Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 12
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191
Deletion of usernames at request, after move to new GDFL license?
Will it be possible to delete usernames at owner's request, after moving to the new GDFL license which will be compatible with CC?
The current policy prohibiting username deletions is there on the ground of GDFL requiring all authors be permanently attributed, which means that deleting a username will remove the attribution from edits, violating GDFL. The CC license, however, allows usernames requesting no attribution. Would it be possible for a person to request deleting his/her username, together with explicitly agreeing and requesting that all their past edits under that usernames never be attributed?
In fact, unless I'm not mistaken, the CC license has a provision where a person requesting no further attribution obliges users of derivative work to honor his/her quest, which in turn seems like deleting usernames (or least permanently hiding them from edit history) would be required for WP to be compatible with the license. 01:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know the technical details of the GFDL versus CC attribution. I'm not in favor of making it possible for contributors to remove their username from edits because it's too easy for this ability to be abused, and it will waste the time of admins and bureaucrats. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Transclusion of user talk pages.
[1]. Ignoring for the moment the removal of the warning, is there a policy against this. It seems sort of abusive. Taemyr (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was a little worried when I saw it that the user was trying to trick visiting administrators into blocking ClueBot or some such rubbish, but then I realized that, thanks to the {{{BASEPAGENAME}}} attribute, pushing the big red button blocks the user instead.
- That being said, I don't think that there is a specific policy against it--there's nothing in WP:UP or WP:TP that covers this. However, I've gone ahead and undone the transclusion based on the fact that it misrepresents the user and their interactions on Wikipedia, which is against the purpose of a userpage. As for the policy issue, I'm a little wary of extending policy to cover this. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 15:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
DYK
I have noticed that the DYK update is constantly overdue. It's supposed to be changed every six hours but it's often many hours late.
This is quite simply unfair to the many users who make submissions to the feature. Submissions for this feature expire after five days, which means that every time DYK is overdue, less submissions are promoted than should be the case and consequently many of the submissions which might otherwise get a promotion end up expiring when their five days are up.
It appears there simply aren't enough admins overseeing this project and it seems unlikeley that an effective method for recruiting more admins to the task will be found. Isn't it time therefore, that the process of promoting the current update was simply automated? It would save everyone a lot of hassle, and ensure that the maximum number of submissions get promoted in every five day cycle. Gatoclass 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm.. maybe someone could write a bot to do this, and run it through RfA. However, we'd need to be sure that the bot won't mess up, as the main page is supposed to exemplify our best work. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- A bot could do it, or perhaps a developer could write some code to do it. A queue readable by a bot would need to be set up, if it hasn't been already. Sarsaparilla 04:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I briefly considered writing a bot for it, but I couldn't figure out the procedure currently being used. --Carnildo 11:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
A bot has been discussed before but several people said that a bot can't decide what is a good and bad hook, which hook is referenced, and which hook has a permitted photo (or improperly used photo). If there is bot involvement, it would be a spam message to administrators that the update is due. Many would hate to receive spam!
I try to help out by alerting admins manually, checking hooks, etc. Archtransit (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Update: I remember seeing a bot for DYK but it was blocked. I don't remember the name of it (Dykbot? Dickbot?)Archtransit (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point, a bot can't judge a hook and its corresponding article. Apart from a spammy bot, I have an idea. I'm not very technical though, so I can't say if it's possible. How about a user script which would have some sort of alert pop up if DYK was over due. Since you must install a script for it to take effect, only admins that want to would get the alerts. Puchiko (Talk-email) 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why does it have to be admins who update it? They are only ordinary editors after all, and many are far to busy. DuncanHill (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Fake messages banner
User:Redmarkviolinist contains a simulated "You have new messages" banner, which is a bit iffy under this policy. I deleted the banner [2], and this was then undone. He then left a rather rude, inaccurate message on my talkpage. The banner is very realistic, and certainly fooled me - thus I would suggest that we form a consensus to remove it.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I know, I saw that, and I referred the user to it in my edit summary. But I don't want to get into a dispute, so I'd like some fresh opinions on whether or not it is allowed. The policy I listed says to "avoid" them except for essential testing uses, and he certainly qualifies under that. Would someone else maybe enter dialogue with him?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- This was also mentioned above yesterday. I do not see anything wrong with it, the worst thing that could happen is that you fall for it, which wastes one second of your time but puts a smile on your face. JayKeaton (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- What is rude or inaccurate about the message he left you? --Kbdank71 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not really a proper venue for this discussion. An appropriate forum to get community feedback on whether an editor's behavior violates existing policy is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. — Satori Son 21:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- As above this isn't the correct place for it, but as above THAT I have to aree with Kbdank71... what was rude or inaccurate about the message he left you? I know that accusing someone else of bad faith IS bad faith in itself, but.. your claims against him that you left here about his message seem to have been made in bad faith JayKeaton (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is inaccurate per WP:OWN - "In the future, please don't touch my page". It is rude because it could have been phrased much more politely, for example: "Hi, I'd prefer it if you didn't make major changes to my page without discussing them first".--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- As above this isn't the correct place for it, but as above THAT I have to aree with Kbdank71... what was rude or inaccurate about the message he left you? I know that accusing someone else of bad faith IS bad faith in itself, but.. your claims against him that you left here about his message seem to have been made in bad faith JayKeaton (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Nationality consensus
There is a - let's call it a debate - going on in J. K. Rowling about whether she should be listed as "English" or "British". A user has appealed to a "wiki-consensus" that English (or Scottish or whatever) should be used in ledes, rather than "British". Can someone point me to where this consensus is spelled out? It reads very oddly to me, like referring to someone as Californian, or British Columbian, or New South Welsh (?Walean ?sp) or Bavarian or ... you see what I mean. It is fine in the body of the article, but tends to bring up too many complexities to go in the lede. Rachel Pearce (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- England is a country. California is not. JayKeaton (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes but the Manual of Style for biographies (point 3 of the section on Opening paragraphs) says:
- Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.)
