from the early church to today, and while clearly not all of them are of equal significance or quality, there seem to be no guidelines to manage the list (WP:RS won't help except in extreme cases). IMO, the best option is to exclude topical bibliographies as stand-alone lists altogether. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion going on at WT:NPOV (specifically this thread about possible POV in an edit made to the policy in December 2004 and recently disputed. Please comment on the thread linked above. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Under Creative Commons Attribution license v 2.5, the sharing and remixing are allowed under the conditions of attribution: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." (quoting from the license text).

So, if a photographer has specifically asked that any display of the photo in any publication should bear her name in the credit line, shouldn't we include such credit lines in the photo captions in Wikipedia too?

Suppose Image:Example.jpg has been uploaded by user X, and released under CC-Attrib, with instructions that any display of the image should credit the photographer explicitly in the credit line as "Photo by:X". When we add this image to an article, shouldn't we use this? :

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|Example image caption. Photo by:X]]

I've been trying to get many photographers involved and take photos of under-represented countries and locations (such as Bangladesh), but many of them have replied that they'll contribute CC-licensed content ONLY if proper attribution is made. As a comparison, regular news media almost always provide explicit attribution to the photographers in the photo captions, and so does most encyclopedia (example from encarta).

So, shouldn't we always provide proper attribution to photographers in the credit lines if they ask for it under CC-Attrib? --Ragib 21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I'm pretty sure CC-Attrib licenses which place demands on article content to include certain things are not allowed. However, a requirement to credit the image can be met by placing it on the image description page, which has to be done anyway. Only if it explicitly must be mentioned in the caption does the problem come up. -Amarkov moo! 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but CC-Attribution v 2.5 is one of the licenses allowed in Wikimedia commons. The "not-allowed" bunch includes the ND-NC ones, and I'm not talking about those. I'm referring to the "allowed" ones like CC-Attribution or CC-by-SA, and a photographer is definitely allowed to request attribution in

Also, is there any policy from the foundation that says a CC-Attrib/ CC-by-SA image is not usable if the photographer requests a small credit line in the caption (i.e. "the manner specified by the author or licensor")? --Ragib 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm pretty sure there is a policy that places restrictions on licenses such as that, but I can't remember where I saw that. So if you're looking for a definitive answer, I can't help you. Sorry. -Amarkov moo! 21:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My viewpoint as a Wikipedian photographer is that attribution is not necessary in the captions as the user can click on the image and acquire the source information from the description page. Such is not possible on Encarta or varying news media. I have begun only uploading attribution-required images after I spotted one of my images on a news website and was a bit perturbed about for-profit industries using my work without attribution, but by no means do I expect to have my name plastered on every article using my images; and frankly I think if a photographer wants his name on every article, he can stop contributing to Wikipedia and we'll find someone more willing to cooperate. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 21:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, you can't always get "Someone else" to take photos of distant locations which are quite under-represented in Wikipedia. I've been getting in touch with many people and trying to get them involved in photo content generation for commons (such as, of Bangladesh), but the most common thing requested by the photographers is attribution. Since the license allows the photographer to request that explicitly, I would like to see a definite policy that allows violation of the license, or the non-usability of such images. Turning away people who generate rare photos is not a good solution. Thanks. --Ragib 22:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No policy could possibly allow violation of copyright. Even if, for some bizzare reason, people supported that, the Foundation would step in against an illegal policy. And people are indeed allowed to demand attribution however they please, if they have the copyright. -Amarkov moo! 22:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well but if they retain the copyright then the image can't be used here. I think the question is, if it's released under CC but contains the stipulation that attribution must be given proximate to all manifestations of the image... that is, in the viewing field of anyone viewing the image, e.g. on the same web page, next to the image, without leaving the page being needed to see the attribution. I think that is probably what these photographers are asking for. It's certainly reasonable to want everyone seeing the image to also see the attribution, rather than the few percent of viewers who go the actual image page. We do not do this now. Can we? I don't know. Should we? I don't know, but I don't see why not. Herostratus 23:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see why brief credit lines shouldn't be used (they might be legally binding too, if the authors ask for them). The problem gets complicated as content is released under CD or print form. I looked into the SOS Foundation Wiki CD, and the photos there are not clickable, so no attribution for the photos are present. Creative Commons Attribution license is very clear: if the authors ask for attribution, you HAVE to give it in however form they want it. So, if someone asks for attribution in the caption in a reasonable manner, I don't see any way we can prevent that without legally violating the license. The commons and wikipedia image policies do not prevent any such requests for attribution, nor do I see any reason why we should discourage photographers who are eager to release CC-licensed images, but ask for reasonable attribution. Thanks. --Ragib 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So, should I assume it is ok to add credits to captions, per CC-Attribution license, as discussed above? --Ragib 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Anyone know if this is allowed under policy? It's certainly something that hasn't, as far as I know, been done; and I fear that attempting to do it would result in it being edited out. It should certainly only be done if the license makes an explicit stipulation that attribution "must be given in the image caption, if any" or somesuch. Otherwise atribution on the image page may be assumed to be sufficient. However... if the license requires that attribution must be given proximate to all manifestations of the image (e.g. in the image caption), then it may well be that this is too restrictive for us to use the media. Where's the limit? What if the stipulation was ""must be given in the image caption, if any, in a font at least three times as large as that used for the caption text" or whatever. That would be overly micro-managing our presentation. It may be that requiring credit "in the image caption" or whatever is similarly overly micro-managing our presentation and can't be accepted. Anyone know anything more about this? Herostratus 03:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... like Amarkov, I don't see how any policy or consensus can go against a license, which is a legal document (i.e. if someone requires attribution as part of image caption, no policy/consensus can say that won't be given). --Ragib 04:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wee. The Creative Commons totally non-binding "human readable text" confuses people yet again! What actually matters is the license text:

4.b. If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit.

