Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:29, 17 October 2006

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• ]

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Proposed naming convention: military vehicles

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (military vehicles): please comment on the talk page. —Michael Z. 2006-08-15 20:50 Z

Suggestion for German language page approval implementation

This post has been moved to the proposal page Misplaced Pages:German page approval solution

Proposal: RfA process

See initial draft at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship process

Signature Lengths

I'm guessing this is one of those items that comes up repeatedly. I know there's a recommendation of signatures being "one line while editing" (which I would say make 80 characters in HTML), but is there any policy? Been seeing more and more 200+ character sigs and would think a policy would be appropriate. Thanks. *Sparkhead 20:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you point to an example? I haven't found this a problem where I've been editing. AndrewRT - Talk 21:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not shine the spotlight on any one individual in this context. There are two immediate instances of 200+ html character signatures I can think of, and I'm certain I could find a few more. I'm just curious with respect to any sort of established policy. *Sparkhead 23:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If you need an example, there's always my joke signature at User:Carnildo/sandbox. As a more general case, any user with a color gradient in their sig. --Carnildo 01:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of principal, I believe freedom of speech, and length thereof shouldn't be limited. --

JoeCamel Talk Contributions/Articles Email Cat's photo Hit list Watch list Shit list Hero list Favorite article Second-favorite Link-of-the-day Porno-of-the-day

20:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, that's a wee bit WP:POINTY. --Interiot 20:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say that setting a limit would be WP:CREEP. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an example of an actual signature I have encountered "in the wild": ]<span style="background-color:#000000; white-space:nowrap; font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup>]<small><sub>]</sub></small></span>]]. I'm starting to think maybe a "rehabilitation" program of unsyclopedia users might be in order, they seem to love exessively long image laden transcluded signatures over there. --Sherool (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had a rant on this exact issue linked in my sig for a while. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Prevent recently registered users from uploading images

This would help to cut down on image trolling.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 22:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It would cut down on most of Misplaced Pages's problems with images. Unfortunately, consensus appears to be that it's a bad idea. --Carnildo 05:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps consensuses can be wrong. To me it sounds a splendid idea. -- Hoary 05:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea also, prevents copyvios by a ton. Jaranda 05:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I also think it's a reasonnable restriction. As far as I know, we don't have much statistical data to study the question. That's unfortunate because it would really make the debate much more concrete. We have to weigh the benefit of anons uploading useful and uncopyrighted images against the cost of cleaning up the mess left by most. This is more problematic than anon vandalism precisely because of the copyright issues which I think we need to be particularly careful with. Pascal.Tesson 06:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that this is a reasonable idea. As for the possibility that it might prevent a newbie from uploading a useful image, I think we can work around that. Just encode into the error message a note that new users are restricted from uploading images for this time and to contact an admin for assistance with something like the {{helpme}} tag. If it is a useful image, I'm sure a admin would be glad to help (and could probably aid with copyvio & proper tagging). If it's a vandal, I'm sure they wouldn't bother. Agne 08:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Absofrigginlutely strong support etc! Idealy we should have a brief "e-learning course" about copyright and our image policy that people would have to pass first because sadly beeing a long time editor is no guarantee to get the uploads right. However the least we could do is to make sure people can't upload files before they are "old" enough to move pages and edit sprotected pages at the very least. This would hopefully cut down on the number of "upload & run" acounts who's only contributions are a handfull of unsourced images and then never edit again. If they hang around long enough to get a welcome message and hopefully read a couple of policy pages things might improve, at least a little bit. At At the very least they would learn how to edit pages so we don't keep getting questions like "how do I change the tag" over at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions all the time... --Sherool (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The only "problem" is Commons, they can not reasonably restrict newbie uploads because -- well there is not a lot to do except upload there (newbies are unlikely to get heavily involved with translations and categorising before uploading anyting) -- and they get heaps of wierd uploads that can be used anywhere too. Hopefully this single login thig will materialise soon and aleviate some of that peoblem since people could rack up "experience" on the various other projects or something. There would still be the potential problem of some random person wanting to donate some great photos without having to edit a bunch of articles first... --Sherool (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

people uploading crap is a waste of time for us to clean up, but there's nothing we can do about it; since preventing newbies from uploading is pointless as they can just go do it at Commons. If we want to prevent vandalism to actual mainspace articles through pictures, it'd be better to impliment restrictions such as "newly registered accounts can only upload new pictures, and cannot make changes (or upload over) previously existing pictures" or "newly registered accounts can not add pictures to articles". Not sure whether that last idea is technically possible.

talking about uploading in general, i think the Special:Upload page needs a more obvious link to a page that gives more detailed guildlines on what is what and what can/can't be uploaded. Because the current instructions there are quite confusing to a new picture uploader. There's about a dozen links to various articles and guildlines, but nothing that really sums it all up on one page. And that's what we need. Because i can imagine many people just deciding it's too confusing, giving up, and deciding to upload first and let the admins deal with it. --`/aksha 11:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking too hard. Newcomers don't know that uploading something on the Commons makes it appear here (unless they're a returning blocked user). And the Commons can deal with that stuff because they don't have an encyclopedia to work on! So with that out of the way, I say do it! Maybe have it be bundled with the privilege to edit semiprotected pages.--HereToHelp 12:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

umm "Unless they're a returning blocked user" being the key phrase? How often does this happen anyway? Are new accounts spam-uploading pictures very common? And more importantly, are they mostly from new people or returning vandals? --`/aksha 13:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Anything that will reduce the rate of problem uploads will help. Right now, we're getting at least a thousand copyvio and unsourced images uploaded a day. --Carnildo 19:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Commons has the advantage of not allowing fair use: any image from a copyrighted source that isn't clearly under a free license can be deleted immediately. The English Misplaced Pages doesn't have this advantage, and most people don't understand what does and does not constitute "fair use". --Carnildo 19:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Heretohelp on this one. Whatever policies we have, malicious editors will be able to get around through Commons or sockpuppetts or meatpuppets. That's not the point here: we get a lot of newbies which either are well-intentioned but are uploading copyrighted material or are ill-intentioned but are, shall we say, casual vandals. In many ways, knowing about Commons shows that you're an experienced editor! Pascal.Tesson 19:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I referenced this thread on Bugzilla: bugzilla:7539. Dragons flight 21:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Honoring Nazi and Al-Qaeda copyrights

Why are we honoring Nazi and Al-Qaeda copyrights? Examples:

• Image:OctopusNAS1.jpg
• Image:AQ00105.jpg

Is it even legal under U.S. law to honor these? Does the Foundation have an opinion? - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If the copyright holders are Nazis or Al Queda, screw them and use the pic. Terrorist organizations have no legal rights. Use the pic. It's legal. Tobyk777 03:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is supposedly not copyright paranoid, and I think that not using those images due to a potential lawsuit from Osama Bin Laden or Hitler's ghost is probably the highest form of copyright paranoia imaginable. --tjstrf 04:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Who owns the copyright on such works can be a complicated question. For example, some works (such as Nazi imagery) may well have passed into the hands of more enlightened governments/organizations who may choose to enforce the copyright specifically to prevent such materials from being republished. Nor is copyright automatically ceded just because the owner is currently associated with a terrorist organization, though it would certainly make it difficult to raise the issue in a US court while actively pursued for terrorism. Dragons flight 04:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL I am sure it's a prosecutable offense in the U.S. to sell Osama a kg of apples. Is respecting his copyrights somehow different? - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a civil matter. That's how it is different. More to the point, after he is dead any copyright he holds would pass to his estate/kin. Sooner or later it is entirely plausible that a non-terrorist will have control. Dragons flight 10:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Even more to the point, it's arguable if we are aiding him in any way by respecting copyrights...

Terrorist organizations have no legal rights. Say what? A copyright is a copyright. Period. We should respect those copyrights regardless of what one might think of the copyright holder. It's not about being paranoid, it's about respecting the spirit of copyright law. Shame on anyone who thinks that we can disregard it on political grounds. Pascal.Tesson 10:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Shame? This was a legal question, not a political one. The question was, is it permissible under U.S. law to honor copyrights held by declared enemies and terrorist organizations. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion is a good reason why we should not rely on amateurs for legal advice. No matter how much you dislike someone, it doesn't make it legally safe to embark upon paths like this. --Improv 13:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite. Reparations to Germany were halted by the Petersberg agreement of 1949-11-22, and the only exclusions of 17 U.S.C. 104A are copyrights had once been seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act and which would otherwise be held by governments (this is not the case for German images, for which the copyrights are held by the original artist or photographer). Al-Quaeda falls within the remit of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which means that their copyrights (or, more strictly, copyrights which are owned by the individuals named) may or may not have been seized by the U.S. federal government. This shows the importance of the fair use tag: we may be (fairly) infringing the copyright of the U.S. government, not of some terrorist organization. It is simply wrong to state that these images are in the public domain for the sole reason that their authors are not to our taste. Physchim62 (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that the very point of the Trading with the Enemy Act is to allow the U.S. government to receive payments which it would otherwise be illegal to make! But in any case, WP doesn't pay anyone for copyrighted material :) Physchim62 (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• The issue of who has copyright in NSDAP generated material has been litigated. . In Germany, Transit-Film, which is owned by the Federal Republic of Germany, has the rights to NSDAP film of that period, including Triumph of the Will. In the UK, those copyrights were extingushed by the Enemy Property Act of 1953. Not clear what the US copyright situation is. --John Nagle 04:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The situation in the US is quite confused. At various times they have been honored, not honored, voided, or simply ignored -- and it's quite possible that different circuit courts have different opinions on the matter. I've got no idea what the status is right now. Best policy on Misplaced Pages's part: assume they're copyrighted just like anything else. --Carnildo 04:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As other's have pointed out, in many cases we don't even know for sure who the copyright belongs to and it could easily change. It may not belong to Al-Qaeda or even someone who would be classified as a terrorist by much of the world. Perhaps more importantly Jimbo Wales has made it clear we don't just respect for legal reasons but moral reasons. Try reading Misplaced Pages:Copyrights specifically Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, Misplaced Pages contributors should respect the copyright law of these nations as best they can, the same as they do for other countries around the world.. Also, a lot of people don't seem to understand the goals of wikipedia. We want are supposed to be creating a free encylopedia. If we go ignoring people's copyrights willy nilly, even if we can't be sued in the US, what about people in other countries? They may have major problems trying to publish or make wikipedia available because we've used a bunch of copyrighted stuff which simply isn't recognised in the US. By accurately tagging and recognising stuff which is copyrighted, even if it isn't in the US, we can help prevent this. BTW, please don't bring up strawman arguments like what happens if some country starts to recognise copyrights for 1000 year old works or something like that. Nil Einne 09:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Recommendation: Expand Notability—companies from Fortune 500 & Forbes 500 to Fortune 1000 & Forbes 2000

You are invited to join a discussion whether we should expand Notability—companies from Fortune 500 & Forbes 500 to Fortune 1000 & Forbes 2000.