- Well no-one has English citizenship nor English nationality. However much one might wish otherwise... Just as no-one has Californian citizenship. Rachel Pearce (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, that's wrong. US citizens resident in California are also citizens of California. See the US Constitution, 14th Amendment.
- As for the debate, it seems to me that there are two possible policies that would make sense.
- Leads should normally identify people in terms of independent countries in preference to their divisions -- that is, "UK author" or "British author" and not "English author" or "Scottish author". But the divisions should be mentioned if the person is notable for political, sports, or other activities specifically in relation to that division... which does not apply to Rowling.
- Identify the person the way they would identify themselves.
- [Note: "British" is used as an adjective for "UK" as well as for "Britain" or "Great Britain", and I meant it in that sense here.]
- (A Canadian born in England) --207.176.159.90 (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes but the Manual of Style for biographies (point 3 of the section on Opening paragraphs) says:
- I agree. Lightmouse (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- See also recent discussion in the talk page of the article of Talk:Colin McRae#Protected. Note that the argument being used here is that technically the UK refers to itself as a country of four countries. to quote "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.". Unfortunatly/Luckily, no one in the world other than themselves care about it and/or recognize. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- We should use how the person self-identifies. Find a source where Rowling calls herself something, then use that term. The situation in the UK is unique to that country, and we cannot and should not attempt to draw analogies to other political entities where they don't work. The Home Nations are NOT like U.S. states, but they also are NOT like sovereign states. Some people from the UK would consider their own nationality British, others would consider it English/Scottish/Welsh. The wider issue is that its rediculously stupid thing to argue about. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Suggestions for improving bans
Because of a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Evidence#Suggestion, some ideas for improving blocks and bans, especially long term blocks and bans have emerged:
For example, how about:
- A requirement that all blocks be at most a year in length
- Some sort of automatic neutral review of all blocks
- A mandatory waiting period of 1-2 weeks before a long term block is certified
- A requirement that several people, maybe including a minimum number of other admins, sign off on a long term block to certify it
- Submission of all long term blocks to a committee of admins for certification
In addition, for example, if someone is blocked right now, there really is not a clear path for the blocked editor to take. One can appeal the block, and then more often than not, the person appealing gets a terse note from someone who does not want to be bothered, and is just left frustrated if a mistake was made.
I think that all long term blocks should be reviewed automatically by a committee, or need certification by other editors and/or administrators to implement it. I think something as onerous as an RfC might be too much. However, the hole here obviously is that one admin, maybe distracted, was able to make a short term block, and then make it a long term block and although he did post a notice of it, no one was forced to look at the situation to make sure it was proper.
Also, the blocked editor's pleas for assistance or pardon went unheard since he did not know who to contact for assistance. I can only imagine the frustration. There needs to be standard way for blocked editors to get their case reviewed, and a clear path for them to follow.
Comments?--Filll (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think American (and, I suppose, international) law gives us some precedent for how long a ban from an individual admin can last: habeas corpus. We make the one admin ban equal to how long a prisoner can be held w/o trial in most countries, then refer the case to some sort of wiki judiciary. For example, nine admins could be randomly picked for every ban case (limits for who can be picked could take the form of judicial jurisdiction by subject area if you want the judges familiar with what is being edited).--75.69.118.1 (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- This seems uncessarily beurocratic. Some people are permablocked for very good reasons, and often in such large numbers, that the above process would cause MAJOR problems, for example, Username violations or vandalism-only accounts. IPs are almost never perma-blocked; good and established users are almost never permanently blocked execpt for outstanding reasons. I really don't see any need for this. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that the above is probably too bureaucratic - however unfair indef blocks were a problem for me just after I joined Wikipedia - I was indef blocked 25 June 2007, I would argue unfairly (see my contributions here [3] to judge for yourself) and was a newbie at the time. The whole experience nearly caused me to leave Wikipedia (not helped by the fact that I still get treated with distrust on here by some editors and admins because I have a block on my record). The blocking admin failed to respond to any of my emails and it took me a while to figure out how to appeal the block. (Fortunately a fair minded Admin reviewed the block). Not sure what the answer is (if I knew I'd suggest it) I don't think its the current system and I don't think its the suggestion made above either - maybe its somewhere in between? Kelpin (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- And all we'd need is ~50 000 more admins. I presume your plan includes where to find those? WilyD 12:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- The plan as proposed seems impossible to implement. However (and I have issued a few indef blocks myself), if it were possible to implement a review of indefinite blocks, that might not be a bad idea. I'm not sure how many of those we get in a day, but if they could be highlighted as new pages are so that a reviewing admin could mark them as patrolled, that might well be a good checks & balance system. I say that with no knowledge whatsoever of how such a system could be implemented, if it could be implemented, or if there is some good reason why it would be utterly unworkable. :) Alternatively, I wonder if the block appeal process could be made more transparent, with a bot launched to leave notices when the blocking admins don't. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Checking, in the last hour there have only been nine indef blocks, which is less than I would've suspected. I suppose it's early in North America, where most editors are. Still, I probably overestimated the number of reviewing admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 13:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- there is a very wide range of practices between different admins in block length, and threshold, & it would be interesting to do a study, even manually. DGG (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- The plan as proposed seems impossible to implement. However (and I have issued a few indef blocks myself), if it were possible to implement a review of indefinite blocks, that might not be a bad idea. I'm not sure how many of those we get in a day, but if they could be highlighted as new pages are so that a reviewing admin could mark them as patrolled, that might well be a good checks & balance system. I say that with no knowledge whatsoever of how such a system could be implemented, if it could be implemented, or if there is some good reason why it would be utterly unworkable. :) Alternatively, I wonder if the block appeal process could be made more transparent, with a bot launched to leave notices when the blocking admins don't. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Obituary satisfy WP:N?