As you can see what is actually required is attribution which is ... "reasonable to the medium or means", "implemented in any reasonable manner" and "at a minimum .... comparable". In our medium, we provide attribution in a one-click away form. This is reasonable because it prevents the primary work page from being flooded by an endless sea of names, some of which may be intentionally offensive, but still we can not avoid crediting them in a consistent manner other than to reject such contributions entirely. ...and with a minor change to our terms of service we could wave attribution for works under Creative Commons 2.5 and later entirely. The addition of inline credits for images would create a number of ugly results, such as creating a concern that people are only contributing for the purpose of self-promotion, and inequitable attribution for article text which could only be addressed through an unsustainable addition of every editors name to the article. I suggest we instead create a second talk namespace called 'Credits' which is automatically populated with image attribution license data, and where interested editors can maintain a list of authors of an article. This would allow for fair, and intuitive, attributions for all parts of our pages. No automatic system can be expected to accurately credit text authors, but since we've mastered a million other maintenance tasks, maintaining a credits page should be no problem. --Gmaxwell 05:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a plethora of options for the Wikiproject talk page templates from the small option, to several Wikiproject banner options, to pages with just the plain banners. When an editor created the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} option he/she stated that he implemented it in banners but only after asking each WikiProject if they supported it. Now other editors are adding the option to every WikiProject banner without discussing it. Also there is the question of whether editors who have not contributed to an article should insert their preferred template. I think it's time to discuss this a little bit to reach some consensus. Personally I prefer this simple template:

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click on [show] for further details

and I'm extremely active in WP:NBA. In my opinion talk pages aren't billboards for WikiProjects. There are a lot of people who don't like the clutter, or the small option. I think it's important to bring it up here, because it seems like the only discussion going on is mostly among WikiProject members and I think (in some cases at least) there is a COI issue there. Also there are now so many options for displaying the templates and some confusion as to how each page's templats are decided upon I think it could use some discussion. If we could discuss the process that a system for each page is decided upon, I think is that would be great. I think the consensus is that if you haven't contributed to an article you shouldn't change the template system to your preferences, and that a change should be discussed on the talk page of each article first.

Here some relevant discussions: here, this whole page is relevant:Template talk:WikiProjectBanners, and here among many others. I want to get the opinions of the general community as well as the people who have worked hard on these templates and the WikiProject members, as it concerns them as well. Quadzilla99 00:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And to clarify a little bit, the consensus seems to be that no "shell" needs to be added to an article if there are only one or two projects that tag the article. If there are three or more, one of the options is often implemented.

The three options that I've seen are a) hide all project banners: {{WikiProjectBanners}} b) hide all non-essential tags: {{Hidden infoboxes}}, and c) hide the banners except for one line each: {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, but more then all, I want an agreement on what we are gonna do. It's a tad annoying to have all these various methods. There is also a gigantic amount of duplicity in in project banners in general, perhaps it's time to tackle that as well. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. can't we have some sort of "autocollapse" like we have for Nav boxes when there are more then 2 ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also as I discussed with Satyr before if the BannerShell could have an option to display as the banner above does I think that would be great. If the user doesn't want to see all the banners they chould have that option. I think that would be near perfect. Quadzilla99 00:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate the flexibility of {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. When you open a {{WikiProjectBanners}}, it's like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get. Additionally, a nested style doesn't take up too much space, and gives the project ratings. {{WikiProjectBanners}} has no such functionality. I'd be fine with adding a "collapsed" option to WikiProjectBannerShell; it's an easy addition, by the way.

An idea I've had recently would be to standardize project banners (to an extent) so that a project that wanted a banner that did xyz could just make the appropriate calls to the "superbanner." For example, {{ProjectBanner|image=FreeCheese.jpg|enablesmall=no|topic=Cheese|class=yes|importance=no}} would give a standard wikiproject banner with a class rating system and transclude articles to the appropriate category, but wouldn't accept importance parameters. This obviously wouldn't work with some of the more complex banners, but it's an interesting idea. I'm sure people could build on it; for example, if someone added a default-infobox parameter to the superbanner, an article talk page call of {{WikiProject Cheese|needs-infobox=yes}} would result in an article talk infobox that suggests the proper default infobox. Additionally, nested would need take priority over any additional boxes, or would cause the additional boxes to be integrated into the primary template box. I'd think some code would need to be duplicated in {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} (such as the currently-supported blp and activepol) so that the various common (superbanner-supported) boxes would also be supported there. Anyone like any of these ideas? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One issue that I can see with BannerShell is that it can be somewhat counterproductive in reducing the clutter of wikiproject banners in instances when articles have more than a couple of projects. As an example, the Barack Obama article has been added to six Wikiprojects and when TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) replaced Banners with BannerShell it increased the clutter by quite a bit in comparison to Banners.[5] In my case, it pushed the table of contents off my 1280X1040 screen. --Bobblehead 00:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That brings up my other point editors are changing talk pages of articles they haven't worked on. What is the policy for deciding which banners appear on each individual talk page? Quadzilla99 01:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also I agree that the Shell Banners bring some of the clutter back that's why I like the smaller banner template option. I'd prefer the option to be able to see the templates appear as they do above. Quadzilla99 01:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and wrote the code for a precollapsed bannershell. It's in a user sandbox here: User:Disavian/Sandbox/BannerShell Test2. Is that acceptable? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I have a problem with TonyTheTiger making the change without having edited on the talk page before. It's just a function of being bold. I do, however, like Disavian's modification to the bannershell template better than the current version. --Bobblehead 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you :) and I wrote it in record time, too! —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of Disavian's version, though I totally admire his ability to whip it together like that! The point of BannerShell was to combine the functionality of {{WikiProjectBanners}} (which reduces the clutter) with the need of WikiProjects to at least have their name out there. Having it collapsed reduces it to the same thing as WikiProjectBanners - projects are hidden. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That would make me happy Disavian, however I started this as more than just a way to satisfy myself. I hope we can keep this going and reach some consensus. I would say that if you're not a contributor to a page you shouldn't insert a different banner style (especially on a well trafficked page) until you comment on the talk page first. Also there are still some pages using the small option, I would think that should apply for those talk pages as well. If there are no banners or small optioned templates on a talk page it should be fine to format them in your preferred style. But if an editor has inserted a style that it should be discussed first and in particualr if you're not an editor to a page you should'nt sytematically format pages to a certain style. Also what to do concerning the fact that we have some pages in small option templates, some in the form of the Banner above, and some in the Shell format is something that should be discussed as well. Quadzilla99 01:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does there need to be two related templates at all? Disavian's modification seems to make having two separate templates obselete which is a win-win situation if you ask me. It gives editors the option of having the names of the wikiprojects visible, or to hide them completely if that is what they want.:) --Bobblehead 01:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) One point I'll make is it seems like many users want the option of not having to see the banners and opposing that I think reveals a little COI. Why is it so important that the option of not seeing the banners be taken away from people? Quadzilla99 01:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, all of the methods being discussed (with the exception of the small option) give users the option of not seeing the banners; the question, as usual, is what the default should be. Kirill Lokshin 01:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Shell option can't display as the template above does currently, there's a new one by Disavian that would do that. Also I think we need to make clear how it's decided on each page what system to use. I guess it's done on a page by page basis and that discussion should be done first, particularly if an editor has inserted a certain style. Am I correct? Quadzilla99 02:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with last two above)A couple of opinions, from what might be one of the worst offenders for placing banners on articles he hasn't worked on.