Background

The English Wikproject has 6,937,987 articles today. An English Wikproject Articles progress summary follows:

The point— the English Wikproject continues to expand. There are a number of main articles that need to be written still (e.g., all Fortune 500 companies do not yet have articles); none-the-less much of the current expansion is coming in the form of specialized articles in relatively narrow fields based on individual contributor’s interests. Misplaced Pages is an important research tool because it provides depth in areas that traditional encyclopedias don’t; it becomes more important as it expands. The trend to more specialized articles is not only acceptable; it is desirable. May first come to Misplaced Pages when they note that “Googles” on obscure topics turn up Misplaced Pages answers. Many stay because there is information in the Misplaced Pages that can’t be found anywhere else (at least in English). The English Wikproject becomes ever more valuable as a research tool as it goes into ever more specialized topics.

At some point we will fill out all the Fortune 500 and Forbes 500 companies. At that time it makes sense to continue down to the : Fortune 1000 and Forbes 2000 companies. Although I’d like to see creation of a Wikiproject:companies and corporations with a concerted effort to complete the articles on the Fortune 500 and Forbes 500, articles on Misplaced Pages are normally contributed in piecemeal fashion and someone later comes along to systematize the structure with a Wikiproject. Hence this expansion of criteria can be argued to be just a continuation of the normal process.

Come join the debate & consensus building if you care about the topic—support and opposition are equally welcome, as long as the comment is thoughtful. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Create the WikiProject, that will be a good way to discuss what is and is not notable (smaller companies can also be notable, big but boring companies are difficult to write articles about)! Many subject areas have similar problems! Physchim62 (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As I was just writing on Slashdot, the rapid increase in the number of articles is a bug, not a feature. Look at the most recent 50 new articles at any time; most will be junk. Somewhere before article 500,000, we probably had over 90% of the subjects covered that actually deserve coverage. --John Nagle 03:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful. There is a massive depth of knowledge in the world. Millions of people and places and things to write about, and the best part is that you can learn about things you didn't even know existed, let alone thought worthy of coverage. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability of politicians - how far down do we go?

Just came across Robert Parkyn, a City of Calgary, Alberta alderman from 1926 to 1944. Someone is putting in the entire historical list of Calgary aldermen. Is this is a good thing or a bad thing? --John Nagle 05:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why it is inherently a bad thing to have knowledge about people being put into Misplaced Pages. Of course, if we only rely on web references for checking purposes people may be a little surprised about how much just isn't there. These people are likely to have a lot of written information about them.

Also, in what sense are you using the word "notability". Ansell 05:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not paper. Notability is just there to make sure we can meet verifiability and NPOV without original research. An alderman likely has enough written about him to ensure that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is also not a junkyard. It's not just there for verifiability/NPOV - we don't want articles that are written about not-notable topics, even if they're verifiable and NPOV. Blocks of sidewalk in New York City, or for that matter, Bismarck North Dakota are not notable enough for an article. --Improv 13:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

O RLY? If a block of sidewalk has multiple non-trivial media mentions, I'm guessing it's a pretty special chunk of sidewalk. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

John Nagle has not told you the whole story. Robert was a City of Calgary Alderman for 17 years on and off, he was also a member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta for 4 years while still serving as an Alderman, he was chairman of the Calgary Public Library and helped found a Federal Canadian political party. If that is not noteable then what is. --Cloveious 16:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

i should note that in my statement above, I wasn't meaning to comment in particular on Robert Parkyn -- i was talking in the abstract. --Improv 17:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In general I'm uncomfortable with the idea that we should document every occupant of every relatively minor public office. There is verifiable information about many of these people but I think we should establish WP:NOT . In specific, I'd probably say delete him: he has done a number of relatively unimportant things. The Land 19:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Atlas

This Portal seems to be at the heart of a massive project to build galleries of maps for every nation and continent (separate from the existing geography pages) that's against a basic tenet of wp:not -- wikipedia's not for galleries. There are over 200 articles involved here so I'd like to get more input before I take this to deletion. It seems like all the pages should be transwikied to commons and linked from the appropriate geography articles, so we can have a neat little box that says "wikimedia commons has maps of x" without filling wikipedia with pages that aren't articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think a map is a totally separate and different thing from a picture. On any geographical article or reference, a map is inherently useful, which cannot be said of most pictures. Even stub articles on geographic locations are vastly improved by a map that says "here's where it is." Fan-1967 17:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I can see both sides of the argument here, though I'm leaning slightly more towards Night Gyr. Interestingly wp:not makes no mention of maps under 'Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files - points 3 and 4'. Perhaps clarifying whether maps fall under this policy is the way forward. Definately don't take Portal:Atlas to deletion before a lot more discussion. CheekyMonkey 23:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• A good map adds as much information as many paragraphs of text. While we don't need (say) 9 different political maps of Egypt in Egypt, I think they're appropriate as long as each map reveals new and different information, such as a political map, a topographical map, historical political maps from different times, and so on. To say Misplaced Pages is not a "repository of media files" suggests to merely that we should not be frivolously building up a database of images that have no immediate use in articles. Deco 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• There's also the issue that there are very few sources of good, free maps on the net. Wikicommons does a great job of collecting them, but I don't see harm in presenting them prettily here on Misplaced Pages, where more people who need them are likely to find them. — Catherine\ 04:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandals

If a vandal's real name, address, and phone number are known (such as if they put it on their personal website) can Misplaced Pages send a cease and decist or a restraining order to stop them from vandalizing? This is not hypothetical. Anomo 12:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we wouldn't. In fact depending on how it was obtained, that information may need to be deleted (oversighted preferably). Could you point me to it? Prodego 13:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to my aardvark? Essjay still isn't around so that particular page isn't going to get deleted for at least a month. MER-C 14:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well yes for the obtained thing, Blu Aardvark just basically gives it out! He first ties all his online identities to his offline here and then from a link on that site, it gives his computer business here, which has all his info to mail a letter to. Anomo 15:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And if Blu Aardvark does challenge the cease and decease request in court (and being the showman that he is, I have no doubt that he will), what exactly does the Wikimedia lawyers say before the judge? Can we prove any monetary damages incurred considering that we're all volunteers? Doubtful. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility and sarcasm

Hi. We're having a discussion over at Misplaced Pages talk:Civility#The use of sarcasm regarding the list of "petty examples" of incivility "that contribute to an uncivil environment". In particular, there's some disagreement over whether or not "sarcasm" is an example of a behavior that contributes to an incivil environment. Since there are two people seeing it one way and two people seeing in a different way, I thought it might help to request broader input. Thanks in advance to anyone willing to contribute their perspective to the conversation. -GTBacchus 16:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently sarcasm is useful for proving a point and WP:POINT is against that. Anomo 17:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. WP:POINT isn't against proving points, just against doing it disruptively. WP:CIVIL is against doing it rudely or scornfully, which is what sarcasm is. -GTBacchus 17:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

At which point we have the question of what the appropriate response is to someone comparing everyone on a given policy page to torturers in dungeons, then telling them they've broken Godwin's law when they answer him sarcastically instead of telling him bluntly he's a completely insulting bloody idiot. Which is what actually happened - David Gerard 18:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Chips Ahoy! vs. CSD

Quick policy question. I notice that Chips Ahoy! was deleted by Improv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) under the new G11 WP:CSD. In determining the scope of the new rule, can we differentiate between spamvertisements and legit articles about products that happen to be sold commercially? Improv's action seems to meet the letter of the policy, it's the spirit of it that I'm concerned about. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I think Improv's actions were appropriate, it's the wording of the CSD that seems to be unclear on the subject. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Further update, Improv's delete log seems to indicate a widescale deletion targeting articles that are about commercial products, possibly without regard as to whether or not they are spam. This definately does not meet the intent I read in G11, and if the community consensus agrees, there will need to be a widescale undelete. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a list of example articles that Improv deleted under G11 as discussion points. Some of them have been restored or re-created by other users, but all were recently deleted under G11. This is not a deletion review request, this is data intended to spur discussion about the G11 CSD and shaping it appropraitely:

• Pepperidge Farm
• Nilla Wafers
• Milano (cookie)
• Curly Wurly
• Famous Amos
• Toll House
• Teddy Grahams

Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

By and large, I went after broad categories of product-description articles that lacked encyclopedic value, that is, failed to say anything that suggested that they merited an encyclopedia article. I believe that there are plenty more that fail to state anything like "this is important", such as the plethora of articles on cellphones and similar, but as of recent I've been too busy with other Wiki activities to clean them out. In the end, I'll be disappointed if it is decided that G11 should be interpreted narrowly rather than broadly, but I'll accept it and push for more change in policy before going further if that turns out to be the case. --Improv 17:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help clarify which criteria you're using. For example, Pepperidge Farm contains a brief company history, then a list of products. Curly Wurly was a description of a popular product as well. If you're applying notability, then the deletion should occur under A7. But as G11 was employed, the fact that the criteria is this is relevant:

Blatant advertising. Pages which only promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic.

CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

These, along with the rest, have all been listed at deletion review. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What really bothers me here is that I strongly believe that G11 is badly needed and I dismissed as paranoid those who believed that this would not be applied carelessly. It appears however that this is not quite the case so far. Maybe admins should be rebriefed about the intention here. In the Pepperidge Farm article for instance, two thirds of the article are a list of their cookies. That's advertising? No problem, delete that but there's no need to delete the article. Chips Ahoy! says these cookies are yummy? Well delete that but we're talking about a cookie brand that's almost part of North American pop culture. Please admins: don't give G11 a bad name by going on crusade. Actually, I think that we should have a few weeks where admins are strongly discouraged to G11 anything where the tag has not been applied by someone else. Pascal.Tesson 20:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think not only was it applied carelessly, but that this does not meet the letter of the rule, in that the article showed no signs of being written in a promotional manner or being unencyclopedic - it's clearly written by ordinary Wikipedians who like the cookie. There's a reason for that "...would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic" clause. Deco 23:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

This is in response to some discussion I've been seeing (primarily at WP:RfA, but elsewhere as well.

I think we should standardise what we use to determine as consensus.

To start:

• A minimum quorum of 5 editors.
• A two-thirds (67%) majority.

I think the minimum of 5 should be required to prevent WP:BITE, and just any sort of bullying. ("Me and my two friends say what goes around here, in this here article.")

And I think the minimum should deal with issues which currently require the "higher" percents of 75-80.

Yes, I realize that many see voting as evil, but that's not necessarily what I am talking about. Counting heads is not the same as determining consensus.

Interested in hearing pros and cons. - jc37 19:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Pros: we have a simple way of determining consensus.