Does an obituary alone satisfy WP:N? I'm looking at Bunny Roger, where that's the only source mentioned. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- It depends on what type of obituary it is. Some obituaries are paid advertisements, which means they are essentially self-published and should not be used to establish notability. In other cases, the newspaper assigns someone to write an obituary of a famous person, and that would fall under the heading of reporting, so it would be considered a reliable source and could be used to establish notability. In this particular example, since there is a byline for the obit, I would assume it was written by a reporter. In that case, it can be used to establish notability. Karanacs (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Right - I think I understand that. But is a reliable source obituary sufficient to establish notability? Doesn't notability require "multiple independent sources"? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Notability, multiple sources are highly encouraged, but if the depth of coverage is sufficient, then a single non-paid (i.e., independent) obituary should be establish notability. Karanacs (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- However, a single source must be exceptionally deep. In almost all cases, a single source isn't enough. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Notability, multiple sources are highly encouraged, but if the depth of coverage is sufficient, then a single non-paid (i.e., independent) obituary should be establish notability. Karanacs (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- It would be pretty exceptional for a news obituary to appear concerning a person about whom nothing else had been written, so in practice this is rarely an issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Right - I think I understand that. But is a reliable source obituary sufficient to establish notability? Doesn't notability require "multiple independent sources"? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Linking all dates
I've noted recently that there is a tendency to link full dates in articles regardless of their relevance. This includes the retrieval dates of web references in footnotes, e.i. the date a Wikipedian checked the existence of a web source and noted this. This problem has been brought up for discussion recently (and resulted in a low-intensity revert war) over at Swedish language. What has been cited in favor of linking all full dates is WP:OVERLINK#Dates and WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking and that it enables users to set preferences for how and if they want dates linked.
The arguments against, brought forth by myself and other users, is that such links have no encyclopedic value and offer no deeper understanding of the topic in question. The argument that it will allow users to decide for themselves how they wish the links to appear is very weak since this applies only to a small minority of registereted users.
Should this require a rewording of the applicable guidelines or should it be assumed that it's merely a reasonable exception to them?
Peter Isotalo 14:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- The point of these links isn't necessarily that they shed new light on the subject at hand; one argument in favor of them is that they allow the encyclopedia to be browsed as a timeline (or timeweb). What specific exception are you proposing? Losing autoformatted dates in reference metadata seems reasonable, but losing autoformatted dates in inline mainspace content seems less so. Just asking. --- tqbf 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Linking dates allows users to see the date in the format they prefer when they set their preferences. If the dates are not linked, you'll only see the format as it was typed. Corvus cornixtalk 19:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Plus, how many people will really click on a date? Can you honestly say that you don't immediately jump over dates, linked or not? A few extra blue links is hardy harmful for a process beneficial to the reader. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Any blue link that doesn't shed light on a topic and is there only to fix a date formatting issue which is really isn't a problem to begin with is completely pointless. As other users have pointed out, different date formats are really not more problematic than differences in spelling, and those are already tolerated. The tiny minority of registered users that actually do tinker with their date settings doesn't weigh in as a major factor when looking at the big picture. The weakness of the argumens for the date linking for formatting and the amount of protests it has garnered from a sizeable minority of editors gives me the distinct impression that thare no real consensus for linking all full dates.
- Peter Isotalo 11:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Date formatting was specifically added to preferences because of edit wars over date formatting. With spelling, we have a standard, use British spellings for British subjects, use American spelling for American subjects, use the spelling that the original author started with if it's neither American nor British. Do we now need a date standard, use American date formatting for American subjects, use non-American for all other cases? This is a solution looking for a problem. It does no harm to link dates. Leave it alone. Corvus cornixtalk 04:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- See bugzilla:4582 for the technical meat, and Wikipedia talk:Date debate too. Can someone summarize those for us? I see something about using <date>, but don't understand the details. (more coffee needed...) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- It would be great if there would be another way to auto format dates. However since there isn't (yet) another way, linking full dates (not just sole year, or sole month) is beneficial. Garion96 (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Automobile Weight
I notice that a cars weight is usually missing from the specifications in most articles. I would be nice to encourage authors to include this info, as compact cars have added about 1000 lbs in the last 20 to 30 years, at the expense of fuel efficiency.
I thought of adding the weights the entries I see, but think it would be better to encourage the authors to do so at the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.90.126 (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- It seems like we have this metaproblem all over the place, in far more crucial areas than automobile weight (for instance, do a quick survey of WP:BLP articles looking for birthdates). If you can't solve the birthyear problem, you may be tilting at windmills trying to get editors to look up how much an E36 M3 weighs. OTOH, WP:BOLD --- go add the info! --- tqbf 19:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have added a note on your behalf at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles.--Pharos (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- As long as you have a reliable source, you're free to add the info. In fact, many articles already include the info, and a field exists within {{Infobox Automobile}} for this data. However, reading between the lines of your comment, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We are free to list car's weights, but not to opine on why that's a bad thing (especially since small cars are still more fuel efficient than three decades ago despite the weight gain, which has improved safety enormously). --DeLarge (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Concert tours
There are hundreds of articles on concert tours, from various eras, on Wikipedia. There are even several for tours in 2008. Most of them, no matter what year, consist solely of listings of dates and cities the band played in. Am I alone in thinking that these are not encyclopedic topics? Of course this is not always true, for example, Madonna's Confessions Tour generated huge amounts of publicity and needs a separate page. Anyway, it seems to me that they come close to violating or violate multiple policies and guidelines, and would like know the community's feelings on this. Do you think they violate:
- WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, especially point 3?