(1) I am aware of any number of banners I have placed on articles (generally Saints, Biography, and 1.0 Editorial Team) where I have not worked on the articles. In these cases, however, I believe that the banners have been validly placed, because

(1) the Biography banner often indicates whether an article needs a photo, which generally isn't already known there,

(2) the Saints banner (with some argumentats, admittedly) is being added to articles which I hope, one way or another, will all be shown on the Portal:Saints in one capacity or another, so that they will get some attention they often might not otherwise, and

(3) the 1.0 banner hopefully will reduce the number of existing banners for the WPCD, v0.5 and successors, core topics, and so on.

(4) many of the projects have article lists, which can then be used as the basis for determining what changes are being made to articles. I have reverted vandalism to Martin Luther several times already on the basis of that article being included on the Saints project list.

(5) often, the person placing the banner is doing so on the behalf of a comparatively new project, which is specifically intended to deal with articles of that type. In that case, the editor placing the banner may be doing so on the behalf of the majority of the people who have worked on the article already, but doing it in their stead.

On the basis of all of the above, I find that the question about whether an editor has contributed to an article should determine whether they can place a banner is probably not the best one.

Regarding some of the other points:

Personally, although I value seeing in the "nested" option the existing quality assessment, I would think that they, tending to be relatively consistent, may in a sense be less valuable than seeing the various importance assessments, and would greatly value being able to see them in the "compressed" version.

Lastly, I wonder whether it might be possible, in some way, to try to create in some cases a "subject area" banner for several similar projects. Certainly, the Jesus article would probably technically fall within the scope of some several dozen projects, most of them being Philosophy/Religion and Middle Eastern. If we could create a version of the Military history banner, with "tabs" for the various, in this case, Christianity/Judaism/Islamic projects out there, that might also help reduce clutter.

Otherwise, I rather prefer the "nested" option, and would add it to more banners I use if someone could show me a simple version of it I could copy to other banners. John Carter 02:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The point I'm making is a lot of these changes are currently based on personal preferences or personal views. At the very least I think these changes should be discussed first except in cases of obvious errors. Do you propose these changes first or do you just make them? Also if an editor reverts them what is your course of action? I'm asking this to mine your opinions and experience not to be confrontational. Quadzilla99 02:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Generally, I only add a banner if the article is already clearly in the scope of a project, either through categorization or inclusion on a wikipedia or reliable outside list. In those cases, it's kind of hard to question the inclusion of the banner, except when people question the initial categorization. In those cases when that isn't the case I try to add text to the article to indicate the justification for the new category and banner, preferably with a reference to indicate that I'm not being weird. Generally, there's no need to propose those changes, as the articles are, more often than not, not featured articles in the first place. In one case recently, regarding a mythical Scandinavian king whose name I can't for the life of me remember, someone removed the categorization and banner despite the fact that the existing text indicated the subject's extant feast day. He commented on the removal of the category and banner, and, when I discovered it, I placed my response regarding the feast day on the talk page. Once in a while, doing some things for national based projects, once in a while someone questions a banner, but generally not very often. In most cases, though, I regret to say, I probably don't myself notice on way or another. John Carter 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not being clear John, what I'm saying is in regards to changing from banner templates to banner shell templates and from small optioned templates to bannered templates. I wasn't speaking specifically as to what WikiProjects should have their templates on a talk page, but the formatting of the banners. Who decides what and so forth particularly when several styles are currently considered acceptable. Let's say I come across a talk page and all the banners are in the small option and so forth and I want to put them in a banner or vice versa, etc. Quadzilla99 03:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is not at all my field. Sorry. Generally, when I add banners, they're more or less the first ones on a given article. As such, I don't "compress" them into any of the banner templates, because there aren't that many to compress. My apologies for having not understood the question. John Carter 15:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The code you add to a banner to enable the nested option is shown on Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell#"Nested=". —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. John Carter 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I just make the changes. If someone reverts it, then I either just shrug and move on, or ask for opinions on the talk page. I personally don't think regular editors have any more say than a one time editor and there is always the option to revert the modifications if someone doesn't like it or complains about them.. --Bobblehead 03:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think stronger guidelines for banners and how to use banners would solve the bulk of this problem. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, as indicated above. The problem is how to make those guidelines enforcable in the current system. John Carter 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about creating such a template for a while. If you need a bot operator to make the merge happen and there is consensus Ill gladly make the bot run. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You're speaking of the one Disavian created correct? Quadzilla99 05:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that one standardised container needs to be decided upon. Those of us who write automated tools can then move to support that template (whichever it is) whereas at the moment it's not clear what we should be doing. --kingboyk 14:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If I might make a proposal there, I've noticed the Military history banner. Would there be any way to reformat a "generic" banner such that, for the less complex projects, it would say something like:

"This article has been assessed at "B-Class" on the assessment scale by the following WikiProjects:" and then have "drop-down" tabs for the projects who have done so, possibly with the little icons included next to their names? I know NOTHING about the logistics involved, and apologize if what I propose is unworkable, and know that some like Military history and Biography are probably too complicated to be included, but if the various projects which might be involved could agree to a standard list of category options included in the template, then maybe all that would have to be done would be to insert the name of a particular project for an assessment to take place. Provided, of course, that anything like that is even remotely workable. John Carter 15:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be technically possible, but there are a number of issues with such a design; the most obvious is that while quality ratings may be consistent among projects, importance ratings are not, so the template would need to support separate ones for each project. Frankly, I think the difficultly of actually using such a template would outweigh the net space gains.

(Shameless plug: WP:WPREF would result in a more limited, but still sizeable, consolidation of banners.) Kirill Lokshin 18:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am late getting to the table. I apologize for any issues with my editing of Talk:Barack Obama. I have been the leader of WP:CHICOTW. This has grown into a role as leader of WP:WPChi. I just created Category:Chicago articles by importance & Category:Chicago articles by quality and am going about setting policy for assessment at WPChi. My first order of business was to make sure that the 5 inaugural top rated articles (Barack Obama, Michael Jordan, Sears Tower, Wrigley Field and Chicago) had clean talk pages. I decided to follow the BannerShell format I noticed on a recent page. I endorse BannerShell over Banners, but will go along with the majority consensus since I am new to talk page debates. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry for coming late to the discussion and for limited participation (my house is flooded). I prefer {{WikiProjectBanners}} because it is the cleanest, most of the Project templates are just cluttering talk pages making them hard to use, and few Projects help maintain the articles they tag. I disagree that banners should not be used at times when there are only two projects; some of the WikiProject Banners are SO massively ridiculously enormous and convoluted, that at times, a banner is needed when there are only one or two Projects. And, regular editors to an article should be able to decide via consensus if they want one or two massive Project templates hidden. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Sandy has a point. The more I think about it {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} is redundant because quality does not differ across projects. If it could be changed to show importance it would be more useful. {{WikiProjectBanners}} is probably better until such time as space clutter through redundancy can be eliminated. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire - quality does differ between projects. WP:Film is rating entirely different things than WP:Bio, which is different from WP:MilHist.