Cons: incentive for vote stacking, discourages discussion in favor of counting, does not take into account the quality of argumentation, removes incentive to find compromise, makes Misplaced Pages more bureaucratic. Pascal.Tesson 20:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

How does establishing a 5 contributor minimum, and lowering/standardising the percent at 67% do all of that? - jc37 20:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Jc37, if we decide that 67% carries a motion, then all someone has to do is have a large enough group show up and "vote". If people realize that numbers won't carry the motion, but only superior arguments, then there's less incentive to try and stack numbers. If it's about numbers, then what's the point in trying to persuade someone whom you could just outnumber? If it's about numbers, how does that allow for a situation where the superior numbers clearly have the inferior argument? Making decisions by numbers is anathema to NPOV because it subjects us to the tyranny of the majority. This proposal is unacceptable. -GTBacchus 02:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This happens now except instead of just voting "keep" they say "Keep per nom". This is why I think a minimum and percent are necessary, because people have already game'd the system long ago. --NuclearZer0 02:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Since people game the system now, you want to give system-gaming official sanction? Is the solution to a broken system to break it completely and officially? -GTBacchus 02:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Noone is stating that people shouldnt give their opinion, your point that some how they cannot win issues with just numbers alone is moot if you have visited AFD lately. You say Making decisions by numbers is anathema to NPOV because it subjects us to the tyranny of the majority what I am telling you is its how its done already, best to make some rules, then to continue ignoring the real wikipedia. --NuclearZer0 03:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to raise awareness of a better way to think of AfDs. I would prefer for admins to go ahead and close based on arguments, not numbers. It does happen sometimes (need links?), and m maybe it should happen more often. I'm not going to support making the system even easier to game on the grounds that a lot of people game it already. Adding rules is not the solution here. That would just facilitate gaming, because it would guarantee gamers that they can win by getting a certain percent of "votes". Encyclopedia content must not be decided by majority. If most AfDs go to the majority, it may be because they're actually being decided on policy, and the majority of people tend to understand and correctly apply our deletion policies when making their AfD recommendations. Show me an AfD that was decided in favor of numbers and against policy, and I'll show you an AfD that's gonna get reversed. (That's a serious offer.) Here, check out my informal analysis of every AfD I'd participated in as of June. There were a few, very few, closed against the numbers, but most managed to attract numbers to the strongest argument. We shouldn't sabotage the few exceptions to that rule; they're a good thing. -GTBacchus 06:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Don't like it. Consensus is not a vote count, it's a reading of a discussion and sorting out where most people indicate agreement and also whether any applicable policy or guideline applies. Too many factors are involved to simply just add up heads. And in some issues a quorum of 3 can be enough to decide a consensus, some mergers or page moves for example, may not meet the standard, now would some deletion debates come to that. Steve block Talk 20:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  As I mentioned above, I'm not saying that we need a minimum of 5 "supports" or "opposes", but just a minimum of 5 "talking about it". We could have 3:2, 4:1, 5:0 (and the reverses 2:3, 1:4, 0:5). In no way does this actually change consensus, except saying that we should have 5 or more people talking about it. Also, how can 3 people come to consensus in a situation where 75-80% is required? - jc37 20:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  I know what a quorum is, I'm saying some issues can be settled in a 2:1 or even a 2:0 or 1:0 fashion, if we count votes. We don't need five people talking, we have WP:BOLD. As to 75-80%, um, what's 3:0 to carry on your ratio theme, although where on earth do we need 75-80% consensus outside rfa? Which is bureaucrat's decision anyway, and up to them how they call it. Most other issues there was a time we used to set a bar before discussion, but that doesn't happen so much now. It's going to be impossible to get five people talking about some issues. Have you followed a request for comment lately? We have a request for a third party page, that indicates the idea that three people can solve a problem has legs. Steve block Talk 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  This in no way infringes on WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, or any other guidelines/policies. This is only concerning Misplaced Pages:Consensus. And 3:0 sounds good until you tell someone else that you're reverting their change due to "consensus". Which actually makes that 3:1. Which is still 75%, but I think you understand the point. 2 or 3 people shouldn't be able to bully a single voice. That wholly goes against the spirit of consensus. The more I am reading old and new policy discussions, process "fixing" proposals, numerous WIkiProject discussions, and just ongoing processes like RfA and XfD, I really think we need a 5 person minimum. I know I'd be more comfortable with several things if we did. - jc37 20:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  People who have reverted in a manner should then build a new consensus. That's why we have the idea that no consensus is binding. Consensus can change. If 3 people make a decision, and then one person comes in and wants to change it, the consensus needs to be rebuilt everytime. That's how consensus works. And bullying isn't allowed per our civility policy, so I don't see your concerns as posing any real concerns for Misplaced Pages. Steve block Talk 15:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  I have participated in bullying in the past, I wouldnt call it that, but me and 3 others overruled the user on a edit they wanted to make, actually sweepnig changes to all operation articles. A decision that was made by a small group that should have been made by a larger one perhaps. I think it was the right thing to do, and technically they were going against consensus. Consensus is basically a worthless word when its defined so porous, I think a minimum will be better at least to claim consensus by Misplaced Pages standards. You can say majority, but not consensus. --NuclearZer0 20:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  And that's an example of 5... I seriously considered proposing 6 or 7, but I went with 5, due to something I was reading about de-sysopping on other language wikipedias. - jc37 20:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• (after edit conflict) I don't think it is advisable to codify numerical values for consensus. Some very general (and deliberately flexible) guidelines for specific situations like RfA or WP:RM might be appropriate, more in the sense of providing models for bootstrap guidance rather than rigid prescriptions. For example, in low traffic articles, consensus might consist of asking about something on the talk page and if no one objects, then going ahead and doing what you suggested. In such cases, there may be only one or two responses or even none. Also, the opinion of a single editor who can present the case persuasively in terms of applicable policies and precedents should generally carry more weight than dozens of pile-on votes. older ≠ wiser 20:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  In theory, I agree with everything you said. However, I think that a fair portion of it doesn't relate directly to what I am suggesting here (such as your comments about being bold in article discussion/action. - jc37 21:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with this, I think most people who think consensus is not a vote have not been on Misplaced Pages or are seeing things through rose colored glasses. I have almost never seen a AFD go against the "vote", I hear talk of the best arguements, but have never seen that actually carried out. I think this is best since it prevents people from blocking changes crying no consensus is to define minimums for consensus. --NuclearZer0 20:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• I think it's most sensible, and increasingly necessary, to require consensus to mean discussion and judgement, not votes. It's otherwise too easy for people to not make arguments based on policy and expect that to mean something. --Improv 20:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  Not specifically directed at you, but has anyone actually seen many AFD's or anything else that involves consensus through 3 decisions (ie keep/delete/merge, relist,delete,overturn), go entirely against the majority of the people because of a better arguement and not the numbers? I would honestly like this pointed to me because I have yet to see it other then in the case of sockpuppets. --NuclearZer0 20:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  I think I've seen it occasionally over the years. I think it should happen far more often, and that it's sorely needed to fix recent problems with an influx of new people. --Improv 20:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, though not often, including the recent rather controversial Carnildo re-sysopping affair (Which this proposal is not a result of. I am merely answering a query for an example.), though the Carnildo situation was more because it was felt at the time that he should have just been re-sysopped, rather than go through RfA. Just the fact that it was so controversial (60% I believe) shows how much editors seem to rely on votes. Read User talk:Kbdank71's talk page for more examples. (Btw, I want to, again, show my great support for Kbdank71, by the way, he does what can be seen as a difficult and sometimes controversial job.) - jc37 20:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Expert opinions and consensus

Perhaps this is a little off-topic, but what I really dislike here is that when things are decided by general consensus, expert opinions -- especially in the sciences -- are given no more weight than anyone else's. You get situations where a majority of rather clueless individuals basically ends up dictating how specialists can organize and write their articles. It's like the arts department always gets a say in how things are done in the chemistry department; not very efficient and rather depressing for the chemistry department, even if the arts department means well. Why can't this situation be improved? Frankly, I believe Misplaced Pages looses a lot of potential editors this way who might otherwise be writing fantastic articles for us. --Jwinius 02:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is very off-topic. And i don't think it's a problem. Your situation assumes that people just debate it out, and then get consensus. Where as in debates concerning factual topics - people don't just debate amoungst themselves. References to other websites and variafiable sources and so on. Someone who is truely an expert will be heard if they've had books or papers published, because the books and papers themselves would be a reliable source. Similarly, someone who is an 'expert' in a field will be able to find sources to back up their arguments, where as the "clueless majority" will not be able to back up their arguments if their arguments are wrong. --`/aksha 03:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

He's not really that off-topic, just disagreeing about what consensus is used here. Anyhow, I agree, consensus seems to work fairly well since there're always outside sources to fallback on works well for content. However, I can see the point about organizing, there it's simply opinion, and it's hard to figure out if style should be dictated by customs for that area or made to be universal. --Prof Olson|talk 19:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's a test case for you: if a couple of biologists and some like-minded individuals were to come along and petition the community to change the current most popular common name first policy in favor of scientific names for article titles related to biological organisms, do you think people would listen? The current policy really crimps their style (and no, redirects are not a solution). --Jwinius 20:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, i'd have to disagree. I happen to be bio student, and i really don't understand how using common names can cramp style. I'm not here to write a science textbook, or make a science encyclopedia where the target audience for science articles is scientists/science-students. Misplaced Pages is a general encyclopedia. You sort of implied in your first edit on the topic that when the majority is going against (and wins) over the so called expert opinion, it's a bad thing. I don't see how this case can be considered 'bad'. This isn't even about 'expert opinion', it's not about the biology, it's about how to write an encyclopedia. No one is disagreeing that the names we are using are common, and therefore unscientific. The issue is about which one is better for a general audience encyclopedia. The biologist may have 'expert opinion' on the actual biology, but their opinion is far from expert when the topic is the best way to present an encyclopedia. --`/aksha 22:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You're a biology student? Well, pardon me, but from your contributions it looks like you've only been busy writing about video games. If you ever try describing a corner of the natural world, you'll get a better idea of what I mean. Regarding the "Misplaced Pages is a general encyclopedia" argument, it seems to me that's at odds with what it says on the Wikimedia Foundation's homepage: "Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge..." Well, that's not going to happen in the biology department if Misplaced Pages insists on ignoring the way biologists have described the natural world for over 250 years. Instead, we get these endless arguments about which common name is best, while taxonomy takes a back seat. That's what I call sad. --Jwinius 00:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so? The point is, your argument makes it sound like as if every person who's involved in biology in the world wants to have scientific names, but they can't since the majority of people here are not involved in biology. Which is misleading. Misplaced Pages isn't ignoreing the way biologists have described the natural world, from what i can see, all articles about living organisms have an info box at the very start of the article which gives full taxonomic classification, as well as links to articles about all the previous levels. HOw is that ignoring the information? Taxonomy is at the beginning of all articles, in very visible and well presented info boxes...i can't see how you would say taxonomy is taking a back seat. The title of the article is just...the title. The decisions about what to name articles is a question of how to present the encyclopedia. The article itself does still includes all the knowledge regarding taxonomy, taxonomic levels and 'proper' scientific names. Could you explain exactly how changing the name of the article will help convey the sum of human knowledge any better, or how it will make the article any better full stop? On the other hand, changing the name of the article will mean more people will be redirected to the article instead of actually reaching there...since more people use common names when they hit go on the search box. It also means more pipped links, since in most articles, scientific names just aren't appropriate (as in articles not to do with biology, linking to articles for a species of living organism). Although neither of those problems are major problems, i don't see any major benefits from changing the titles either. Neither is wrong, or changes the encyclopediac content of the article, so as far as i can see, it's just a matter of presentation. --`/aksha 04:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

An article title is important at Misplaced Pages because it puts one name above all the others. If it's a scientific name, you tend to get more meaningful discussions about which taxonomy to follow. On the other hand, if it's a common name, you frequently end up with stupid fights about whether it should be called Puma or Cougar. Yes, there's the taxobox, but too often you see that its pretty much ignored (no redirect for the scientific name, misspellings, synonyms lacking or absent, conflicts with other members of the same group, etc.) even though the article has many edits. If we were using scientific names for article titles, people would certainly pay more attention to classification.