- WP:NOT#WEBSPACE? (although I doubt the bands themselves are creating these pages)
- WP:NOT#INFO?
- WP:NOT#NEWS?
and for the future tours
Comments would be appreciated, Thanks, AnteaterZot (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you that many of these articles fail our policies and guidelines for content. However, more critically than the those you've cited, Many of them don't meet WP:N, and are unsourced or unsourceable and thus unverifiable. If you take these to AfD, do some due diligence to show you have looked, and there aren't existing suitable sources from which an article could be written, they will be deleted and uncontroversially so. Accordingly, I don't see any need for a novel intepretation of policy or that we need any new policy for these articles. The problem here is the larger class of articles of which these particular articles are but one example. The issue is one of process failure, because even when we all agree on a class of articles as unsuitable, they must go through AfD to be deleted, as prodding articles for lack of sources or as being necessarily permanent stubs is considered controversial and thus improper. That problem is endemic. If no tertiary source article can be written for a subject, it should not have an article. Yet, there are so many permanent sub-stubs like these because a listing of existence is about all that can be verifiably written. We have no feasible process for removing them or for unsourced content. AfD cannot handle the hundreds of thousands of entirely unsourced "articles" we have that are all placeholders for real content, and the many more that are barely, inadequately or spuriously sourced. With these staggering numbers, there's no way to separate the wheat from the chaffe. Clicking on random article a few times is actually terrifying if you care about this project. Every proposal for making a pragmatic deletion process based on lack of sources has been shot down though (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for verification and Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles). Eventualism is not going to get us there and is not realistic. Our content continues to grow at a pace that only deepens the hole we have dug for ourselves in not requiring encyclopedic content as it is added, or within a reasonable time frame after it is added.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've begun the process, and caught some flak, but progress is being made. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Once a major tour has begun it is pretty likely to have been reviewed in local newspapers as it travels from city to city, so there are probably many thousands of past tours that meet our notability standards. Future tours may have a tougher time meeting that burden, however. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some will have significant, detailed coverage; the major ones. Others will have many mentions ("x will be playing at y on some date for some amount of time"), but no significant treatment.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, but my local paper seems to review three-four live shows per week, and once you add up all the world's papers I'm confident that there are at least a thousand tours per year that meet our standard. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- As long as they use the sources, I don't care. Besides, they usually don't. Most people aren't motivated enough to rescue their own pages. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, but my local paper seems to review three-four live shows per week, and once you add up all the world's papers I'm confident that there are at least a thousand tours per year that meet our standard. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some will have significant, detailed coverage; the major ones. Others will have many mentions ("x will be playing at y on some date for some amount of time"), but no significant treatment.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Disputes with admins
I think I may be diving headlong into a very vicious content dispute with a majority of admins in WP. Of course I will remain civil and calm, etc., but what happens when I believe (and can demonstrate) that an admin or admins are acting in arbitrary extension of restricted WP and ArbCom policy? This is my first day of the fight, and my first request for consideration was closed and blocked after being up for only two hours, with the admin citing an ArbCom decision that did not pertain to this case. So if this pattern continues (and I believe it will), do I go directly to ArbCom, or what? SamuelRiv (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution, not the first, and everyone with half an ounce of sense hopes to avoid it altogether. Calm and civil discussion is the best way. That, and realizing consensus doesn't always go your way. Also, when you're asking for help, it is helpful to cite specifics rather than vague generalities. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fine. I'm hoping to restore Encyclopedia Dramatica. Now you have context. Any comments related to whether or not this is a stupid decision should go to my talk page, NOT HERE. Anyway, since there is no policy (for one, ArbCom doesn't make policy) on this article, then it should be able to be created. My concern is that when I finish writing it on a user page, it will get deleted immediately, and this is based on the fact that my request for unblocking was closed without discussion by an admin and that other userpages containing controversial draft articles have been deleted. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Then you're going to need more than what's in your User space right now, because as of now, ED may not have an article without exemplary sourcing, due to severe historical problems with members using ED pages and Wikipedia pages to harrass Wikipedians. ED has come before the ArbCom and has come on the losing end. Tread very very carefully. ArbCom does not make policy, but it has made a decision on ED. Corvus cornixtalk 04:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, take it to my talk page. For the record, ArbCom has not made policy on ED, only linking to ED. The article itself is still up for grabs. Or at least it would be if its creation wasn't being blocked, which wouldn't be a problem if discussion about creation wasn't also being blocked. When do guidelines become policy? SamuelRiv (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Then you're going to need more than what's in your User space right now, because as of now, ED may not have an article without exemplary sourcing, due to severe historical problems with members using ED pages and Wikipedia pages to harrass Wikipedians. ED has come before the ArbCom and has come on the losing end. Tread very very carefully. ArbCom does not make policy, but it has made a decision on ED. Corvus cornixtalk 04:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fine. I'm hoping to restore Encyclopedia Dramatica. Now you have context. Any comments related to whether or not this is a stupid decision should go to my talk page, NOT HERE. Anyway, since there is no policy (for one, ArbCom doesn't make policy) on this article, then it should be able to be created. My concern is that when I finish writing it on a user page, it will get deleted immediately, and this is based on the fact that my request for unblocking was closed without discussion by an admin and that other userpages containing controversial draft articles have been deleted. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism & Unregistered Users
I am a relatively new arrival to Wikipedia. The biggest gripe I have is the amount of vandalism perpetrated by unregistered users. I currently watch 13 different articles that I have contributed pictures to. I am amazed at the amount of vandalism that occurs even on the most obscure, uncontroversial pages.