And as I stated above, {{WikiProjectBanners}} entirely defeats one of the main reasons projects put banners on articles - to recruit. Without recruiting, projects die. If the banners are hidden, casual readers (the ones projects are trying to recruit) don't see them at all. {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} was created to mediate between hiding the banners altogether and showing all the full banners. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(added) The banner for a particular project can opt to show the importance as well as/instead of the quality on its one-line summary. Let me know which banner in particular you're interested in doing that for and I can make the change. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Update Currently a couple of dedicated editors are actively inserting the shelled format into talk pages all across the project:[6][7] I'm not saying this is right or wrong I'm just bringing it up. Quadzilla99 01:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I've been working on this for weeks and have a list of articles with more than four banners where the banners have the nested option. Is that a bad thing? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well basically you're converting all the talk pages to a new format. There are some people obviously who still prefer the old banner format. I'm not going to comment on it but I thought it merited mentioning as it's definitely related to the discussion at hand. Quadzilla99 04:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And to be fair, other users are actively inserting {{WikiProjectBanners}} into talk pages all across Wikipedia. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you provided the wrong diff as an example, that one doesn't support what you're saying. Quadzilla99 06:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I agree with SatyrTN, the original {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} seems to offer the best compromise. Вasil | talk 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that when WP:Films was presnted with the "already taken decision" to hide WP Banners, our consensus has been Shell because of recruitment needs, easy visual check of class and of projects involved. So if we stay on the general principle that hiding project banners is for when more than two projects claim the article, Shell is our preference. I have also argued that clutter has no meaning in talk pages where there is no talk, as is the case in most of films stubs. Maybe this could be given further thought here. Hoverfish Talk 19:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course WikiProjects like them (duh), they turn talk pages into billboards for their projects like the OP said. That's the basic thing people keep saying, I don't like the shells/nested junk let's keep it simple and not take away the option to hide the stuff from people. Also Hover don't act like you talk for a large group of people your vote/opinion is that of one person. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 00:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform#The scope, regarding WikiProject scopes getting off track. I think a lot of stuff can be cleared up by better work load distribution and less redundant tagging, and the WikiProject scope is in the center of that. -- Ned Scott 00:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So what's going to happen? I like Disavian's option. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 09:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to bring here what was discussed by a few only members in WP Films. The first discussion is here: Template talk:Film#Small alteration to your banner. There were 5 members including me, one was for Satyr's proposal, the rest expressed some doubts. Then there is the second discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Another Banner Question, where only Nehrams and me took part. Even this was no vote or poll, but opinions we were asked for. I still think that if you don't use the nested option and you hide all (including maintenance templates) you will slow down the development of film articles and the participation of new members. I do not say this as an opinion, but out of knowing what is going on in WP Films. When I first joined there was only a handful of active members. Now it's full of life and part of it is some new members who like to go through thousands of articles, look for missing things and place a maintenance tag in the talk page. Having in mind the banner issue, I tried to discourage creating new templates and adviced just placing a category in the talk page. But no, they want the template and they are happy with it. I don't know why. I let it up to you. Hoverfish Talk 13:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As an active member of both WP:GEORGIA and WP:ATL, let me say I was pleasantly surprised when Disavian's code to support nesting under {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} was added to those two templates. It is a perfect compromise: the names of the WikiProjects are still readily visible, but it greatly reduces the clutter on a page such as Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.. It should be the default standard. -- Satori Son 01:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well call me Captain Obvious but that's clearly disputed above by multiple users, a strong desire by editors to take away the option of not showing the templates is a little telling to me. Quadzilla99 22:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Does WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information apply to moves of a chess game? Most of the articles on chess list moves that come from the game or an opening, etc. Are the moves indiscriminate information that should not be in the articles? Bubba73 (talk), 16:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• We have articles on far more trivial subjects, for instance we have articles on virtually every character of virtually every TV show ever created--VectorPotential^Talk 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• The chess openings have been the object of a major triviation effort of late. There's an AfD up at this time for an article about a single move in one opening. Articles on the various openings seem like a good idea; articles on the variations within them do not. Mangoe 18:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• I think the answer to this question, really, is the same way you can answer if a lot of articles are (or are not) encyclopedic. When you look at the article for any given chess move, ask yourself "What can be written about this move?" Is it the sort of move that has history, analysis, references? Then by all means it is not indiscriminate information. Two Knights Defense has plenty of history behind it, is referenced, and no one would call it indiscriminate information. What can be said about QGD; Slav, 4.Nc3? It's a variation on a variation of a move. No sourcing, no history, no referenced analysis - probably should be no article. My two cents, of course! Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• I second all the comments here. Generally, chess openings are notable. As a chess player and student, I take that for granted. The question is how many of them are relevant to a general interest encyclopedia. Once you move to the 9th and 10th moves of the closed Ruy Lopez, with the Smyslov variation, the Keres variation, the Chigorin variation, and so forth, you're squarely in the territory of Informator and MCO. But to delineate the basics of the closed, open, and exchange variations of the Ruy is definitely appropriate for Wikipedia. Similar distinctions hold for other openings. YechielMan 02:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• To lend the viewpoint of perhaps the worst chess player in the entire world (thus why I don't play), I concur with the above. Significant moves w/ extensive history and information are relevant enough per WP:PAPER (in my opinion, of course), but variations and such should be nixed as independent articles and instead worked into the main article from which they are derived. If too much information is acquired for a variation, then perhaps it may merit its own article; but I do not see such as being a particularly common event. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 02:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• The solution to overly small or overly specific articles is generally to MERGE them to provide context and expansion. >Radiant< 11:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• My opinion (as a chessplayer): chess openings - unlike other many other topics - are easy to split. For an article on (say) Australia, it is not obvious how to split it. On a chess opening, when it gets too big, you can generally tell exactly how to split it. Sicilan article too big? Split into Open Silician, Closed Silician, etc. Open Sicilian article too big? Split into Najdorf, Dragon, Pelikan etc. Najdorf article too big? Split it on white's 6th move options. etc. So, since splitting is easy, I suggest that for chess openings, adopt the rule Don't split until the article gets too big. Until then, keep it in one article. It is after all an encyclopedia not a chess manual, so if (say) all the Siclian Najdorf bits are in one article, a reader can at least see the general commentary on the Najdorf. So my recommendation: merge all stubs, don't split unti lnecessary. Rocksong 12:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds quite reasonable. There's nothing that prevents the creation of redirects under all the appropriate and specific titles, and there's nothing that will bar (in the future) us from expanding those redirects back into full articles as necessary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is, you're asking the wrong question. The moves itself are reasonably acceptable IF the opening or game for which the moves can be established as notable. Simply recounting moves is indiscriminate. Including significant content is essential. There are thousands of named openings and variations covered in various books on chess. That doesn't mean they merit an article in a general purpose encyclopedia. Seek purpose beyond recounting moves and telling people how to play. If that's all you want to do, move to Wikibooks. Mister.Manticore 15:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just what is and is not allowed on user and user talk pages? Can people create new accounts and new user pages at will? Can they put political screeds on their user pages? How about commercials and links to offsite webpages? How in the world are we going to determine a rational policy for this and enforce it? --Ideogram 23:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We already have one, Wikipedia:User page. -- Ned Scott 23:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, looks reasonable to me. --Ideogram 23:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition to FA, A, GA, B, Start, & Stub class some templates accommodate Template, Cat, and Disamb class values. Some even allow for a Needed-class. What is policy on having an Image-class for all images within a project falling in image space? Could I request such a wrinkle to the {{ChicagoWikiProject}} template. Also, what is policy on Category:Disamb-Class articles? Should the category exist? Should I populate it? What is policy Needed-class articles? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a heated debate going on on WP:EL about whether the wording should be changed to eliminate the use of the Open Directory Project as an alternative to having a large External Links section in an article. Things have got rather bogged down and it appears that sides have formed. Insightful input at Wikipedia talk:External links as to how to proceed (and which version of the page should stand should no consensus be arrived at) would be gratefully received. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