Then there's category pages: fantastic if you're trying to organize thousands or articles (how's this for an easy overview: Category:Cyatheaceae), but useless if you're forced to deal with common names (what a mess: Category:Sharks). Regarding wlinks, I wonder if there's even 100 our biology articles that have over 1000 links each, but I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of these exist only for themselves. Therefore, in by far most cases the current policy is counterproductive, as well as bad for internal and external continuity. It promotes more confusion than it prevents and teaches our readers nothing. At best it shows that we are disorganized, at worst that we have little respect for science.

Anyway, let's remember that this discussion is really about consensus and whether we should give the experts more influence in matters of policy. I think it's clear that you are not (yet) an expert in biology, but that you would nevertheless like to have something to say about how the biologists organize their department. Unfortunately, you are hardly alone, which is my point. Folks, I think this is one of the main reasons why there is interest in Citizendium. If we were to give our experts more influence -- a real say in matters -- and not just pick and choose, only paying lip service to the idea, then I'm sure we would succeed in taking much of the wind out of the sails of that particular project. --Jwinius 15:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if things like the Taxobox is ignored...what makes you think it'll be less ignored if the article title is changed? For all we know, changing titles of articles to scientific names could make the article in general more ignored. Either way, it's just speculation. The bottom line is, this isn't about biology. Biologists may know their biology, but they don't nessasarily know how to write an encyclopedia. Nor do they nessasarily know how to organise or present information in a wiki environment. Does remaning the article make editors take it more seriously? readers? teachers? are the public actually confused by the use of common names and not scientific ones, would using scientific names actually make it easier for everyone? Although using scientific names would make organization easier for those familiar with taxonomy, but wouldn't it make organization far harder for those who are NOT familiar with taxnomy? (which is the majority of editors here.)

Let's say in a school, the biologists run their department and their expert opinion is respected, but they will probably still have to consult the finance people when it comes to money issues, and listen to the maintainance folk when it comes to their building, because they're not experts in that area. Similarly here, experts may be experts in one area of knowledge, but they are not nessasarily experts in running/organizing/maintaining an encyclopedia, if anything, the long term editors here know more about what makes a wiki work than so called experts.

Giving experts a say when there is a content disagreement may well be a good idea in theory, but there are still major problems with that (who is an expert? how do you prove someone's an expert? All it takes is a few idiots pretending to be experts and messing things up for the community to lose all trust in the claim of expertise); but giving science-experts the say in how to organize and how to write an encyclopedia? Sorry, but i can't agree. All the problems you have outlined are not biology problems, but organization and presentation problems. And i suspect this is often the case when experts (or when people such as you) are advocating for experts to have more say - it's more say in how to run the place. And not so much more say in content. --`/aksha 23:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming doesn't really seem like a great example of the problem. I mean, you can always have redirects from more technical terms. However, the style of what's in the article might be important to the experts, they might well have a certain way of presenting something. I know for computer science I'm looking at the articles in Misplaced Pages, and the formatting on some of them is rather foreign to me. It seems to me that something like this is hard, I can't cite a source easily saying a given style is *wrong*, but as an academic there are certain styles that are conventionally followed. --Prof Olson|talk 00:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Concensus is not an English word!

...and not one in any language I know. It actually hurts my eyes. Can you please try to spell it correctly? It is a very basic principle in Misplaced Pages and deserves this tiny bit of respect. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz 22:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, by a simple replace. : ) - jc37 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Much better, although people may wonder what I ranted about ;-). --Stephan Schulz 23:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that that's resolved, did you have an opinion on the discussion itself? - jc37 00:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you mean to ask whether Stephan had "an opinion on the diskucion itself"? :*) --Richard 16:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please - anyone can make a typing error. Let's not make fun of another user.--Runcorn 19:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Creative Commons credit

I was discussing whether we legally need to give credit to the photographer of a creative commons Attribution-ShareAlike on the article page. I can't imagine we legally need to do so. If so, we need to edit a whole lot of articles to credit photographers. Garion96 (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

'Attribution' means you must credit the source. Tra (Talk) 22:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but credit is already given on the image page. Garion96 (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the bit where you mentioned 'article page'. Yes, putting it on the image page is fine because it's still available for anyone who wants to look. Tra (Talk) 22:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought as well. Garion96 (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

External link spam - adding to list

How do I get a URL added to the automatic block list? --ArmadilloFromHell 04:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

meta:Talk:Spam blacklist --  Netsnipe  ►  05:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:DAB

Hi everyone, I would like to know whether there are any guidelines for disambiguation pages about the country names, such as Italy (disambiguation) or Germany (disambiguation). There is a revert war on Russia (disambiguation): one opinionated user attempts to list all Russian states throughout history, such as Kievan Rus or Republic of Novgorod. Such a list would be endless. I don't think anyone would search for "Republic of Novgorod" under "Russia"; there is really no ambiguity here. Furthermore, he adds to the article numerous "see also"s, leading to irrelevant articles such as Rugians. User:Mikkalai tried to talk with him (without avail); I hope that a wider discussion of the issue will be productive. Please share your opinions. --Ghirla 09:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambig pages are for routing backlinks to the right place, rather than creating a list. If there are existing backlinks that refer to the new entries, then they could be kept. If there's no possibility that backlinks would ever refer to them, then they could be deleted. --Interiot 09:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup. One can create something like "list of Russian states throughout history". It could be linked to from the DAB page but even that is not really part of the intended use of DAB pages. Pascal.Tesson 10:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

frustration with possible Vanity article

I have looked through Misplaced Pages’s Help Section but have not found it very useful (I’m sorry) in dealing with this, so I am asking for help here…

I have been frustrated trying to edit what may be a “vanity” post, and one with what I thought is a particular noticeable POV. The article in question is on libertarian author Jim Powell. The original author keeps making and remaking the same changes and undoing other's edits.

He deletes references to Powell’s current publisher. The current publisher is a conservative political press, not an academic one. Since Powell contends he is a historian I think this is relevant information and did my best to add it without any POV.

The original author keeps adding what could be considered “puff words” about all the libraries Powell uses. Anybody can use a library. Does it make the author more believable if he lists the many he visited? Judging from his book’s footnotes he relies on secondary sources and not archives.

The original author keeps re-added phrases about how great Powell’s writing is. Fine, but there is no sourcing and no reference to any possible negative reviews.

FYI: I noticed the IP address that wrote the article and that continues to edit it can be traced to a Travel Agency in new York City. Powell used to write for travel magazine in NYC. Possible sock-puppet??

I started a talk page on the original article but the original author has ignored it. Hanover81 14:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

First Person Accounts

Are first person accounts appropriate for Misplaced Pages? I was in a train wreck a number of years ago. When I found an entry for it I posted a first account of my experience which was pretty remarkable (I was shot out the train and landed on the tracks). Another person, a very experienced Wiki contributor, deleted it saying that first person accounts are inappropriate. Is this correct?

Taganwiki 21:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is a Tertiary source. All information must come from, and be Verifiable from, independent Reliable Sources. First-person accounts are not acceptable. Fan-1967 21:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, Misplaced Pages, like most encyclopedias, is both a secondary and a tertiary source, since we provide summaries, comparisons, and superficial analysis of primary and secondary sources. Deco 23:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

First person accounts of that sort probably do not meet "encyclopedic" standards so it was probably right to remove it.

The policy is less strict than Fan-1967 says above, however. Primary sources are acceptable material if using them is non-interpretive. There are raging flame wars all the time about primary vs secondary sourcing, so I won't explain that any further. SchmuckyTheCat 21:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

However, just to be clear, an eyewitness or participant editing an article to add material that is otherwise unverifiable is not accepted practice. Fan-1967 21:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• You need to post your account somewhere else, and then we can reference it here. Misplaced Pages doesn't have inherent reliability or credibility of academic peer review or eyewitness knowledge; instead we have the verifiability of having our sources open to anyone to check. If you post your primary souce elsewhere, it can be cited in the article to flesh out details and linked as further reading. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This would come down to "own research". I've gotten to the point where I've even been deleting perfectly believeable stuff that I myself wrote before, but didn't supply any references for. I've also been telling other people that if they have some interesting experiences to share, just publish it somewhere else first -- your own hope page for all I care -- and then perhaps we'll quote and reference you (alas, most of them suffer from writer's block). In this case you could do it all on your own -- just don't try to plagiarize yourself, as that would set a bad example! :-)) --Jwinius 22:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to supply original research, Wikinews allows original research. Tra (Talk) 23:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all for the clarification - I am new to this. Actually most of my account was recorded in TV interviews and newspaper articles right after the accident. So I would need to reference those shorter peices rather than the longer and more complete summary that I just wrote. Incidentially some of those articles had errors in them so sometimes the secondary sources are not as reliable as primary.

Taganwiki 23:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A word of caution. Publish it somewhere on the web you can well do, but I doubt very much that it would be considered a reliable source, and any other editor would be justified in removing it. It is preferable to use news articles and the like, as these are mostly considered to be reliable. In response to your last argument, we are after verifiabily, not truth. Zunaid 10:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You have FPS with games and FPA in encyclopedia authoring. How to :

• Just upload some media (picture, drawing, audio) and tell that you did it yourself. Try it and be happy (hint : fake a newspaper page and upload a pic : your text is primary and may stay. Do not tell that I told you.) -- DLL 19:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ook!

I see that Ook!_programming_language has been deleted. When I read Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ook! programming language I see that there was no consensus. Does "no consensus" mean delete an article? -- SGBailey 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, but an article can always be nominated again, especially when there isn't a clear keep. Here's the renomination: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ook! programming language (second nomination) In the seoond discussion, some months later, the result was Delete. -- Fan-1967 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you do a "what links here" on a deleted page? -- SGBailey 22:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Silly me - you go to the empty edit page and there is a "What links here" in the margin. -- SGBailey 22:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Concerning AOL users

As AOL uses a system where multiple users have the same IP address, we end up with the rather bothersome situation where people are being locked out of Misplaced Pages for the actions of other user on their IP. In effect, a thousand people are being punished for the acts of one.

Might I suggest that AOL users be made to create accounts if they wish to edit wiki articles? I know that seems somewhat unfair, but as stated, so many people are using the same address simulataneously that if one user gets punished, the rest get punished unfairly. If AOL users were made to create accounts before they were allowed to edit, then instead of blocking the IP, only the accounts that were causing problems would get blocked. HalfShadow 02:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please see WP:AOL. AOL is making some changes that are beneficial to us. >Radiant< 09:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to replace NOR and V

All editors with an interest in good sourcing are invited to review a proposal to replace Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability with one policy: Misplaced Pages:Attribution. The proposal picks up the key points from NOR and V, and has some additional allowances regarding the types of sources used in pop culture articles, to make things easier for editors working in that area. The proposal cuts out the fluff from NOR and V; and having one policy rather than two should reduce the potential for confusion and inconsistency. SlimVirgin 10:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the concept of merging those two policies into one is a really good one. However, I think some of the language of the proposed policy could use work. I think some of the examples could be a lot clearer, and I'm not sure relying on Jimmy Wales quotes is really a good idea. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Block Immunity" of Certain IPs

What's the policy/procedure regarding the blocking of IPs that are of an institution with multiple computers using the same IP? Take for example 193.171.151.129. Do we keep blocking the school for 24-hour periods and hope one day it'll stop? And what does the "efforts will be made to contact to report network abuse" mean? Who will do this? -newkai t-c 14:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I usually block repeat offenders like this for a month (or more) if I think no one's watching. If the school wants kids to edit, then they can police their kids. --Golbez 21:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. If they are serious about contributing they can create an account or ask for unblock. This is not a life support system. ←Humus sapiens 00:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that we have the tools to do so, we can cut down on collateral damage by ticking the two checkboxes – block anon only, and block account creation – when placing such a block. Blocking anons only will cut out the majority of vandalism, and blocking account creation will get pretty much all of the rest (nobody creates an account just so that they can go to school and vandalize Misplaced Pages). Meanwhile, established editors can log in without any trouble. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Do editors notify schools of vandalism?--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That anon-only blocking sounds like a good solution. -newkai t-c 09:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, blocking account creation for school computers seems like a really bad idea to me, unless we could somehow be in touch with the school administration in case they had a class project involving wikipedia and needed the block lifted during the signup period. Besides, if the kids really want to vandalise during school hours they could just sign up a bunch of accounts from their ("unblockable") AOL accounts at home. --SB_Johnny||_books 21:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That's true but I think that, in most cases, vandals are not that motivated. Especially high school casual "look what I wrote on Misplaced Pages" vandals. Vandalizing Misplaced Pages is one way to face the boredom of being in the school library, this simple solution simply makes it a slight hassle to do so and should be well enough to drastically reduce the problem. Pascal.Tesson 21:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Class projects that involve editing Misplaced Pages can be problematic for us, by the way. See Misplaced Pages:School and university projects and its talk page for some thoughts about it. FreplySpang 22:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

For "efforts to contact ", see WP:ABUSE. You can report repeated IP vandalism there, or volunteer to help contacting schools. (Apparently it's currently backlogged.) FreplySpang 22:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What are they going to do? Hold a meeting with kids not vandalize Misplaced Pages!? If the administrators are patently interested in lifting a block, then that's a different story. -newkai t-c 00:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you asked what efforts are made to contact the school. That's the one I know about. Personally I have no objection to just blocking school IPs. FreplySpang 00:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That is true, I did ask that, my mistake... Didn't mean for it to sound so harsh. I guess I am just asking a further question... I don't see schools seeing vandalism to Misplaced Pages as abuse. I think they're more worried about hate mail, pornography, copyright vios, etc. -newkai t-c 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem :-) I think different schools have different levels of tolerance. Sometimes the school admins are genuinely interested in finding out exactly when vandalism occurred so they can compare it against their usage logs, and track down the individual offenders. Also, one way these things can work out is that a school admin says, "Don't bother with these little 1-week blocks, just block us indefinitely." FreplySpang 00:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is a group of kids will get a certain free or library time every day, during which they'll vandalize Misplaced Pages, get blocked for 24 hours, right in time for them to do it again. I don't see why editing can't be blocked for a week. The school network can still view articles. -newkai t-c 00:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Deletion Policy

An article I was watching was recently proposed for deletion. I replied about this on the talk page, but was ignored and the article was deleted without any arguments to counter mine. Is this how it's supposed to happen? The article in question was QDB.us. Peaceduck 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not how it's supposed to happen. There are 3 different deletion methods; Speedy deletion, Proposed deletion, and Articles for deletion (AFD). By your comment I'm guessing it was either Proposed deletion or AFD. If it was Proposed deletion, then if you didn't think it should have been deleted, then you should have removed the template and commented on the talk page. If it was AFD, then you should have followed the link in the template to a seperate talk page just for the deletion debate and commented there. The way you did it, I imagine no one even knew you commented. If you think it should be restored, you might want to comment at deletion review. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 17:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: It seems it was AFD afterall. Here's the debate. Now you know for future reference. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 17:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• You can go to WP:DRV if you believe a deletion to be in error. >Radiant< 15:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Accumulated Blocks Policy

I had the idea of a policy on Misplaced Pages, in which if a registered user accumulates a certain number of blocks (100?) of any length and/or form, he/she is permanantly/indefinitely banned from ediitng Misplaced Pages. The fact is, there are some users that just never learn. I'm not going to point any fingers, but I have seen some users with incredibly long block logs and warnings, but that keep going at it (whatever it may be: vandalism, pushing POV, disrespect for other users, etc). Of course, this scenario is very unlikely and most users do eventualy stop if they have accumulated enough blocks, but in some cases this might sort out some problems. Any comments? --NauticaShades 19:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a bad idea. A good "line in the sand" would be 25 blocks. Rama's arrow 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

To add, maybe after 20 blocks the user should hauled up for an RfC and subsequent mentorship/probation. An indef block should only happen if a 24th block is exceeded. Rama's arrow 20:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

100 blocks? I think Misplaced Pages is too tolerant for its own good if there are people still around after that many offenses. --tjstrf 20:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This plan seems silly and not thought out. If someone is causing enough trouble that they have a hundred blocks, there should be a RfAr or other determination to ban them altogether. However, some people have been editing for over four years, and some blocks have been acquired for trivial or mistaken reasons. A raw count doesn't take into account any of this, and banning of a consistently disruptive user shouldn't be dependent on the number of blocks the user has had before. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If you note my second comment, I did ask for an RfC/RfAr/mentorship/probation process to begin after say, 20 blocks. Rama's arrow 20:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Count is the wrong metric. Frequency is the right metric. Misplaced Pages has been around for years, and hopefully will be around for years longer. Even the best editors occasionally lose their cool, and may need a temporary block to calm down (never mind mistaken or trivial blocks). If someone only had a short block every few months, who cares how many they have had. GRBerry 20:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

True. It would also be wrong to create a new policing category just because of a few rotten apples that are unlikely to spoil the bunch. The present system does its work in a way that keeps the overall project healthy, even though many individual cases may create heartburn. Rama's arrow 21:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pointless idea. By the time someone accumulates a hundred blocks, they'll either have been here for decades, or they'll have been banned for exhausting the community's patience. --Carnildo 01:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Of course, this scenario is very unlikely...". Well, that just about says it all. It's just not worth our while to create policy for situations that don't happen. If someone makes it to an absurdly large number of blocks (forget a hundred—there are vanishingly few editors who hit even ten non-indefinite blocks) without finding himself banned outright (by the community, by the ArbCom, or by Jimbo) then there's probably something unusual about the circumstances. We don't want to get hamstrung by a fixed, inflexible policy that didn't anticipate those unusual circumstances. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep in my 100 was just an idea. It could very easily be anoter number. Besides, it is possible, I've seen somebody with a number of blocks in the 60s range. NauticaShades 05:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Such people usually end up banned by either the ArbCom or the community. We don't really need a formal policy for a cutoff point, which would be gamable. >Radiant< 15:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

administrator behavior

I have a question - if an editor is an administrator on another language Misplaced Pages or sister project, but there is evidence that he/she is breaking WP policies and behaving in a disruptive and boorish fashion on the English Misplaced Pages, can action be taken against that editor on the project where he/she is an administrator, based on this evidence? Rama's arrow 20:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, that is a question for the other project, based on that projects standards. But I'd doubt it. Last I knew, usernames are project specific. So there isn't even a solid basis for saying they are the same person unless they have said so on their userpage on both projects. GRBerry 21:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - yes it does look a bit murky. Even enabling email only goes so far. My worry comes from the fact that while English WP composes of many nationalities, other language WPs are far narrower and may suffer from deeper systemic bias. Admins there may not be mentally educated to not spread such bias or POV. Rama's arrow 21:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please remember each community is self-governing. What is against a policy at en.WP may not be so in another language of WP. It is hard to remember the subtle changes policy when switching communities. A kind reminder as to what the specific policy at en.WP may be a better response than starting a campaign to desysop them in another community.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem with autobiography nutshell

The nutshell version of WP:AUTO appears to be confusing and too 'agressive'. Comments appreciated at Wikipedia_talk:Autobiography#Confusing_nuthsell.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

external complaints

Browsing through random articles, I came across a rather strange dispute: Joko Beck. I've read the debates (here, there, and everywhere), and I was quite suprised by the power that a complaint made directly to "those above" has. Although I understand the reasoning behind the removal of the content, I can't help thinking that if there had been no threat, no-one would have considered the content a problem (especially since it could have been phrased: "Beck claims to have these clients: ..."). This lead me to think that we should have a tag for saying that external complaints or legal threats have played a part in making the article what it is. At least we'd know when the content really is community-based, and when it's been decided by the powers that be. Any ideas? yandman 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching that article for several weeks, as it goes through a revert and POV war, (it does not say much for enlighted beings), and this latest censorship is very upsetting. I think any article that's censored like this, should be reduced to a minimal one sentence description, tagged with a censorship banner and locked. If the "bad" is censored, that the article should not have any "good" either. --ArmadilloFromHell 21:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't have upset me as much if I had known right from the start. It's disappointing to start off thinking this is a community project, and then see articles like this hit a brick wall because someone's lawyers have complained. yandman 21:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

See WP:BLP. Simple thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly: WP:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_source. "When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.". The statement "Beck claims to have these clients: .... " is sourced, by his statements, and these are reliable in that context. To sum it up: A statement made by a person is a reliable source concerning that statement. How can that not be so? yandman 11:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement "Beck claims to have these clients: .... " should be sourced by reports in reliable secondary sources including the claims (see wikipedia:reliable sources). A statement directly made by a person is a primary source, which (unless the statement is quoted by a secondary source) is very hard to verify. The guidance from WP:BLP reflects this. Summing up slightly differently: A statement made by a person is sufficient for deleting conflicting unsourced statements, but is not sufficient as a source for adding content. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I still think that we should be shown the complaint, or at least told that there was one. I prefer transparency. yandman 14:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:User page

Should we semiprotect Misplaced Pages:User page? It looks like it gets destroyed a few times a day by some new user trying to create their own user page. Fan-1967 20:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for page protection should go to WP:RfPP, not here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't requesting it; I was proposing the idea for discussion. This is the right place for that. Fan-1967 22:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's been established previously that high traffic isn't cause for protection or semi-protection. We could, of course, add a note to the top of that page's source warning users of this problem. Fagstein 07:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a note at the top of the page source (visible only if they edit it). Hopefully, it will discourage users who get that far. Fan-1967 12:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Semp'ed for now, but please add requests to WP:RPP in the future. In response to Fagstein, it's been established that high traffic is no cause for protection of articles. Misplaced Pages:User page is not an article. >Radiant< 14:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit limit

I am sick and tired of seeing fanatical POV-pushers taking over wikipedia articles. A detailed explanation of this is at User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy and User:Infinity0/Wiki disclaimer. What I suggest is simple.

• Any user may only make x edits to an article* per 24 hours.

*in the article/template namespace and any others prone to dispute, but not talk pages

My first proposal for x would be 10. See, this does not harm normal people in any way, since 10 edits is quite a lot, and there is always a preview button. But, this would really slow down disputes, where two or more people keep editing against each other. -- infinity0 23:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And I don't mean "If they make x+1 edits they get blocked", I mean "it is technically impossible to make more than x edits to the same article in one day." -- infinity0 23:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. What if you've made 10 edits, and then the page is vandalized, then you can't revert it! —Mets501 (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Ownership of articles.... this is a terrible idea. -- Steel 23:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a bad idea. What about fast-moving articles like Cory Lidle that had multiple edits per minute. Also, what about WP:AIV, etc. It also would severly limit vandalism reversions. Naconkantari 23:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this idea does have its flaws, and thanks for pointing them out. However, the aim is to improve the idea and remove these flaws. Fanatical POV-pushers is certainly a problem on wikipedia. You may not have come across any, but for the people who have, it is hell. A few further thoughts:

For reverting vandalism, edits made directly after an IP edit don't make the counter go up. If someone happens to edit the article just before you revert (and this happens enough times in one day to make your counter run out), well, get someone else to do it.

For "Current Event" articles, an admin could have the option to mark the article as "open" so that these counters don't apply.

-- infinity0 23:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This edit limit thing is not going to happen in a million years. -- Steel 23:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Don't knock it 'til you've tried it. ;) I assure you, fanatical POV-pushers are a far worse problem than vandals. Vandalism is obvious. Fanatical-POV pushing isn't. -- infinity0 23:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• We just had this discussion here. Look a bit further up this page for the section on POV Pushers. --Improv 00:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What happens when someone just starts editing anon then? after the 10 edits. Ban them for sockpupptery? even if their edits are sensible? What about anon users? You can limit registered users to x edits per account, but an anon user who's ip keeps changing (as in they're not doing it, their internet connection is just that way) will be able to edit the article 20, 30...100 times? How can we enforce this rule? What if it's a relatively unknown article, but for some reason...on one day, a bunch of people start vandalising it. Every revert is one edit. And if the article is a relatively unknown/small article, not many regulars will have it on their watchlist. So when the 11th vandal attack happens, would we need a specific place for people to post revert-requests because they've already done their 10 edits per day? What about ip addresses that are shared (i.e. by a school)? So does that mean the whole school can only edit an article 10 times a day? Now you can say people at the school can just create their own accounts, so their 10 edits a day does not overlap with the school IP's 10 edits per day. But then how do you know when an account is a genuine new account, and when it's just someone needing more edits per day? Regardless of whether this proposal is good in philosophy, it's impossible in practice. Which makes it almost useless. --`/aksha 00:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Misplaced Pages adopted a new guideline last month to deal with disruption. Check out WP:DE. Regards, Durova 19:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

To expand a bit on the current articles issue. Even if we allow admins to mark an article as open (which is going to add unnecessary work and delay articles) what about new articles which aren't current events? Some users write the whole article somewhere e.g. in a subpage on their usepager (or in a text editor) but others prefer to slowly work on an article on wikipedia. With this proposal we will basically force users to use their userpage. Also, even non-new articles, a editor might find a stub or some other article in bad need of work. Again while some will use the subpage, many will edit the article directly. While editors should use the preview (and a subpage might be better), many forget and in many cases an editor may keep finding their is stuff they need to correct or improve. I'm sure you can come up with numerous proposals to try and work around this like more admin tagging, excluding new articles, excluding stubs, even making special editors who are excluded from the limit but all this is just creates more work and in the end some editors are going to be discouraged by all the complexity. The key problem with the proposal is that just because an editor is majorly changing an article doesn't mean their a POV-pusher. In many cases major edits should get consensus but in other cases an editor can majorly change an article well and it's not necessary to ask first (e.g. because it's a stub or is so bad anything is better then what's there). Therefore any attempt to limit edits to try and stop POV pushers is also going to stop legitimate editors who are drastically improving an article and removing POV! Nil Einne 09:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus II

This is in response to some discussions I've been seeing (primarily at WP:RfA, but elsewhere as well).

I think we should standardise what we use to determine consensus.

I am breaking the earlier suggestion into two separate groups for discussion. - jc37 00:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Quorum

• In order to claim concensus, a minimum quorum of 6 editors in the discussion is required.
  

(Originally I suggested 5. I would be interested in discussing rationales for quorum numbers.)

I think the minimum of 6 should be required to prevent WP:BITE, and just any sort of bullying. ("Me and my two friends say what goes around here, in this here article.") - jc37 00:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• While we don't need a strict cutoff point, a consensus of a small group of people is not representative of the consensus of a larger group of people. It is relatively easy to make a decision with <10 people, it gets progressively harder if more are involved, yet also more important. >Radiant< 14:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I honestly am not sure what you are trying to say, could you please elucidate? - jc37 20:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • I mean that if five people agree on something and call it consensus, it's possible for ten other people to join the discussion and have a wholly different opinion, thus swaying consensus in the other direction. Of course, consensus among a large group of people is more important than consensus among a small group. Ideally, we want consensus of the whole wiki, but since that's a practical impossibility we'll settle for a well-advertised discussion amongst whoever wants to join it. >Radiant< 09:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nah, per my previous objections. Basically, issues are fluid in size and outcome and there are already policies in place to prevent bullying. Basically, you get two mates who ride in and say, yeah, well how about dispute resolution then. And it isn't even going to solve the problem. Some issue don't get 6 participants. Period. That's why we have third opinions. People who feel they have been bullied should go the usual channels, WP:RFC, WP:DR and other venues. Raise a stink, build a better consensus. We don't do binding decisions so we don't need to be bound on how many people make any non-binding decision. Steve block Talk 15:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• While I would honestly normally agree with you, that's not been my experience. The problem (as even stated as the last line on the consensus page itself), is that the word "consensus" is thrown around, and often incorrectly. I think that enacting a minimum quorum should deal directly with this issue. Imagine you and a friend made a decision 2 months ago. And 3 newbies show up with an idea, and you tell them that it was already determined by consensus that we do things this way... (And that goes on a lot.) Is that accurate? At least with the minimum quorum, I would feel more comfortable stating that a consensus was determined. Can 2 or 3 people be bold? Of course. And does a third party opinion help with that? Of course. A third party opinion isn't to determine consensus, it's for dispute resolution. I do find it interesting how in the last discussion, and in this one that "dispute resolution", "being bold", "supermajority", and "consensus", are all being melded and merged together as if they are the same thing, when each seems to serve a different purpose. Part of what I'm trying to suggest here is that we need to clarify all of this. Yes, We could "be bold" and make the changes to the various guidelines and pages, but I think discussing it here (and possibly following it up with an RfC, once things have coelesced somewhat) is the better way to go, since I would prefer consensus, over being bold in this case. This is all about choice: Do we look for consensus? Do we act and be bold? Do we ignore all rules? (and for that matter: Do we do nothing?) I think that we have many project pages discussing around these topics, but I think we lost the clarity, hence the confusion. - jc37 20:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• What you do is you judge the situation, and then you discuss, and you keep on discussing until a consensus builds. The idea in all of this is that everyone in the discussion is interested in reaching an agreeable solution. That's the basic premise of all our policies. You can be bold. You can ignore all rules. But you have to discuss those instances where people are bold or ignore all rules in reverse. Consensus is just a fancy way of saying we reached an agreement. Say in your example 3 people reach an agreement and one person shows up an disagrees. Now obviously, the three people are first off going to say, look, we just discussed all this, here's a link, have a read through see what you think. That's not bullying. The one person can read it all through, see if he feels it's something he can sign up to or discuss his own view. But this one person has only a few options. To change the other three's minds and get a new consensus, to argue but fail to change their minds and accept it as a loss, to reach a new compromise or to expand the discussion with outside views. That's the nub of it, and I don't think it matters how many people you get in a decision, a way of doing things is a way of doing things and I don't think you're going to be able to tell three people that have all agreed the same thing that they haven't reached a consensus. I don't think the word can be put back in the bottle like that anymore. All our policies do eventually amount to the same thing, at least from my point of view: they're all part of a chain which says that this is a collaborative effort and that we have to work together. Whether we work together in groups of one, two or many, it doesn't matter. We have to work together. Steve block Talk 00:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I would have to disagree that any minimum number is necessary to achieve "concensus". I think logically thinking individuals who understand the basic 5 pillars and general policies of Misplaced Pages can come together and bury their POV axes to come to a concensus with most articles. I have done this numerous times with just one or two other editors on so many occasions that my head spins to think of when this didn't happen.

Where I came under the worst sorts of problems are the relative newcomers who have a general understanding of project policies to become policy lawyers invoking all kinds of rules and exceptions, and try to put you down (especially newcommers.... like said above see WP:BITE) I my case I either lay off for awhile and let the idiot try to damage the article until he/she burns out, going back to fix it, or I pull up my "credentials" as a long-time Wikimedia user and tell them to go take a hike. But that is usually a last resort.

The problem I do see, and think is reasonable, is to assume too quickly that you have come to a concensus when in fact you havn't given enough time to the "community" of people interested in the content to achieve concensus. Generally speaking, one week is hardly enough time to reach a major conclusion, even though this is very common here on Misplaced Pages to consider the one week to be sufficient time to reach a conclusion. For very minor things of no consequence, and that can be easily reversed later, that isn't so much of a big deal.

In other words, if you want to make sure you have concensus on something, just be a little more patient. If after awhile only you and one other editor come to some agreement to do something and nobody else has even added their $0.02, go for it. That is part of being bold. How long "awhile" is, of course, up to personal interpretation. --Robert Horning 00:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Supermajority

• For situations which require a supermajority, a two-thirds (67%) majority is necessary for success in determining concensus.

I think the minimum should deal with several issues of cases which currently require the "higher" percents of 75-80. - jc37 00:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly like either of those suggestions. Consensus by defintion means everyone agree. Even though 100% is impossible, it's still what people should look towards. That's the spirit of it - consensus means you try to get a solution that everyone agrees on. Setting a numerical percentage, whether that be 60% or 80% is just sending out the wrong message. It's as if saying "if we achieve 80%, then that's good enough, that's a consensus, we can stop trying and just go ahead". It makes 80% the 'goal', and not 100%. Sure, 100% is not practical in most cases, so people set rough guilelines to help decide when consensus has been reached. But the rough guildlines are just rough guildlines, making an actual hard policy of "consensus = x-percent" is just wrong. Same with the quorum bit. A three people agreement can be a consensus if only three people are involved. 10 people can still gang up on a few new people. If anything, this will only allow people to manipulated and game what a consensus is. Do we currently have a problem of being unable to agree on when a consensus has occured? Because if not, i don't see why we need to fix a non-existant problem. --`/aksha 00:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Setting arbitrary, hard numbers is a bad idea. Consensus is about discussion, and we should leave room for judgment calls to counter any attempts to game the system. Fagstein 07:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, that's not how things entirely work. Note what I say above: "For situations which require a supermajority...", not "In all situations which require consensus". Check out RfA, for example. If someone has 83 supports, and 37 opposes, do you think that that person should be considered to have concensus to be an admin? If you say that you would like to see what was said, what if there were 20 support comments, and 3 oppose, and the rest just said support or oppose, with the occasional "per so-n-so". Now what do you think? Under our current system, I don't believe that that person would become an admin. We have similar situations on XfD. Should only 3 comments (or less) on an XfD (especially since they are under a time constraint) - even if unanimous, be enough to determine deletion? What I am suggesting is placing these in order to replace any other arbitrary supermajority requirements which may be higher. - jc37 08:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

...exactly what is XfA? The problem with setting wikipedia-wide guildlines on what a consensus is that differnet types of disagreements/problems need to be treated differently. I've noticed how requests for adminship seem to be very much of a calculate % support. This is different to say, articles for deletion, where sometimes an article can be deleted even if it doesn't have so much support...because there are very good reasons to get rid of it. Actual disagreements about article content is even more complex. There are usually many possible solutions. If we say 80% is consensus, then it means we consider 80% good enough. Which means when people get 80% support for one solution, they may stop looking for alternatives. Where as in truth, a better alternative may exist that pleases even more people. It's not black and white, not like RfA...where it's basically either oppose or support. Setting a hard number on how much support constitutes consensus is fine for something like that, where there are two obvious options. But for actual disagreements on articles - consensus should be as close to 100% as practically possible. I think if RfA currently has problems, then it needs to be addressed specifically - as in some discussion is needed specifically about consensus in RfAs. I don't see trying to set general consensus guildlines for everything as practical at all. --`/aksha 09:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe he meant "XFD". I wish people would stop citing "requests for adminship" as an example for consensual discussions, as it's pretty much the odd-man-out in that it is about editors rather than content. At any rate, the problem with putting any numerical line to consensus is that it discourages compromise and addressing concerns, and encourages simply rounding up more people that agree with you. A good consensus is usually a compromise. A supermajority usually isn't. >Radiant< 14:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I meant XfD (I changed it in the text above). Again, please note that I said "situations which require a supermajority". I didn't say "situations which require a consensus". Or are you saying that we shouldn't have any (except perhaps RfA) situation which requires a supermajority? - jc37 20:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please define explicitly which situations you think require a supermajority. >Radiant< 09:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Again, I'm going to oppose. I think basing it on RFA is a bad idea, not least because the idea that a supermajority as defined by numbers is the pass mark appears to have been disregarded by those who make the call. Steve block Talk 16:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Can you give an example of them disregarding the numbers? (AFAIK, the carnildo resysop was because they felt it shouldn't have been in RfA in the first place, rather than a statement about consensus.) - jc37 20:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have to agree with this, I have seen one too many articles where 1 or two people hold up the majority of editors and keep stating its not a concensus because 2 of 10 don't agree. A good example is the Iraq War article where an outstanding 24-3 in favor of keeping "war on Terror" in the infobox still got reverted because "concensus means everyone" and "it cant be included if there is no concensus", While I applaud Misplaced Pages for its play nice rules, it has to understand that with a bigger community not everyone is gonig to agree, no matter what the topic is. --NuclearZer0 16:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Those people should understand that consensus does not mean unanimity. The reality is that on certain controversial subjects, people will keep filibustering until the last straw. >Radiant< 09:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• What I have noticed is the word 'consensus' is used by some 'closers' of discussions when there was no consensus whatsoever. The closer counts up the votes, votes on the side he/she likes and says 'consensus' even if the total votes were only 1 more for his/her side! Trying to appeal such nonsense is not worth the trouble when you are up against WP lawyering experts who know every WP rule and how to get around or ignore every rule . Hmains 21:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• From my experience

1. Some issues are minor enough (like layout, sectioning) that a simple majority will do and people tend to understand that.
2. On complex issues, most editors will thrive for compromise to achieve consensus and will only start arguing that they have a majority/supermajority/consensus when no compromise is able to satisfy everyone.

In almost every case these simple rules are working fairly well. Yes, it does lead to odd compromises or stalls progress but I think that trying to codify the whole thing will make things worse. Pascal.Tesson 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• What Pascal said. Also, if you disagree with a closure, you can bring it up on e.g. WP:DRV; people aren't supposed to close a discussion that they were involved in, unless the result is blatantly obvious. >Radiant< 22:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Biased Intermediate Website as a Reference

There is currently a debate within the Quebec bashing Discussion page dealing with the propriety of using Vigile.net as an intermediate source. Of the 56 unique references currently cited, 21 direct the user to the Vigile.net website. The debate began with my objection. In short, my argument is as follows: 1) Vigile.net appears to be posting newspaper and magazine articles without permission, as such the accuracy of the transcriptions is called into question; 2) Vigile.net is a website with a clear political agenda, meaning the user is being directed not to the source, but to a biased intermediate website. It is my opinion that this runs counter to WP:RS guidelines; in particular that covered by the "Partisan, religious and extremist websites" section. I'd be interested in the views of others on this issue. Victoriagirl 02:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

List Namespace

I have made a proposal for introducing a seperate namespace for lists. Please suggest your views. Your response to the proposal is invited on proposal page. Shyam 19:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Prod's

What's the policy for signing your prod's? Are you suppose to, or should you just let the history do the talking for you? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Prod should focus on the article's content, not on the editor who wrote it or tagged it. Thus, you are encouraged not to sign your prods. >Radiant< 08:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Using quotes from a website that is the Wikipidia subject in order to illuminate the subject

If there is an Misplaced Pages entry about an entry and there are few outside references in order to explain it, Can one use various in context sections from the site and juxtapose them with contradictory quotes written by the same author in order to give readers a better understanding of this entry.

I ask because a casual visitor to the site may not notice anything but more indepth research into the many articles gives a clearer picture of the biases inherrant in the site.

I want to do this as objectively as possible and this seems to be a way.

Can one also take assertations from the site that are presented as facts and juxtapose them with facts from a objective reliable source. Of course this would be all done with links to the subject matter and references quoted.

I would like to write this but want to do it objectively. As an example one can juxtapose recorded words and actions by a politician that are contradictory to give an accurate portrayal of who they really are. as long as what you write is true.--Robbow123 00:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Quotes in general go on WikiQuote, not here. Other than that, I'm afraid I didn't quite follow what you're trying to say here, could you please give a concrete example or two? >Radiant< 09:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• I think I understand what the question is and I was and am involved in such a case regarding a heavily controversial article i.e. Prem Rawat who made contradictory statements regarding his divinity. The detractors of Prem Rawat tried to insert many quotes emphasizing claims of divinity, while proponents tried to insert many quotes emphasizing claims that he was mere human. The subject has spoken a lot and hence the predictable result was that the article became very unwieldy. The solution was to move all the quotes to wikiquote and resort to scholarly summaries, but when the scholarly summaries are not available in a dispute between factions then, I think, there will be a huge problem. SeeTalk:Prem_Rawat#Context and Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_19#Questions_for_P.Jacobi_and_should_we_refrain_from_editing.3F

Andries 10:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In an article about an entity that has a website, presenting the entity's own view of itself is certainly appropriate. Quoting from the website is a good way to accomplish that, because it uses the entity's own words but the quotation makes clear that this is what the entity itself says rather than what Misplaced Pages is asserting as fact. The availability of WikiQuote shouldn't mean that quotations from or about the article subject are barred from the text. JamesMLane t c 11:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but please re-read what I wrote, What to do when a subject has made contradictory claims? Should we fill an article with these contradictory quotes to present a balanced view? If not, how should this be done? Andries 11:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Put the quotes in Wikiquote and link to that page. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's a controversial issue then it's probably worth a section on the article with a couple of brief representative examples and citations or links to more comprehensive material. If possible, present some context to show whether this person's statements changed over time or varied according to circumstances (such as which audience was likely to encounter the material) - rely as heavily as possible on previously published material for this sort of analysis because it can bleed into original research. Also note the extent to which such contradictions are explainable as verifiable misquotes, typographical errors, or editing mistakes. Durova 01:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of foreign language on talk pages

I would like to know whether it is appropriate for several wikipedians of the same nationality, involved in a content dispute with wikipedians of another nationality, to use their native tongue for communication on their talk pages. When I requested them to provide a translation, my request was dismissed as "insulting". Is there any policy on this? I recall that in the past, when most people on Romanian and Polish noticeboards spoke to each other in their native languages and ignored requests to translate their communications into English, their conduct was reprimanded as stimulating evolution of national cliques. --Ghirla 13:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines says basically that, that it's a "good practice" to prefer English on talk pages, and to provide a translation if use of other languages is unavoidable. Though private non-logged conversations can and do happen, so I don't know how that squares with, say, use of IRC for Misplaced Pages:Spotlight. --Interiot 14:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. --Ghirla 14:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I also want to know what meausures I can undertake against somebody who explicitely insulted me of being a conspirator. Let's say that a X user who has no idea about the FA criteria, gets involved in a FA review, gets exposed by me because of his ignorance and then desperately tries to get revenge on me. As a result, he explitely accuses me of being a "conspirator", without any evidence. I really want to know if I can file an official complaint against him for this humiliating and unbacked slanders. I also want to know what punishment this user may face.--Yannismarou 14:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou, your accusations are both irrelevant and insulting. I'm not involved in any conflict with you. Please cool off. I have no idea what you are talking about and this is not the place to vent your anger. As best I know, Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a battleground and use of native languages in the English version of the project is discouraged. I just want to make it clear whether we have a certain guideline and whether adopting such a guideline would be reasonable. Happy edits, Ghirla 14:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your insult against me was totally inacceptable. We can clarify anything you want, but first I'll learn in detail how can take Wiki-legal actions against you. I don't allow to anybody to question my ethos. And those who do it face the consequences of their actions. These things are not under negotiation!--Yannismarou 14:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-legal action? Is that a threat? Martin 14:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the original comment, I could not initially find a policy or guide on the use of foreign languages on talk pages, certainly if it was used a lot it could be considered anti-social and is likely to reflect badly on the users involved, if users were using non-english to deliberately confuse another editor then this would more serious. Martin 14:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not say "legal". I said "Wiki-legal", meaning what procedures within Misplaced Pages I can follow. Were did you see the threats?--Yannismarou 14:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The only reason why I decided to seek advice on the policy (without mentioning names involved in the dispute, mind) was because you asked me to: "I want you to provide me eith specific rules and guidelines that oblige me to do what you ask me." I hope that you will realize your umpteenth threat and finally "report me to more than one administrators", providing a diff where I called you a "conspirator". Thanks, Ghirla 14:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou, we should all write in English. Consequently, you should either communicate directly in English or provide a translation of what you say (for instance, if quoting an author or something that you cannot translate well (a pun, a proverb and so on). Ignoring this rule is a basic incivility, since anyone should be able to read you and to reply you. As for attacks, either you have evidence, which you can bring to administrators, or you don't, but please don't make general statements like the one you did above. Thanks, Grafikm 14:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My accusations are specific. They are agaisnt Ghirla who called me a "conspirator". Ghirla can have the translations, if he wants them, but he'll be definitely reported by me for his unproven insults.--Yannismarou 14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

His comments don't look insulting to me at all, your comments however are aggressive and confrontational, please calm down. Martin 14:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarify please: _IF_ you provide him with translations, _THEN_ you will report him for something? What does your providing the translations have to do with whether or not you report him? Is that a threat against him? I don't quite follow. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have rephrased.--Yannismarou 14:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla's comments are aggressive elsewhere. Yannismarou is an excellent new editor, who has managed in very little time create Wikiproject:History of Greece and three (four?) Featured articles. Accusations for conspiracy, however, are not an excuse for strong language. Indeed, it is considered good 'wikiquette' to write in English. Ghirla, it is considered good 'wikiquette' not to accuse anyone (of conspiracy or whatever) unless there are solid proofs (diffs) to support it. On the other hand, WP cannot and has not forced English in the talk-pages. Furthermore, if someone indeed wants to 'conspire', they can do it via the perfectly the untraceable e-mail feature (in any language they feel like). Please try to solve this between yourselves, and keep WP:AGF as well as WP:AAGF in mind. My talk is welcoming for your further comments (this is not the place). •NikoSilver• 14:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Come on, NicoSilver, could you provide a diff where my comments are "aggressive" or where I called your friend a conspirator? I just noted that interactions in native languages just below the comment of a person, with whom you are in a serious edit conflict, may be interpreted as conspirational activities against him. Once you and Yannismarou adopt English for your conversations, there will be no room for suspicion on the part of your opponents (of which I'm not one, because I totally ignore details of your dispute). As a general observation, I do not like the climate in the Balkanese section of Misplaced Pages and I urge wikipedians from that part of the world to keep the level of their discourse above that of a sandbox. --Ghirla 14:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yet another case where too short nerves lead to a havoc. Frankly, I blame Yannis for lightning the spark, and I fail to see the purpose of this ridiculous wikilawyering on his side. Ghirla's initial request for translation perhaps wasn't overly filled with AGF, but it was stated politely and quite in line with WP:CIVIL. Yannis's outburst of this magnitude was IMO not justified. As a remedy, I suggest that two of you stay away from each other for a while, and that Niko provides the translations. Duja 15:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"I assumed it was not your intention to use your talk page for hosting what looks like conspirational activities, but your defiant response seems to prove that I was wrong." When I'm accused of hosting "conspirational activities" without any proof, I'm not insulted? Ghirla does not have the right to assume facts. He has to prove them. Make as many translations as you wish. You' ll see no conspiracy. And I still think I deserve an apology from Ghirla for this unproven slander ("host of conspirational activities"} against me!--Yannismarou 15:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"If you see that your enemies are multiple and you are alone, it's not worth it. You can't fight a tsunami, can you? I'm sure there are many Romanian editors who would help, if the conflict was that fundamental (but it was not)." Enemies Ghirla?! Enemies!!! Tsunami!!! Do we have enemies in Misplaced Pages?I I only strive for historical truth nothing else. I'm really sorry for your comments! Really sorry!! See my last edit in Talk:Phanariotes to see if am an enemy of Dahn or not. You don't have a clue about the historical backgrounds of these debates in Talk:Phanariotes and, nevertheless, you make such comments. I always tried to be NPOV and I alway tried to serve truth, although I had sometimes to disagree with other Greek Wikipedians. I don't deserve this attitude and I donot deserve these insulting comments and these implicit ironies. I'm happy you assume good faith! (And this is irony, yes!)--Yannismarou 17:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate Ghirla's last comments in my talk page and I also apologize for the tone of my answers to him.--Yannismarou 18:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of article talk pages

Someone just added a "history" of the city of Scappoose, Oregon on its talk page. I was about to commend the editor for his or her addition and point out that we would need better citation, etc., before the material was added to the main article. Then I read the whole thing and noticed this fine piece of creative writing moved from history to POV to patent nonsense. I am tempted to blank it, but I'd like some opinions first. Thanks! Katr67 16:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Blanking someones comments on talk generally only leads to escalation of conflict. Merely post a response saying that the above is nonsense, etc. Why deliberately provoke someone ? Wjhonson 16:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I just read it, and while some parts in the middle have a definate anti-environmental point of view, and some parts near the end desend into the relms of questionable notability, I don't think any of it is patent nonsense. I would not blank it. I would, if I were you, leave a comment about the first part being good and needing better citation, and then point out any specific concerns you have about the rest. Let them know that if good citation is provided and all the concerns are addressed this bit of history will be in the article. Try to work with them. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's a temporary content fork just to work on it a bit, it might be more productive for everyone if it was worked on in userspace, or at least not on the talk page (though a link to it could be left on the talk page so people are aware of it). If it's a permanent content fork (eg. they don't intend to follow our core policies and don't intend to ever integrate it back in), then that's discouraged, and speedy archiving might be appropriate. --Interiot 16:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, the bit about albino nutria saving the town of Scappose is nonsense. :) BTW, when searching on "albino nutria" I got a google hit on this talk page, so apparently this has come up before... Katr67 16:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Text of old Village Pump discussion is here. Katr67 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was the part you were refering to as nonsense ;). I did a quick search for nutria and came up with this redirect Nutria, so it apparently is a real animal which, while native to South America, has been introduced into Oregon and is considered a pest there, so there is at least a tid-bit of truth to that part of it. As for it saving the town from flooding... some people get some strange ideas into their heads. The person doing the writing may actually believe this. Insisting on a proper source should keep it out of the article as I doubt one can be found. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, nutria are indeed real. Albino nutria are indeed real, but sentient albino nutria that worked to save a small town in Oregon...that's a bit of a stretch. :D I don't think the editor in question acutally believes this. I think this is in the fine tradition of an Oregon tall tale and s/he is pulling our legs. Katr67 16:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Endemic Wiki-foolishness

It seems to me that in most articles that give information on how to pronounce a particular word, a bizarre, esoteric code is given. What kind of people use such a code, dare I ask? And how high are their ivory towers? And more to the point, what proportion of the English-speaking population would understand such a code? One in a million might be generous.

Example, from Zeitgeist:

Zeitgeist ((audio) (help·info)) is originally a German expression that means "the spirit (Geist) of the time (Zeit)". It denotes the intellectual and cultural climate of an era. The German pronunciation of the word is

ˈtsa͡ɪtga͡ɪst??? Oh, now I understand!

Why not just use a simplier code? Perhaps 'zIt-gIst" -- or just say that it rhymes with, oh, I don't know, "mice fight".

Cheers. Chris 20:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the International Phonetic Alphabet. The problem with ad-hoc phonetic systems or "rhymes with" is that ad-hoc systems are just as cryptic as IPA but without the advantage of standardization, while "rhymes with" only works for one specific accent. --Carnildo 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides, at least in my accent, "zeit" and "mice" use different vowel sounds. --Carnildo 20:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there's no reliable system of conveying proper pronounciation, I feel that it is a hideous joke, a slap in the face, to choose a standard code that has a high degree of complexity (bars, curves, dots, bolding, fonts etc. that virtually no one understands). Better to provide no pronunciation, than one that's so esoteric that you get English-speakers like me confused and angry about it. Chris 20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And then you get people like me who don't have special characters enabled and just see a bunch of squares. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, if you really want to know the pronunciation you can look up the details of the phonetic alphabet. You're making it sound like a horribly complex thing but it's actually pretty easy to pick up and has the advantage of universality. Moreover, a number of articles also give a more accessible "rhymes with" sort of guide or better yet a sound file. As for not enabling special characters, well... why exactly do you not enable them? :-) Pascal.Tesson 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well for me, it's a point of pride not to learn such things. Anyway, I give up. I certainly won't write any articles with IPA pronunciation, and I guess that's all I can say. Chris 21:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

While I certainly don't believe that all people are obligated in any way to learn every technicality of every specialized field (that's impossible within a human lifetime), I also find it rather perverse that anybody would actually be proud of being, and remaining, ignorant of a particuar point. Ignore the stuff that you don't know and aren't interested enough to learn, fine... but why take pride in it? *Dan T.* 22:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I also find it perverse, but accept that a pride in not learning is a major strand in anglophone, er, culture. I've just finished reading a book about polar expeditions, in which many of the Brits and not a few of the Youessians come off like fools compared with, say, the Norwegians: they didn't want to learn (from lesser races , etc.) even lessons that would have increased their own chances of survival.

But back to the initial outburst: what proportion of the English-speaking population would understand such a code ? One in a million might be generous. That's highly unlikely for at least three reasons. First, more than one in a million anglophones study linguistics to at least some degree (even as just one course in a liberal-arts year), and that most introductory linguistics books handle IPA. Secondly, more than one in a million anglophones are likely to use a dictionary that employs IPA, and to pay some attention to this. Thirdly, this page of WP (lacking a title or even a section heading that indicates that there's anything about linguistics or pronunication) is unlikely to attract a crowd particularly linguistics/pronunciation, yet several people have demonstrated that they're familiar with IPA.

Yes, IPA is a good thing. Get over it.-- Hoary 05:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you take such pride in not learning it, why are you asking for a change? -Freekee 01:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I support using IPA to illustrate pronunciation because ultimately, there are no better options. However, I think we should go for phonemic rather than phonetic transcription. This makes the learning curve much easier for those unfamiliar with IPA, illustrating the pronunciation while allowing for dialectical differences. There's no need to go into absolutely precise detail. For example, a transcription doesn't need to show that initial "t" is generally aspirated in English, or that vowels preceding nasal consonants (like m or n) take on a nasal quality. szyslak (t, c, e) 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This comes up fairly often. I recommend linking the IPA transcriptions to accurate sound files so that (at least online) people can hear what it sounds like, which is better than any system of transcription. Deco 22:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry if this comes accross as incivil in any way, but the following discourse just made me pull a spit-take (with a partly chewed bagel, nontheless):

• Chris: "Better to provide no pronunciation, than one that's so esoteric that you get English-speakers like me confused and angry about it."
• Pascal: "you can look up the details of the phonetic alphabet."
• Chris: "it's a point of pride not to learn such things."

Did it ever strike you being just ever so slightly absurd to willfully remain ignorant on a matter when you're attempting to co-author an encyclopedia? We should all be willing to learn new things here. --tjstrf 22:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's also worth noting that this discussion comes up very frequently. It's easy for people unfamiliar with the issues involved to think that there are better ways to do this for everyone, and it's easy for more established users to find this question coming up frequently irritating. It's important to note that while IPA remains the best thing we have so far, we should try to be careful in how we treat each other on this (frustrating to everyone) topic. --Improv 03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I've seen it come up 2 or 3 times myself. If it's really that bad, we could put it as a perennial proposal, but I don't think anyone actually reads those before posting their complaint. Makes the whole idea of having a list of perennial proposals rather useless... --tjstrf 05:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as the schwa is included, I say, go ahead and use any alphabet you want. --Badger151 04:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If we're throwing around ideas, why not just add schwa as a letter and deprecate X to symbol status? --tjstrf 05:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

spoilers

I think there should be a waiting period for adding spoilers to an article - maybe like a month after it's release/showing/etc. Pokemon Diamond and Pearl is rife with storyline spoilers. it's impossible to help edit the article without uncovering a spoiler. --172.163.213.41 05:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages community forums
• Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines
• To Village Pump (technical)