The thing is that every occurrence of vandalism that I have seen has ALWAYS been by unregistered users. Why does Wikipedia allow posting by unregistered users? It is such a simple process to get registered. You are asking for nothing but trouble by allowing anonymous posting.
Gedstrom (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's a principle that anyone can edit. Although a lot of vandalism comes from anonymous users, not all users who vandalise are anonymous ([4]), and it's been shown that about 70% of anonymous edits are in good faith (although most are lacking in quality). x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please also see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Editing. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Non free images of signatures
Non-free images of signatures now form a large component of "miscellaneous" fair use images but there seems to be no guidance on their use. Should they be included in the list of "unacceptable images" (they generally add little information about a subject, and are almost invariably not the subject of critical commentary or even a passing mention other than appearing in an infobox) or should they be declared a new set of blanket "allowed" images and given a distinct tag and category (hence preserving uploaded information, and bearing in mind that the signatures uploaded generally have no commercial value)? I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Fair use of signatures. Purgatorio (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Repetitive themes in "Did you know..."
You seem to have a new editor for "Did you know..." who is a diehard University of Michigan football fan and belonged to Alpha Kappa Alpha. Even when the blurb doesn't mention one of these two subjects, that's what the article turns out to reference in some way (as with today's teaser about Clarence Williams). I read the main page on a regular basis, and this repetition is annoying to the point that I'm bothering to complain (which is unusual for me). I normally enjoy the breadth of coverage, but the page seems to be losing some of that quality.
Please explain why certain themes are driven into the ground, or alternatively, why no one on the editorial staff has noticed. Maybe everyone else in the world loves it in the same way they ate up television reality shows, and I'm the one who's out of step. Please let me know one way or the other.
--FrDigby (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- You may be interested in joining the discussions related to this very issue on Wikipedia talk:Did you know#When Wolverines Attack! 81.77.184.52 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Quotations of Jimbo Wales
I notice a lot of policy pages quote Jimbo Wales (see, e.g., WP:USERPAGE#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F). Perhaps these are artifacts from the days when Jimbo used to unilaterally set policy. Now that he doesn't, are those quotes binding in the same sense as the legislative history of a statute, which influences/governs how the statute will be interpreted in a court of law? Or are they just non-binding obiter dicta which are basically just there for decoration at this point? If the latter, I would favor deleting those quotes for clarity's sake (as Jimbo's quote "this should be no big deal" was deleted from WP:RFA). Some people still quote them as though they are authoritative. Sarsaparilla 04:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- You know, this perplexed me as well. But some people are very attached to the Jimbo quotes. So rather than fight them might as well engage in an act of self-promotion. A while back I created template:Jimboquote. It takes no position as to the value or appropriateness of including Jimbo quotations, but it does put them in a nice text box with a neutral but distinctive background color. You can see this template in use at WP:V and WP:BLP. Wikidemo 07:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead and be bold about removing the quotes. Sarsaparilla 16:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Now that IS bold indeed. However, you may be sending the right message - it is no longer Jimbo that has the dictatorial control of Wikipedia, it is the Wikipedians with the Republican control.--WaltCip 16:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead and be bold about removing the quotes. Sarsaparilla 16:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I share your confusion but I think actually that what is written above- similar to including quotes in a statute- is exactly the way it should be treated. I'm not sure deleting them will go over well, and I'm definitely not sure it's worth the effort... Epthorn (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some Jimboquotes are included to counteract the tendency to overvalue the Word from Jimbo. The Great Userbox Wars were in part: "Jimbo said userboxes are EEEVILLLL. Kill them all!" when Jimbo had said nothing so extreme, and then said several times that he hadn't. Having Jimbo's exact words is one way to answer this fundamentalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Drop the vendetta against trivia.
I'm sorry to inform you of this, but Wikipedia will never be widely accepted as an academic source of information. I don't understand the goal of "encyclopedic style" if it does nothing. You seek to make wikipedia respectable to those that will never respect it (researchers) at the expense of those that appreciate it for what it is (the internet culture). These newly or more strongly enforced policies such as "no triva" and "real world notability" only harm the site wikipedia used to be. It doesn't make any sense to scorn what you have.