An anon has twice removed the date of birth of Nina Bracewell-Smith. I hate edit wars, so am reluctant to revert a second time. However, in an edit summary, the anon wrote of wishing to protect from bank fraud. The idea seems foolish to me. For one, the details are still in the history and for another, the idea that the finances of someone in Britain's Rich List could be threatened by any piece of information like this seems odd. However, I wondered if we'd come across this issue before and if there's consensus. --Dweller 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave it off since it is/was uncited. (OTOH, if there's a citation for it, I wouldn't feel obliged to leave it out.) -- JHunterJ 15:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Hmmm. Curious. Because a cited d.o.b. is more reliable, so more useful to fraudsters, so clearly you're unconvinced by the fraud argument. And surely you're not suggesting we delete all the uncited material at Wikipedia, because if we did... !!! --Dweller 15:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Right -- I'm only suggesting we delete uncited information in living persons' biographies if it is contentious, which is how I read WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. That the contention happens to use the word "fraud" wouldn't alter my reading -- any contention is worth axing uncited info over for BLP. -- JHunterJ 19:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a potentially valid concern. WP:BLP says, "With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact dates of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date." I'm not sure removal is valid in this case, but I thought I'd throw that out there. --OnoremDil 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. She's decidedly notable. She's been in all the British national press in the last week or two. --Dweller 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is appalling. There's been a slow-motion edit war on that article about the person's date of birth since September 2006, and not a single editor adding the various dates of birth in all of that time has given a proper citation for that information. I've placed a warning to all editors on the article's talk page. The only acceptable way to add this information to the article is to cite a reliable source for it. Uncle G 12:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If the information is readily available elsewhere, then putting it on a WP page is not really letting some security cat out of the bag - someone determined to find it out could get it from the other sources. If it is not readily available, then it shouldn't be on a WP page at all. I'm not really seeing the problem, I'm afraid. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A proposed policy for dealing with articles which have lacked sources for a long period of time. The current proposal is to place the articles in to a "warning" status after a period of time, and then to delete them after another period of time if sources are not added. The purpose of this is to make Wikipedia more reliable and accurate, making sure articles do not sit indefinately without sources, as required by various policies. In short: get sources or get deleted. Paul Cyr 01:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Marked rejected, until someone can show that this wouldn't delete 90% of the existing database. --Kim Bruning 03:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Marking as rejected is premature IMO. Unsourced information eventually being deleted shouldn't be that much of a concern. Verifiability, not truth. If 90% of the existing Wikipedia database is unreferenced...90% of Wikipedia has failed. --OnoremDil 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Attributable is not the same as attributed. If you believe something to be unattributable, take it through the normal deletion processes. But if you believe it's attributable, either find the sources or leave it be. --NE2 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a wiki project for "Attribution"? (forgive me asking here, but I'm hopeless at searching wiki for wiki information.) Dan Beale 08:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that 90% would have failed. Perhaps we slightly disagree on project objectives. Certainly reducing our database size by an order of magnitude is a rather drastic step. I don't think you will be able to gain consensus for that. --Kim Bruning 03:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea has at least enough merit to be discussed instead of being marked rejected by the first user to comment on the issue. (unless this was brought up somewhere else...) I certainly hope your 90% number was a horrible exaggeration. The template was suggesting 3 months before warning, and an additional 3 months before deletion. If sources can't be found after 6 months, why not delete the article? Nobody is suggesting salting them. The stubs can be replaced quickly enough. --OnoremDil 03:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm striking my comments. I still think that the amount of articles that would be affected is not a reason to reject the policy on behalf of the entire community, but there's no reason why an AfD wouldn't be sufficient if an article has spent 3 months unsourced. --OnoremDil 03:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you understand what my views are and what I'm trying to accomplish Onorem. Do you think perhaps AfDing unsourced articles after a certain period of time might be better? I think it would acheive the same goal but create a much bigger process mess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul Cyr (talk • contribs) 03:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Based on User:Carnildo/The 100, somewhere between 78% and 85% of the encyclopedia would be deleted. --Carnildo 08:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It certainly was very definitely marked as rejected, as I remember. Personally I think it just might be a good idea--but only if a sufficient number of WPedians would devote their efforts to sourcing these articles (my guess is about 75%, not 90%) --the point is to improve them, not to get rid of them. Removal is only appropriate as a/ provision for the ones that turn out not to be sourceable, and b/ an incentive. But it's a punitive incentive--and when it fails, it makes the encyclopedia weaker. I am afraid that the net result for many of the articles would be general sourcing from books found in library catalogs and not actually read. Real sourcing is a good deal harder. suggestion: improve sourcing by subject area, with editors who care and will work in a positive spirit.

and remember that a great deal of hat many of use consider junk would be left in: all the road articles sourced to district maps, and the schools sourced to directories, etc. If we asked for adequate RS sourcing, then it might indeed by 90%. DGG 07:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If we look at basic principles of WP:FIVE, then we are an encyclopedia, and not a random collection of information. Kinda suggests we ought to have a policy in this area, even if a large amount of content is deleted as a result of creating policy in this area - because effectivly these articles do not currently comply with WP:FIVE. Afd as a process for discussion of yeah/ney would seem the right existing process for final discussion of all proposed deleted articles, even if they happen to be generated by any proposed process discussed here. A bot could operate to a set of defined rules searching for articles which are dated outside/above the agreed time scales. There could also be a sub-project for implementation which would pick up on the articles which clearly need to be reatined but currently lack sources. On the times scales, I would say 6months as marked unreferenced, and six month to be tag'd as potential deleted unless sourced, and then to Afd after 12months+. Rgds, - Trident13 09:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I definitely don't think this should be left to a bot. I agree that, in principal, articles that have gone unsourced and un-edited for a long period of time should be deleted... but the decision of whether an individual, specific article should be deleted should be made on an article by article basis at an AfD. Perhaps we need to be a bit harder on long term unsourced articles at AfD... but that is a different issue. I could see implimenting a third option between "not attributed" and "not atributable"... something like "unlikely to actually be attributed".

There are a lot of articles that are not yet attributed, but could be... but we do need to think about the sub-set of these that are "unlikely to actually be attributed". These should go. I have occationally suggested creating an AfD decision called "Delete without prejudice"... meaning that while the article should be deleted as it stands now... it can be recreated in the future should someone requests it and has a plan to fix the issues that led to it's deletion. Blueboar 14:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity - I'm not suggesting we use a BOT to do the deletions! I'm suggestign we use a BOT to apply the tags 6months/12months in. Rgds, - Trident13 14:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The {{unreferenced}} tag is already dated by SmackBot, see Category:Articles lacking sources from March 2006. CMummert · talk 14:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a canonical example of an error in thinking made by editors who employ deletion as their sole tool. Please read our policies, including the Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the Wikipedia:Editing policy. Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox, and there are various things that you, as a nominator, must do before nominating an article for deletion on the grounds of unverifiability. As per the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, one of those things that you must do is make a reasonable effort, yourself, to look for sources. If you don't find any, then you have a good case for deletion. (If you do find some, cite them in the article of course.) You do not have a good case if you do not make the effort yourself to look for sources, and your only rationale is that there weren't any cited in the article. Per our Wikipedia:Editing policy this is a collaboratively-written encyclopaedia. Collaborative editing involves helping to improve badly written articles, such as by looking for sources for articles that do not have them and converting unsourced rubbish into well-sourced stubs, not just tagging everything that you come across for deletion. Uncle G 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I must have missed the part of the proposal that said editors should avoid trying to find sources themselves. While editors may not use all the tools available, does that really have anything to do with this specific proposal? --OnoremDil 15:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you didn't read the top of this section thoroughly enough. Please read it again. This proposal involves editors solely demanding that other people do the work. Uncle G 12:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia "Unsourced" tagging distinguish between an article which has 1) NEVER had any source; an article which 2)HAD sources but someone claimed they were not reliable and deleted them, with the claim disputed, and 3) an article which has long had severl reliable references, but has one or more statements tagged with {{fact}}? It would be a bad idea to ever delete a good article because someone disputed the sourcing adequacy of one sentence in it. Edison 18:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is confusing notability with popularity. Articles do not get to FA because they are more notable than others, but because editors are willing to devote the time and effort. Conversely, an item is not non-notable because a tag hasn't been acted upon within a certain time period. Should a hypothetical article on the 14th Century Economics of Scandanavia be put up for deletion just because we have no editors that can read Mediaeval Swedish (or any that care to read Swedish treatises on 14th Century Economics)? LessHeard vanU 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made a proposal for a new PROD template on the discussion page. It isn't a question of whether people agree with PROD being used for this purpose (since it already has been approved) but whether they think the process would benifit from a special template which also provides articles PROD'ed for this reason, their own category for people to watch. Paul Cyr 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The other day I was talking to an elementary schoolteacher (in the U.S.) who mentioned that she likes to use Wikipedia with her students. I warned her that she could get in trouble for showing the kids Wikipedia. I mentioned that the woman article had a photograph of a naked woman on the top. (It's gone now, but man still has a naked guy on the top.) I also could have gotten in trouble had I clicked on a "woman" link at work rather than at home.

That got me thinking: I understand the "Wikipedia is not censored" mantra. But shouldn't there also be a "Wikipedia is not intended to get you fired or suspended from school with surprising 'not-safe-for-work' (NSFW) content" policy?

This is not the same as prohibiting indecency, as has been proposed. This is not the same as age-rating our pages, as has been proposed. This is simply about preventing people from accidentally getting into trouble with NSFW images, just like we use the spoiler template to prevent them from accidentally learning the result of a mystery novel.

Fark.com has a good NSFW policy. Basically, any picture as risque or moreso than something you'd find in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue is NSFW. The same goes for graphic content (described as "Images that would make many people feel ill or uncomfortable") and graphic text.

Fark users are allowed to link to NSFW content but must warn that it is NSFW. They also cannot post NSFW images on Fark pages. Fark does not condemn NSFW content (in fact, its users seem to revel in it); it simply recognizes it can get people fired.

Yes, I know that in an ideal world, or some people's ideal world, we would all be totally accepting of everyone's bodies and sexuality, and no one would be hung up about those things. But most of us don't live in that world. In most of the English-speaking world, it is considered inappropriate to have pictures of naked people on your computer screen at work, and doing so can get you in big trouble.

I think a policy like Fark's may be too harsh for Wikipedia. It would preclude us from even having articles on sensitive topics. I have nothing against Wikipedia having images of sex toys, sexual positions, or whatever, even though those are sure to include NSFW content.

What does bother me is encountering NSFW content where someone may not expect it. The man article is a good example. Another is when Oscar Wilde was a featured article, and the blurb on the front page mentioned "buggery." Not knowing the meaning of that word, I clicked on it, only to find myself at the anal sex page. Fortunately, no one was looking over my shoulder at the time; had someone been, I could have gotten in big trouble.

I recommend a policy along the following lines:

Wikipedia is not censored, and material need not be omitted because it is indecent. However, we realize that certain types of material can get users in trouble at school or work. Therefore, editors should be sure that "not safe for work" (NSFW) content should only be found where people expect it to be found.

The following material qualifies as potentially NSFW:

• Nudity (genitalia, pubic hair, buttocks or female breasts)
• Risque images (as or more risque than the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
• Pictures of sex toys or parephernalia
• "Shocking" images that would make most people uncomfortable, such as bodily functions, gruesome accidents, graphic surgery, and the like.
• Sexually explicit text.

Note that there is no policy banning any of the above outright. Nudity and sexual content may be acceptable where warranted. It would be impossible to have an article on topics like sex positions or sex toys without including NSFW content. But editors should take precautions to ensure NSFW content is not encountered unexpectedly.

Here are some precautions editors should take:

• Pages that include NSFW content should include the NSFW template at the top:

Warning: This page contains content that may be considered inappropriate for workplaces or schools.

(This is just an example of a template. We'd have to come up with the precise wording for the template, which would include a wikilink to the NSFW policy. I'd like to see a technical solution in which the reader could click on a link and get a version of the page without the NSFW images.)

• NSFW images should be placed low enough on the page that a reader would have to scroll down to see them.
• If editing a page in which a reader might not expect NSFW content, consider if it would be possible to replace the NSFW content with content that is safe for work without sacrificing information.
• If wikilinking to a page likely to contain NSFW content, make sure that is obvious to the reader. For example, the link buggery redirects to anal sex, so don't include a link to buggery without making it clear that clicking on the link will take the reader to the anal sex page. This can be as simple as using parentheses: "buggery (anal sex) was illegal in England until 1967."

• The problem here is similar to what there is with other proposals like this. You can not define NSFW in such a way that people will not protest that THIS image qualifies too. -Amarkov moo! 03:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• I recognize the problem with trying to make this a black-and-white issue with a template, but I agree with the principle that we should not unexpectedly redirect people to not-safe-for-work pages. If we make this a guideline, we don't need to pin down exactly what "not safe for work" means besides "I know it when I see it". It seems like a natural parallel to the fact that, for example, we allow images of penises on Wikipedia, but we restrict the articles they can be added to (quite strongly, with a technical measure instead of a guideline). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but you'll notice that there's no policy which says that must be done. It's evaluated on a case-by-case basis, because that is the only way it can work. -Amarkov moo! 03:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • And I'm not supporting a policy that would mandate a "NSFW" template or anything of the sort. I'm supporting a guideline that warns against surprising users with NSFW content, and this would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis -- and unlike the bad image list, it would only be a guideline, not a technical measure. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• I would oppose any such policy or guideline. i would merely be siezed on as an excuse for thsoe who do wish to censor Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 10:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• I would entirely expect an article on Man or Woman to have a picture of a naked specimen on it. And therein lies the problem with this proposal. >Radiant< 11:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed with Radiant. WP:NOT#CENSORED is extremely important. While we shouldn't gratuitously use nudity or sexually-explicit material or images, we also should not be afraid to use such in a frank and encyclopedic manner. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• I agree also, although I sympathasize with your situation and think some of your points are valid, inducing censorship of any kind is a slippery slope. Quadzilla99 11:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• This is a fine proposal. We'd just need to put the template on every page - then people couldn't complain they don't like the particular content. And it'd be easier to get editors to stop complaining about how they don't like the content of article such and such. WilyD 14:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• People just need to not look at potentially NSFW articles while at work. While at work, I work on states, roads, and policy... all SFW. At home, I'm much more liberal in where I tread. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 15:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone removed these two comments, returned them to the discussion. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 16:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• But the problem is that some Wikipedia articles that you would think are SFW are not. Radiant, being a longtime Wikipedia user, may expect to see a nude photo at man. But I would hazard a guess that no other widely used, English-language encyclopedia has a nude photo of a man in its article on "man." So most users would not expect NSFW content there. And yet it's at the top of the page. Most people would not expect to find a naked woman at pregnancy, but there is one there. I'm as against censorship as anyone. But I don't want Wikipedia to be something that can only be used at home and in private. -- Mwalcoff 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• I actually support the proposal in concept, because if it could be implemented properly it wouldn't really be censorship, but I agree that if this were to become policy, pretty soon every article on the Wiki would have this tag on it, which would render it meaningless. I think it would be more effective to just place a little warning somewhere like by the search bar, that says "Please be careful; some of the articles on Wikipedia may not be appropriate for a work or school enviornment." I agree that most new users might not expect to see a naked picture on Man, but when it comes down to it the whole internet is potentially not suitable for work, and Wikipedia is no exception.SpadePrince Talk ^{Contributions} 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Especially when you consider the fact than random acts of vandalism can arbitrarily render any page very unsafe for work or school, I think Spadeprince's suggestion is better : a site-wide disclaimer declaring the possible inappropriateness of Wikipedia articles. Sancho 15:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm glad you support the concept. I'd think that surely, though, there has to be a way to define NSFW in an adequately narrow way. -- Mwalcoff 22:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • To Sancho - we already have such disclaimers. To Mwalcoff - not really, if you account for multiple cultures. Compare Amsterdam, where a topless woman is not going to attract all that much attention, to Chicago, where that is to my knowledge illegal, and to Medina, where it is illegal for the woman to go without a scarf. >Radiant< 10:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I think it's a cop-out to say "X is acceptable somewhere in the world, so we should not warn people that it exists." Some of what Western cultures consider child pornography is considered acceptable in Japan if the lolicon (NSFW link) article is to be believed. Does that mean it should be acceptable here? The fact is this is the English-language Wikipedia, and I would guess that most of our users come from places where it is not considered acceptable to have certain kinds of content on your computer at work or school -- even if it should be acceptable. I am not saying we should censor the content, only that we should help prevent people from accidentally pulling it up if they don't want to. The alternative is to declare all of Wikipedia NSFW, which would be a real shame, since I think Wikipedia can be an excellent tool for work or school. -- Mwalcoff 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
          • You're missing the point here, which is that you cannot meaningfully define "offensive content" in a manner that people would actually agree on, even if you restrict yourself to people from the western world, which also widely varies in moral standards. Aside from that, the English Wikipedia is deliberately aiming towards the entire world, not just the western world. >Radiant< 08:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I admit that no solution will satisfy everyone and be perfect. But the alternative of doing nothing, I think, is worse. I don't want to get fired for using Wikipedia, and I don't want others to be, either. -- Mwalcoff 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Please scroll to the bottom of any page that you see here and follow the "Disclaimers" link, which will in turn lead you to our Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Uncle G 23:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• A good way to avoid this problem is to not surf the Internet at work. --Infrangible 23:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Some of us need to look up stuff on the Internet for work. -- Mwalcoff 02:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

We need a standard for adding references into articles. It should be
a) Jimbo is the founder of wikipedia.<ref>www.wikipedia.org</ref>

which produces:

Jimbo is the founder of wikipedia.^[1]
or b)
Jimbo is the founder of wikipedia<ref>www.wikipedia.org</ref>.

which produces:

Jimbo is the founder of wikipedia^[2].
Should the citation go before or after the period? I think it should go after because it makes the sentence look cleaner. This isn't in the Manual of Style so I bought it here.
Thanks! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 23:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You will find this covered in WP:CITE. DES ^(talk) 23:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 23:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)