Many people come here for the trivia, and only the trivia. Others only come here to read countless episode summaries of their favorite shows. By integrating or deleting trivia, and merging episode summaries, you slap these people in the face. Eventually Wikipedia will do nothing but outsource to other sites, and I don't want that. In the goal of making yourself more encyclopedic, you have alienated a good portion of your fanbase. Stop trying to be Britanica, and go back to the old Wikipedia we knew and loved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.82.235 (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- You mean the old Wikipedia of before the time when people began adding fancruft like crazy? ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 20:25, December 5, 2007
- No, I mean the wikipedia that didn't have a mile long stick up its ass. It was a hell of a lot better than what we have now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.82.235 (talk • contribs)
- If you can provide some evidence that filling Wikipedia with references in Family Guy and minor video game characters is better to the public at large than reliably sourced information, people might be more inclined to take suggestions like this seriously. Mr.Z-man 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I mean the wikipedia that didn't have a mile long stick up its ass. It was a hell of a lot better than what we have now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.82.235 (talk • contribs)
- There are alternative outlets for what you speak about. Also, trivia is simply used as term to describe a certain type of content. If you read the guideline, you would see that it advises you to find ways to properly add this stuff to an article in well written prose. If something cannot be integrated, then most likely, it's not useful information for an encyclopedia, and you should find another place that was intended for keeping the kind of information that you want to keep. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's the thing, people don't want prose, people want the trivia section. Who cares if its useful or not? This place was built on the idea of fun and useless information. As to appealing to the public at large, they aren't coming to wikipedia for information, they come for casual entertainment (usually via browsing obscure video game pages and Family Guy character pages). If people want serious, encyclopedic information, they aren'y coming here. I have no problem splitting the focus to include both serious information and "limited interest" info, yet Wikipedia seems hellbent on only dealing with the first type of information. Why I ask? It serves no purpose. Your space is damn near unlimited, and no one is going to take you seriously... ever. Let the "pointless" articles stand, or alienate a good portion of your fanbase, for no reason. Your choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.82.235 (talk)
- If you know of a better site, go to it. If you think you can run this one better and the people here won't listen to you, fork it and start your own. It's your right under a free licence. The rest of us will stay here and write an encyclopedia. Marnanel (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- "This place was built on the idea of fun and useless information." - Says who? I believe it was started as an encyclopedia. Mr.Z-man 02:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with original post, there's nothing wrong with trivia. Who's to say it's actually trivial? some of it is important and is simply grouped under "trivia". perhaps a better term would me Miscellaneous details." --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you know of a better site, go to it. If you think you can run this one better and the people here won't listen to you, fork it and start your own. It's your right under a free licence. The rest of us will stay here and write an encyclopedia. Marnanel (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality disputed tag for Emotional Language
I have put a POV tag on the Angulimala article. Is there a tag for the use of emotional language e.g. “ruthless killer”, “vicious killer”, “pure sadism” instead of presenting the facts unemotionally e.g. “serial killer” etc. Thanks Dhammapal (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes: {{POV}}. --- tqbf 04:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Template:M to ft bias contrary to WP:ENGVAR
This template is currently set to default to American spelling ('meter'), and is significantly more difficult to use to show other spellings ('metre'), as other parameters have to be added, something that a large number of editors don't know how to do. This is wholly contrary to wiki policy not to favour one spelling over another. I am starting to see a number of pages where entering the simplest m to ft notation has been used to push overall spelling changes on the page from UK, Canadian, Australian, etc., spellings to US spellings, contrary to WP:ENGVAR policy (people add the m to ft tags and don't know how to make the 'metre' version show, then other subsequent editors see 'meter' and take that as a green light to change 'colour' to 'color', etc). This template must be changed to use the abbreviation 'm' as the default (as this is also the most widely used format anyway), with full spellings 'metre' and 'meter' being made equally tricky to add. - MPF (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Try asking there, too. This isn't much of a policy concern. Fact is, American spelling is much more common, and as such it's easier for it to remain as is than to jump through hoops fixing something that is not broken. Furthermore, being a pain in the ass to do something is not bias, just a matter of coding. Finally, what you propose would fuck up a lot of transclusions, and instead of awb'ing a bunch of them, the time is much better spent just specifying a spelling where necessary. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 10:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- {{Convert}} uses the Queen's English as the default spelling and has a provision to change the spelling to American when desired and none of us Americans are complaining about that. This is just like how {{m to ft}} has American as the default and a provision to switch the spelling to Commonwealth. Both templates clearly explain how they work at their main template page and it is not bias if editors are using them incorrectly, then trying to justify the incorrect usage to go against wiki policy and change the English variety on the page. British Commonwealth articles should use the Commonwealth English and American articles should use American English and for other places it is whatever the article has been using, then keep using it unless their is consensus to change. From a code standpoint, the templates need to have a default spelling, re/er, sorry that you don't like the default. —MJCdetroit (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oddly, for some strange reason, the metre spelling is the official spelling used by the US government, but everybody ignores it and uses meter. Corvus cornixtalk 19:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know what "official spelling" Corvus is thinking of, but the applicable standard in the US is the US edition of the SI standard, NIST Special Publication 330, and it's available in PDF here. And what it says on this point is:
- The spelling of English words is in accordance with the United States Government Printing Office Style Manual, which follows Webster’s Third New International Dictionary rather than the Oxford Dictionary. Thus the spellings "meter," "liter," and "deca" are used rather than "metre," "litre," and "deka" as in the original BIPM English text
- I post this correction as a point of fact and not by way of advocating any particular policy for Wikipedia on spelling. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know what "official spelling" Corvus is thinking of, but the applicable standard in the US is the US edition of the SI standard, NIST Special Publication 330, and it's available in PDF here. And what it says on this point is:
Tagging, specific and general issues
Archived discussion, as it seems to be going nowhere. Please either continue the discussion with users on their talk pages, or start an RFC on the relevant policy/behavior. -- Kesh (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
On the specific, there is a user that feels it is his personal mission to tag every article that doesn't have what he deems an acceptable external reference. A view of their contributes [5] shows what effectively comes off as spamming. My concern is not that that's how he wants to play on Wikipedia, my concern is the credibility issues associated with mass tagging of thousands of articles. He's bragged about the number of articles he's tagged. To be credible, Wikipedia must first appear credible, visually at first site. Someone coming in and seeing a reliability tag is going to walk away and discount the accuracy of an article. While tagging may encourage editors to work on an article, what does it say to people who come here seeking information? The individual doing the en masse tagging is fairly unreasonable so talking with them is impossible. Others have tried and failed. So I come here with a couple of suggestions. When tagging why do we tag on the main article instead of on the talk pages? At least on the talk pages the tags wouldn't be seen by the non-editing users but would be seen in a category search. The person's criteria, they claim, is notability stating all the tagged articles would fail an AfD nomination and are destined to be deleted. I doubt that looking at the tagged articles. Several hundred schools were tagged this morning. They claim to want to improve Wikipedia but all I see is they are making a whole lot of articles look useless to those "on the outside" who immediately question reliability when a tag is glaring at them. Is there a common ground for tagging that wouldn't hurt the articles and is there are rule I am unable to find that says articles are required to have outside references and not just external links? Thank you for your time. IrishLass (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Response by AnteaterZotPerhaps I can say a few things to address these concerns. My effort to reliable source tag the articles stems from a desire to avoid rancorous Articles for Deletion debates. As many of you are no doubt aware, minor characters in fictional works, individual episodes of TV shows, and elementary schools are constantly nominated for deletion. The only thing that saves such articles from deletion is proper sourcing. Unlike the "deletionists," I want Wikipedia to provide the information, just not on thousands of individual pages. It is my goal to encourage the survival of deserving articles, and to encourage to consolidation of minor characters and episodes into "List of" pages, and elementary schools onto schools district pages. The main benefit of such pages is editorial oversight. As can be read at Criticism of Wikipedia, a great deal of the problems with Wikipedia's public image involve poor or non-existent sourcing. My idea of improving Wikipedia is increasing the sourcing. Sourcing is the bulk of pillar one of the Five pillars of Wikipedia. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC) I shall now provide my point of view on each of the complaints above;
AnteaterZot (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
1. Personal missions are irrelevant in the face of the overall goal of the project. Where they impede upon the goal of the project - as we have posited about yours - we will oppose them. 2. Your tagging is still spamming, regardless of whether or not it is focussed. It certainly represents a poor record of actually improving articles, since tagging does in itself nothing to improve them. 3. True. Not sure why you've stated it though, as nobody is denying it. That sources are desirable is hardly a point of contention here. 4. I'd like a precedent on that. It's a very POV statement to make without justification. A better use of your time - and of more benefit to someone who clearly feels so strongly - would be to actually look for and put in sources. You're boasting about how much you are benefiting the project (or at least coming across as though you are) without actually having done anything valuable here. People who add sources are highly respected. People who just endlessly tag are not. 5. Tagging does not benefit in the long run unless people actually follow through. A far better use of an editor's time is to make genuine improvements, adding tags is a lazy way to pretend you are making improvements. I make improvements. You tag. Who is more valuable to the project? 6. Why is the Orphanbot of any relevance whatsoever to this discussion? And people who genuinely care about improving articles will see the tags on the talk page, when editing an article it is standard to look at the talk page before/whilst doing so. I don't see that reasoning as credible. 7. "They" is used grammatically as a gender neutral singular since "it" is not considered polite in the English language. It does not automatically denote plural, and your gender is unknown. 8. Use common sense. 2 good edits to 500 useless edits is, frankly, ridiculous. 9. The point is the tag shouldn't be there in the first place. You're going about improving things in the wrong way. 11. I somehow doubt this is the direct result of the tags. If the articles specifically needed them, a lot of them would be in Category: Sources needed anyway. 12. POV, not actually based on anything real, therefore not a justification for spam-tagging. 13. Not a word in that suggests why they need to be on the main page, or why you couldn't find and add the sources yourself. 14. I'll await independant verification on that, your edits are suspicious to I and others, and you've hardly proved your innocence with that statement. 15. My suggestion of a compromise: You either volunteer to stop placing tags, or else be forcibly prevented from doing so. All tags removed untill/unless independent verification of of their value/relevance. I'm not really prepared to negotiate on that one, I see your methods as unacceptable. Hmm. My numbers haven't added up. I can't be bothered checking them though.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC) New responses to AnteaterZot and additional comments regarding the subject"#The vast majority of the articles I have tagged have no possibility of surviving a deletion nomination. When deleted, the information is gone, destroying the hard work of the creators. Sourcing and/or consolidation will strengthen and preserve the information. " This statement is laughable as you've been told last night. He tagged Edith Bunker as not notable as well as Ben Cartwright, neither of which would fail/pass/be deleted (however you choose to say it) when put up for AfD. Both are Smithsonia inductees. I believe, going by memory, Edith's chair and Ben's saddle are in the Smithsonia. The list is a justification in the users mind, most of which don't hold water with statements like "I feel strongly." It is not what this user "feels" but rather what Wikipedia wants. As was suggested, why can this tagging not be done on the talk page? I've seen it done and it will not make Wikipedia look bad to outsiders. I still think, as I said lat night, the user is spamming. Multiple edits within seconds? Obviously the user holds no store for what others opinions are. They've discounted every statement made before they came in and provided their laundry list of "whys". Just because you have reasons in your own mind doesn't mean you are right. As to your claim of not using automated tools, I find that impossible to believe. But that's just my opinion of AnteaterZot's spam. I agree with Caissa's DeathAngel that AnteaterZot should be stopped at all costs. And apologies for having editing issues with the formatting and what not. CelticGreen (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Anteater, that's really not something of which you should be proud. You're lazy. You're tagging articles and expecting everyone else to do the work while you sit back just waiting to nominate them for deletion. I, personally, agree with you CelticGreen. I believe there to be a violation of the tagging system and that Anteater is creating a hostile environment here. It needs to stop. Angelriver (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Anteater, you tagged over 7,000 pages--500 of them in just a couple of days. Please. And yes, it is lazy when all you're doing is pointing out the negative and doing NOTHING to improve it. CelticGreen is absolutely correct, and I've been on other sites and have seen it happen--TROLLS spend hours destroying. Time spent on a site does NOT equal quality improvements to the site.Angelriver (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't see anything wrong with what AnteaterZot is doing. The tag he is using is of long standing, and has already been used on thousands of articles. We do require that articles be sourced, although that is honored more in the breach than anything else. So far as I can tell, he has not tagged a single article incorrectly. Does it make look Wikipedia look bad? I think not, I think that it shows that the project has the integrity to look honestly at its flaws and attempts to address them. So far as I can tell, the articles he has tagged and then sent to AfD are ones where he attempted to source and failed or arguable violated WP:CRYSTAL. I think the term spamming is highly inflammatory and should be used only for instances where the accused spammer has a conflict of interest. As long as the use of macros and tabbed browsing are not considered automation, I think it is quite possible for someone to tag at the speed he is doing it without using a bot. On the other hand, I would like to hin tone down his edit summaries. Emphasizing THIRD PARTY sorces, as he does, smacks of failure to assume good faith in advance. Dsmdgold (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I’m going to agree with everyone here that AZ is out of control with his tagging. It is clear that he is spamming Wikipedia with these tags and I have no doubt he is using a BOT to do it. Disrupting Wikipedia is probably the most common violation of the rules for this site. People are banned for far less than AZ has engaged in and his justification has more holes than a machine gun target. It is clear his only reason is to either hurt Wikipedia by having tens of thousands of articles deleted or just to stir up as much trouble as possible before getting the boot. The admins needs to take a look at this and put a stop too it. --MiB-24 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Anteater, would you agree that the community generally disapproves of drive-by tagging, and would you be ameanable to altering your methodology to either helping to include references more frequently, or using {{fact}} tags, or in other ways increasing your edits to tagging ratio? Arthurrh (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
AnteaterZot (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here is a question for everyone. Why is it so easy for any user to tag a page, but once done, why does it take the Wiki equivalent of an atomic bomb to get rid of it? --MiB-24 (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Observations on the Anteater tagging controversyJust a few observations on the tagging controversy with Anteater.
Arthurrh (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Based on the rate of tagging it's obvious that Anteater is taking at best a very cursory look at these articles. The tag is redundant to information that it already obvious to anyone viewing the page. It's sort of like going through pages and adding tags like "this page has no images" or any other such trivially obvious facts. That said, we have lots of useless tags and people who have a lot of time to waste seem to enjoy wasting it by pasting them about, so there's probably no harm done. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Look, verifiabilty is indeed at the core of this project, and it's no secret that a huge number of articles are not properly sourced, if at all. But if this mass tagging were taken to extremes that Anteater is proposing -- indeed, enacting -- it is going to become disruptive. This editor has been on Wikedpia a short while and taken it upon himself to enforce guidelines. Fine. As noted above, we need editors to do that, even if that's all they do. But while the edit summaries on his mass-tagging are civil, the cumulative effect of what he is doing is not, I feel. As for helping him to "learn and grow," I don't get the sense he's interested. He knows he has policy on his side and I get distinct impression that he rather likes all this. It's a shame. I'm going back to writing and editing articles. All the best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I just read through this whole thread and I don't see what the issue is. I tag things {{notability}} all the time. Two things:
There are now eight thousand five hundred words in this thread. Is it moving towards some kind of policy discussion? If not, can it be taken somewhere else? This isn't RfC. --- tqbf 03:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Start with his Talk page, not policyIf he's making mistakes, tell him on his Talk page. This is policy talk, so let us know if he's violating policy such as WP:V. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh myWell, this got totally out of control since I left yesterday. For those saying take it to his talk page, it has been on several talk pages but that is really neither here nor there. The reason, and I did have a reason, a legitimate one, that I brought this here was to discuss POLICY (isn't that where we are, a place to discuss policy) and is it, or isn't it, a policy or should it be a policy that mass tagging that comes off as spamming be allowed/encouraged/discourage. Obviously this cause more flack than intended. AnteaterZot feels he's right, several others feel he's wrong, several are offended by the term "experiment", and so on. This was, in all sincerity, an attempt to question/make/modify policy and I took it here rather than admin warning/notice because that's where I have been told to take things in the past, albeit never done and maybe this is why. Fact is, I started this to delve into the policies of tagging. Are there any? Should there be any? You'll notice that while I did include the link to AZot's contributes, I never mentioned his name in the first paragraph. It was only after others did that I said it. True, his actions started my questioning, but I've seen other people do it for trivia sections, albeit not to AZot's lengths. But, at the end of the day this is about policy and what is or isn't good for Wikipedia. Although, I feel compelled to add, experimenting on Wikipedia is never a good thing no matter what the end intentions. IrishLass (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Template:Primarysources OK?Is it acceptable for the template {{Primarysources}} to be used on articles with few or no sources? (that template has some aliases) -- SEWilco (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Primarysources acceptable
Primarysources not acceptableHere's a compromise, AnteaterAnteater, you want a compromise? Here's my suggestion: that for every 10 articles you tag, you properly reference one of them. Madman (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Or here's another compromise. Because you are processing the articles by category, when you tag a group of related articles, a lot of your edits will appear on a user's watch-list. Instead of browsing by category, how about browsing via the "Random article" link. In this way, your tagging will be more evenly distributed across wikipedia, and you are less likely to aggravate individual users Bluap (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Asked for this to be closedHaving never seen the extreme level of rudeness, misrepresented facts, and the like, I've asked this discussion be closed to further comment. AnteaterZot has contacted me on my talk page and I'm just going to discuss this with her there. I am amazed at all I've seen here. The level of rude is inconceivable to me. People who have nothing to contribute come in and make rude and false statements when all that was asked was a clearer way to see the comments made. I have to wonder if they have nothing better to do than instigate problems. So I've asked this be closed. End of discussion. No more dealing with rude and uncivil people and their unnecessarily rude comments. I'm truly appauled at so much of the behavior I've witnessed. I am grateful my experience on Wikipedia has not been anything like what I witnessed here. IrishLass (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |