Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:12, 29 October 2007

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

• ]

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

Sexual orientation of non-heterosexual celebrities

Apparently, Misplaced Pages has a policy of mentioning the sexual orientation of celebrities who are known to be non-heterosexual. But celebrities known to be heterosexual/straight do not appear to have this information included.

While I can understand that heterosexuality is of little interest to anyone — what makes the other sexualities more interesting and more worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages?

There are many personal details about celebrities that most people would surely consider irrelevant to their public status, and unnecessary of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, such as their shoe size, hair colour, left-handedness, weight, race, etc. I don't see why their sexual preferences are any more relevant.

It may be relevant if the celebrity's sex life, or sexuality itself, are of particular relevance to their celebrity status or somehow feature in their work. In which case, the disclosure of their sexuality should surely be mentioned in relation to that, rather than in isolation.

So, rather than saying:

"Sarah is openly gay."

The article should say:

"Sarah is openly gay, her homosexuality playing a large part of her humour and often being the subject of public attention."

If the celebrity's homosexuality (or bisexuality) isn't actually relevant to their fame at all, it surely need not be specifically mentioned:

"Sarah has had numerous girlfriends, some of whom have appeared on the show with her." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand Dizzy (talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've always found this interesting, especially since there are no categories for straight people, but there are GLBTs. Perhaps its because heterosexuality is deemed "the norm", and not being "normal" is notable enough to discuss. SashaCall /_(Talk!) 22:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. How one perceives the whole issue aside, "I'm gay" simply carries more notability than "I'm straight" in most cases (a gay man suddenly saying the latter might be an exception). It might be a different story when the media dismisses it as commonplace. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We make mentions of people who were adopted (Category:Adoptees and its well-populated sub-categories) even when that fact has little signifiance to the subject's notability. We don't make mention of people who were not adopted, nor do we say that a politician won the majority of votes in their district, etc. In these cases, we are making a note when someone deviates from the norm. Most people are not adopted. Most politicans get a majority of votes. It's the case where there's an exception (e.g. Bush 2000) where it becomes of note. No value judgement is made. We aren't saying Adopted people are better or worse, and nor does the placement of someoe in a category imply much of anything. Yes, heterosexuality is considered the norm. But that's just the defintion of normal. 90-99% of the population (depending on where you take your figures. Demographics of sexual orientation notes that range, saying that there's a mean of about 95-96%) is heterosexual. That's the norm. Without having to make any value judgements at all, an attribute of someone who lies two standard deviations from the mean is generally worth mention. Heterosexuality is the norm. We can go for ages about why that is (i.e. biological or cognative), but at the end of the day, it is "normal" or "typical" to be heterosexual. --Ybbor 03:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP's for heterosexuals often note that they are married, have children (and sometimes give ages and even names of issue) which rarely has any impact on the subjects notability. Obviously the phrase "heterosexual" itself doesn't appear, but the orientation is obvious - and as irrelevant. LessHeard vanU 12:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, Oscar Wilde was married and had children... SamBC(talk) 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We have no such policy that strictly forbids or allows it. Its just standard practice combined with a few other policies. If a celebrity comes out as being gay, that fact would probably make the cover of every celebrity magazine and would be widely circulated on the internet. If a celebrity issues a press release saying that they are straight, the media is going to say "Who cares?" There just really aren't any sources that specifically mention things about celebrities that are considered "normal" - people wouldn't pay to read it so People isn't going to report it. If there are almost no sources saying something about someone, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to mention it in their article. If there are a lot of sources, then apparently people consider that to be a significant fact and we should probably include it. Mr.Z-man 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To Sambc, indeed - but it isn't relevant to Wildes notability other than an example of Victorian morality, whereas his homosexuality did effect both his work and his life. To Mr.Z-man, but the same celebrity lifestyle magazines are full of straight celebrities personal lives regarding girl/boyfriends, engagements and marriages; it is simply an assumption of heterosexuality rather than the publicising of it.LessHeard vanU 21:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But we can't use info like X is married to Y to source statements like X and Y are heterosexual. That would be synthesis. Mr.Z-man 05:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't synthesies, we often simply state that X is/was married to Y - and allow the reader to draw the conclusions. That said, X being married to Y is rarely of any consequence to the notability of the parties concerned. LessHeard vanU 12:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the determination to mention someone's sexual orientation should be made on a case-by-case basis. For celebrities, public figures, and historical figures, their sexual orientation could well be relevant, particularly if they are LGBT in an oppressive era or geographic location, or if they were closeted. If a public or historical figure was hiding something, that's usually interesting. It's also interesting if they are a role model because of their sexuality, or if they themselves have spoken about their sexuality. Like it or not, LGBT identity is more notable than straight identity, because we're in a historic period where LGBT issues are controversial and widely talked about. Plus, (1) LGBT people want LGBT role models, and (2) straight people are fascinated with LGBT identity.

For some people, however, it's just not really germane to the article. For example, who cares if an obscure Nobel Prize winner in physics or chemistry is gay? They are only notable because of the prize they won and for their scientific work. How is their sexual orientation relevant or even interesting? Another example might be authors who are not public figures. If someone is otherwise obscure and private, and is known only for their work or some notable event that has nothing to do with LGBT issues, I don't see how sexual orientation or identity is relevant or interesting.

On another point, I've always been bothered by statements that so-and-so are "openly gay", since we would never say someone is "openly straight". If the subject of an article is gay, and that fact is worth noting for some reason, then let's just say that they are "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual", or "asexual", etc. In the case of closeted living people, we can't comment on their sexuality, so for any mention of sexuality of living people, "openly" is a given, so why say it? For dead people, it may very well be relevant that a person was closeted, since that fact and their sexuality was likely very important to that person and those around him or her. But while we might comment that a dead person was in the closet, I don't see any need to ever use the term "openly gay", as if being open about your sexuality is something unusual. COGDEN 18:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been said before - part of the opportunity is that in other areas we mention that someone is or is not something, and expect the reader to conclude if we don't mention that they are either the other way inclined or of no public position on the issue - we don't for instance have many white people categories, but we are pretty equal on male/female cats. I think part of the advantage of using the category is that in part it is driven by the GLBT editors and community itself to recognise how normal the whole issue is, and that its OK to be gay - lets be honest, there is still unfortunatly homophobia in the world. Part of the brief of Misplaced Pages is to educate, and for that reason in this case I don't think we need a tag which relates to some form of openly hetrosexual - the tags and volumes of diverse people within the GLBT cats highlight just how normal the whole issue is. On your second (implied) point of how we write the sexuality in to the article, I think its best left to an article by article conclusion/debate - but unless the subject has said "hey, I'm openly gay" then using such a term in their article would seem NPOV. Rgds, - Trident13 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So we say that Dumbledore is simply "a closeted gay", rather than making a big, perverted fuss about it. Right?~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore is a character in a series of books, not a real person, and Rowlings identification of him as gay is more to do with how she saw the development of the character to what he is when the story of Harry Potter involves him. It is to be considered that Rowling is not gay herself, so her interpretation of how a persons homosexuality might impinge on their character is both likely theoretical and open to artistic license. Lastly, he's a ruddy wizard - not really based in the human experience, I would suggest. LessHeard vanU 19:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A long term solution will be tricky to find. A person's sexual preference should not, in my opinion, be any more notable than their eye colour. Unfortunately it seems that a homosexual soccer-player / politician / pop-star becomes more notable just because they've declared their sexuality. What do we do if they've been outed, but deny it? Also, sticking a label on someone seems a bit binary; maybe some people are a bit more complicated than "gay" and "not gay". (But I can't imagine saying that John Doe is 'a little bit gay'.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBealeCocks (talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The overhaul of UC (FD) - Do we need them?

Recently, I nominated Category:Wikipedians for deletion on UCFD, proposing the following rationale:

Nominator's rationale - The test tube nomination - This is no doubt going to raise a few alarms. After all, it would seem unthinkable, frivolous, and perhaps in bad faith to delete the core user category of Misplaced Pages, and thus throw all forms of self-categorization as comprehended by the Misplaced Pages community. Yet, this outrageous action does not come with no rationale.

• User categories are redundant - First, the prospect of the user category - in theory - is a fairly versatile and collective idealism. Users group together into a single category with their given knowledge or interest and this will be used to further the collaboration effort on Misplaced Pages. However, this is redundant to the Wikiproject. User categories are passive while Wikiprojects are active, and people who wish to seek collaboration on interests on an active scale can easily join a Wikiproject. Furthermore, any means of self-identification of interests can be done via userbox or identification on a userpage. If a Wikipedian is actively posting, he or she must therefore sign his or her signature, and a person who wishes to understand the position of this Wikipedian may merely click to the userpage and gather any information, or inquire as such.
• User categories are divisive - Wikipedians are, in fact, divided by user categories. Tensions regarding self-identification with political, religious, social, and sexual issues occur as a result, as previous debates on UCFD have shown in the past. The persistent roundabouts of the deletions of frivolous and potentially heated categories are a testament to this rationale. WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and such. In addition, there are categories present that indicate "notable" or "fantastic" Wikipedians, or those with community valor. There are alternate methods to present these symbols of status than through the user category system.
• User categories are staggering - ...and as a result, their purpose is lost. When you have an intensely large number of user categories in divisions such as Wikipedians by language, Wikipedians by ethnicity, or Wikipedians by location, one can see that it may seem far better to overhaul the user category system or merely provide sufficient indication by userbox/user page notice as a result.
• User categories are red tape - Really, would one actively search through user categories for a Wikipedian skilled in "foo" profession to aid in the construction or improvement of an article? It is more likely than not that the Wikipedian is already working actively on such an article, or it is already part of a Wikiproject.
• Conclusion: User categories need an overhaul, for better or for worse - Let's bring this to light. We need to do something to the user category system. Either an outright deletion, a depopulation, or a compression to something that we can make sense of. You may call me crazy, but I truly believe that something needs to be done to reshape this category.

I withdrew the UCFD later at the request of an administrator, who stated that he was currently in the process of overhauling the system, and that if any deletion was to be done at this level, it would be prudent to do so in a month. Yet consider my above statements; what has the user category system done for us that can be achieved more efficiently and satisfactorily with Wikiprojects, userboxes, user pages, and other Misplaced Pages think tanks?--WaltCip 22:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, you can share your abilities and knowledge on your userpage, but putting them in categories (which incidentally is automated when you use a userbox), makes it searchable. Having the ubercategory Wikipedians allows us to have a complete list to see what categories are available and deleting that would make the whole thing fall apart. I totally agree that categorization by political preference can be divisive, but that is hardly a reason to delete the top category. Category:Wikipedians itself is not divisive. If this really needs an overhaul, try to get an alternative started, before deleting the current system. - Mgm| 10:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Searchable? In all of my experience on Misplaced Pages, I have never found myself requiring the user categories. They should be used for strictly administrative purposes. There are people who are proposing the rationale that user categories are for self-identification, and that they are "harmless." If you look at a majority of the user categories that are kept for "collaborative purposes", you will find that the editors inhabiting those categories are in there because it "seems to fit my interests", not because they are a ready source of encyclopedic information. We have active editors for this purpose.
• It's going to take a LONG time to get an effective overhaul started by deleting the categories that identify these Wikipedians by game preference, interest, philosophy, religion, etc., through the UCFD system, because there are no doubt groups of Inclusionists who feel like their personal freedoms are being detached from them. So instead we have to delete everything at once, and start all over again. It's the only way to restore its intended path of efficiency.
• I may be alone in this, but I don't think that just deleting the categories one-by-one is going to work. Look at the recent UCFDs here attempted by jc37 if you don't believe me.--WaltCip 23:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Last time I checked, whatlinkshere was incredibly messy and I'd rather have a alphabetized list, than a haphazard random one. - Mgm| 17:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• One of the difficulties in the nominations is that rather than discuss the nominated categories in question, the discussions tend to devolve into debtes of whether all Wikipedian categories in general should be kept. Personally I see value in the Wikipedian category system. But in the recent set of nominations, I've been accused of all sorts of things. The problem, of course, is that WIkipedians categories may indicate a topical reference. If people "identify" with that reference, they'll fight like the dickens to oppose its deletion, even if they've never thought twice about such a thing in the past. And as the recent group nominations (by lifestyle, or by philosophy, for example) have criteria that is clearly about identification (This user is or identifies as an X), they're being suggested for deletion. What we need to hopefully have those users understand is that they should in no way take such deletions personally. (WP:OWN also comes to mind.) We're an encyclopedia project, and while our goal is indeed to foster a community, that community's goal is the creation of an encyclopedia. And while a userpage notice of identification is fine (though obviously of a positive nature), there is no need for categories of identification. And anyone who claims they are harmless is welcome to sit in my shoes the last several weeks. The opposers themselves have shown how clearly divisively polemic these identification categories are. There are currently 2 threads on WP:AN/I, for example. And for another, one Wikipedian has risked being blocked for a WP:POINT action, and another Wikipedian has made death threats (since retracted) against another editor. At this point, I think the best thing to do is to take this slow, and attempt to hopefully minimise the disruption. - jc37 02:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

admin creating a page

I’ve been tagging bad pages for CSD for a while now with no problems. Then I came on to Cars.com which i believe falls under A7 guide lines for CSD. Well it seem that the person that created it was an Admin. My question is does this fall under A7 for CSD and is the creator of that page allowed to remove the tag (and say it’s not a CSD) or is there some other process that needs to be done. I personally fell this admin is kind of abusing his powers and not going by policy, because he is the creator of the page. (look at the comments made on the history part of the page). So again does this fall und CSD A7 and is the creator of the page who is an admin allowed to remove the delete tag, or does he have to do the same thing as anyone else who creates a possibly bad page? Yourname 00:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• You've asked this several places... why didn't you just ask me (the admin in question)? A7 applies when there is not an assertion of importance, the article in question asserts importance... trying to speedy delete it is a bit rude when it's been explained why speedy deletion doesn't apply. This seems to be over the technicality of someone not being allowed to remove a CSD tag from an article they created... but rules like that are not very rigid, and what ultimately matters is who has the more correct argument with respect to policy. At any rate, if you really want to follow rules, WP:CSD#A7 says "If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." There's little chance that this would be deleted at AFD, but you're free to try to prove me wrong. --W.marsh 00:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

alrigh here my problem right now first off i only posted this once 2nd you are stalking me now, I don't see your name in the history of this page in the last 20 edits so how just out of the clear bule you happen to stumble on the same exact place where i asked a question. Just by even finding and responding to this question should shoould be a red flag. Yourname 01:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This page has been on my watchlist for a long time, and I've made around 100 comments here over the years. I'm not stalking you. At any rate, not all articles about websites are created as spam... sometimes someone just sees a redlink on a notable topic, and creates an article to fill in the gap. It's important to learn the difference if you're doing speedy deletion work. --W.marsh 01:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yourname - Technically, you did post a comment to WP:VPA as well as to here (see this edit), though you did remove the posting two minutes later.

More to the point, if you disagree with W. Marsh's assessment of WP:CSD#A7, you should state that, not switch to discussing your suspicions of wikistalking. If you don't disagree with W. Marsh regarding A7, then you should (gracefully, ideally) concede the point. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

W. Marsh should not have removed the tag himself. He should have done what every other editor is supposed to do if their article is tagged for speedy deletion. Put {{hangon}} on it and make a comment on the talk page. I can see where Yourname is coming from - the assertion of notability is a bit weak. Also, W. Marsh could have left a message on Yourname's talk page just as Yourname could have left a message on W. Marsh's; edit summaries are a very poor venue for discussion. Mr.Z-man 05:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A7 just doesn't cover this article... if you really think it does, delete it and inflict an annoying DRV on us all. But if you don't think A7 covers it... we're just arguing about process for the sake of process. This is an article on an obviously notable website/business venture... there are 200 news results in the past month, and tens of thousands in the Google News archives. There are 400 results in printed books. That people are trying to conjure up some way to delete the article on a technicality is an example of a lot of what's wrong with deletion today. --W.marsh 13:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is not A7: "two thirds of US car buyers use its service in some way". Plus it's a paragon of citations used to prove notability: CNN and New York Times both devoting full articles to its new advertising campaign. Why are we even talking about this? I would have removed the speedy tag too. I might add a bit to the article so thanks for bringing it up. And BTW, I think we should give some extra deference to admins and other experienced users on faith that they probably know what they're doing. But even Jimbo's new page got deleted so I don't think we have to worry about undue influence around here. Wikidemo 14:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Of course they're going to devote full pages to its advertising campaign. The site pays for those pages. I think it's definitely worth a discussion, but discussions are for AFD, not CSD. - Mgm| 17:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Look, this entire thread is now a self-defeating proposition: ALL CSD categories are by definition for non-controversial deletions. Articles should only be speedied where there is likely to be no defense at ALL of the move. Even hoax articles that make bogus claims to notability are specically exempt from CSD. The fact that this article has attracted a discussion makes CSD moot; the existance of said discussion leaves ONLY afd as a reasonable means to deal with it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Government Phone/Email lists also Homeland Security Issue?

Is there any section for how to: deal with Government? Frequently the inner workings of government are arcane. Much of this information, could be provided by Government "Users" in much more concise form than the government's own web sites. Some examples are who to contact for parade permits, where to file to pay sales tax, what process to follow with HANO (Housing Authority of New Orleans) for transferring Section 8 property to a new owner. On a national level, how do I file for a grant for bike paths? How do I lobby a congressman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boathead (talk • contribs) 03:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Boathead 03:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a neat idea, but would require continual updating as offices are reorganized, phone numbers change, and so on. For that reason it may be impractical. Raymond Arritt 04:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Even outdated it would be far better than the current city of New Orleans web site

People were so desperate for information for a while there. It seems that Wiki should be an amazing resource in the immediate aftermath of a Katrina for instance. I'd wager that in that circumstance Wiki would be very up to date. Boathead 04:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A wiki could, indeed, be a valuable tool for that type of information—especially with the cooperation and support of government agencies. This particular wiki, however, isn't really intended or designed to be a directory of services. Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and we're not really in the business of branching out into other functions. Perhaps there already exists a wiki that provides something of the service that you describe; failing that, perhaps you could start one...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As part of the sources for an article on a national or local government department there should be a link to the department; this should provide the first link for anyone wanting information from that body. Also, WP would be limited to the information available from the said link only and will therefore only be as accurate as that source. As TenOfAllTrades comments, this falls outside of the remit of WP. LessHeard vanU 10:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an EXCELLENT idea for Wikia, Jimbo's other major venture, the commercial equivalent of Wikimedia. It is designed to make and hosts wiki-style websites for purposes OTHER than writing an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages really is a narrowly defined concept: It is an encyclopedia. While Wikis can and should be used for excellent ideas such as this, Misplaced Pages is NOT the specific wiki to use. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages:Userbox migration a guideline or merely a "be bold" essay?

For those blissfully unaware Misplaced Pages:Userbox migration was created over a year ago to solve the then escalating "userbox conflict". It proposed that most userboxes were moved to userspace and thus be protected from the extensive CSD:T1 "divisive and/or inflammatory template" deletions (Examples for T1 deleted templates included "This user is an atheist", "This user is Furry" and "This user supports recycling").
At that time it explicitly stated it was not a new policy nor would a new policy be necessary (as any attempts to resolve the userbox dispute by introducing new policies lead to a deadlock due to lack of consensus) and in a sense, it retains it's be bold roots.
Still WP:UBM has become a de-facto standard when it comes to the question of userboxes in templatespace, in TfD debates (Userfy by WP:UBM), and because of this I and several others believe that it has become a de-facto guideline and should be labeled as such.
Another user however believes that it is superfluous to WP:UBX, "essentially a statement to Be bold", and as such not a guideline. Discussion with him has been exhausted, and now goes in circles.
So I'd like to gather some outside input on the issue - what are your thoughts? CharonX/talk 13:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the current best practice, right? Who cares what tag the page has? :-P --Kim Bruning 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Some folks will Wikilawyer that it's "not a guideline" when their favorite Userbox is moved. On the flip side, if it's the current best practice, why not make it a guideline? -- Kesh 21:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Because fixing things that ain't broke is a recipe for creating unnecessary controversy. Why encourage the idea that pages in the project space need some official designation? The best thing about the migration, IMO, is its lack of formal status. As soon as that page was created with "this is not a policy proposal..." at the top, I knew the end of the userbox wars was in sight. -GTBacchus 23:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The last guy that made a request for comment on this issue withdrew his request, because the overall reaction was overly negative. The community is sick of arguing such a trivial matter, and things are just fine the way they are now. So why not make the Userbox Migration a guideline? Well, like GTBacchus said, if it ain't broke, don't bother fixing it. I assure you that simple brining up this issue will reignite a fervor of pointless debates. So don't go there. The Userboxer/_ubx 00:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources quoting anonymous comments

If a source that is considered reliable, such as an established newspaper or television news organisation includes a report in an article attributing a comment anonymously, eg in a newspaper article that mentions the "lunar college of vacuum technology", text such as "consumer advocates referred to the lunar college of vacuum technology as a diploma mill" appeared, would it be appropriate to cite the newspaper as a reference for the statement "consumer advocates consider the lunar college of vacuum technology to be a diploma mill" in a WP article? I don't believe there's verifiable reliable sources for the statement from WPs viewpoint. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Misplaced Pages considers the publication as being the source, not the person making the statement. In this case there may be several publications which state similar things even if some don't identify exactly what their experts are (or in the case of Deep Throat sometimes the sources are intentionally hidden). If President Bush says something we don't use him as the source but we use what is printed about him in newspapers, TV news, or White House publications. (SEWilco 15:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

First, you're not referring to a "anonymous" sources, you're referring to unnamed sources. Anonymous sources are those who have asked that their names not be revealed; unnamed sources are often unnamed simply because the newspaper or television station doesn't want to take the extra time to list them (or, if you want to be cynical, to defend their choice of spokespeople.)

Second, Misplaced Pages articles would be much less readable if, instead of saying "Consumer advocates said X", we had to say "Persons A, B, and C, who are considered consumer advocates by newspaper Y, said X". Third, if we say "Consumer advocates said X" in the article, and provide a footnoted source, then readers can decide how likely it is that the newspaper would have picked non-representative people to use as opinion-makers.

Finally, if consumer advocates disagree, then the right way to handle the matter is to say that "ABC newspaper reported that consumer advocates said X, but MNZ newspaper reported that other consumer advocates disagreed, saying Y". But until there is evidence of disagreement, there is no reason (other than perhaps a desire to suppress negative comments) why "consumer advocates said X" needs to be qualified in the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to show the lack of specific attribution is in the original source through direct quote? "Consumer advocates claim X" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.231.11 (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What John wrote makes sense to me. But why is this discussed here, and not on WT:RS? — Sebastian 00:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Content of Navigation Templates

A subject has a number of related articles in Misplaced Pages and has a navigation template that helps to categorize them. Is it considered proper Misplaced Pages form to include links to outside sites (in this case - fan sites) within such a navigation template? I can't find any official policies or recommendations that would help stop an edit war.144.15.255.227 20:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. Navigation templates are simply that... aids to Misplaced Pages navigation. External links could be added to the highest level article that connects all of the subjects in the navigation template, but not to the template itself. I don't think there is policy on this, but I came to this through my impression after reading WP:EL. It lists two places for external links: in an external links section of an article, or as references. Sancho 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree... navigation templates should be for linking related Misplaced Pages articles, not external links such as fan sites. Blueboar 21:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL - under Links to be avoided lists: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. - What qualifies as a 'substantial history of stability' and 'substantial number of editors'?144.15.255.227 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a point that is to be discussed by participating editors on a case-by-case basis. As examples of some extreme cases: one wiki widely considered acceptable is the Memory Alpha Star Trek wiki; one that I think does not have "substantial history of stability and substantial number of editors" is the Men Going Their Own Way wiki. Most other wikis will fall somewhere between these two. However, as this relates to your original question, even if an external link meets these criteria, I don't think it should be used in a navigation template. Sancho 18:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I too cannot imagine any case where a link to a fansite would be appropriate in a navigation template. If the fan site is notable enough to have a WP article about it, then of course linking to that article would be acceptable; if justified, I think that would be the way to go. 01:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen at least one case where a fansite was the best available external resource for a subject (Theme Hospital, if you're curious). But normally I'd agree that external links shouldn't be embedded in templates for "spammy" reasons. If the sites in question are good resources, they should be in the external links section of the games themselves and not in the template (Template:EverQuest, I gather]]) used on dozens of subpages relating to game content.--Father Goose 02:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Having devolved to something close to an edit war over the issue, I would like something closer to a WP or guideline before I revisit the issue on the template page. 207.69.137.11 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Scroll bars

Something like is bad, right? Anyone care to revert? --NE2 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would not say that scroll bars are bad, but that application of them certainly seems inappropriate. I don't see what you buy by scrolling 98% of the article text in a small window. Vegaswikian 05:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Scroll bars are not inherently bad, but they are almost always used badly, and very seldom have a place on Misplaced Pages. They can hinder accessibility by breaking screen readers; they make printing articles difficult; they can screw up formatting in some browsers; they take up valuable screen real estate; and long articles get scroll bars on their window anyway. Concur with removing them in this instance and most instances. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has placed the scroll bar back on the page. It is certainly out of place there. I am relatively new to Misplaced Pages and I wondered what the next step would be if the person refuses to comply with the prevailing view? D3av 10:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Quotes outside article space, a violation of NFCC

See: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Non-free_text

At present the non-free content criteria prohibits any "non-free content" outside of article space. It has been pointed out that technically the current language also prohibits users from using non-free text (i.e. quotes) outside of article space. As that's probably not the intention, the criterion probably need to be adjusted. Please join that discussion. Dragons flight 21:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My User Page User:Rodhullandemu

User:Professional Deletionist has just deleted the following: University Challenge from my userpage, leaving the note: "this category is not for user space". No reference to the applicable policy, and in any event, where else would this category go but user space?? Can anyone point me to policy and whether it's changed recently, or can I just revert it as vandalism? While I WP:AGF, just to do this without leaving anything on my talk page referring to policy seems a breach of WP:Civil. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 17:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

While it would have been best for the other editor to have left a message on your talk page (s)he does not appear to have violated policy. The category guidelines says that you can add categories to user pages that are not used in the article namespace. If you look at the definition for the category that was removed (Category:Notable_Wikipedians), it says "Misplaced Pages editors who also have Misplaced Pages articles about their notable activities outside of Misplaced Pages." All of the pages that are in the category are in the article namespace, so a userpage should not be in there. Karanacs 17:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Have left comments here. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor correction: The pages in the category are in the article talk namespace, not the article namespace. (Same difference as far as removing a user page from the category.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about sourcing

I do not know where to ask this question. If this is the wrong place, please let me know.

Is it Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that in order to use a third party source for citing material in an article, you have to consult that source yourself? Or is it O.K. to copy the source from another article and used it without consulting it directly? Thanks! --Mattisse 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Does the essay Misplaced Pages:Convenience links answer your question? GRBerry 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No. My question has to do with referencing a book. There is no link to it that I know of. --Mattisse 19:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The question is if it is O.K. to use a book reference obtained from another article without actually reading the book but accepting that the other editor was correct in using it and that it will apply to my article? --Mattisse 20:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, some of the logic of that essay still applies. If the source they actually used is reliable, they should cite the source they actually used in the citation, but need not in the article text. (If the citation were accompanied by a quotation the citation would resemble Used Source, Secondary Author 19xy "In Ultimate Source, Initial Author says 'Whatever the heck they said'.") If the source they actually used is not reliable, they should not use it at all, and the third party source material would not currently be supported by a reliable source, and ultimately needs to be sourced or removed, possibly immediately removed pending sourcing depending on topic and other issues.

See more specifically the guideline Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#Say where you got it. GRBerry 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes— per that guideline, you would have to quote the article as the source, not the reference you grabbed from the article, but you can't use one Misplaced Pages article as a reference within another article. If you want to use a book as a source, go to the library and read it, or buy it. Or, contact the editor who added the initial source and see if they will verify the validity and add it to the article in question. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That specifically answers my question. Where is this written so that I can provide this information to another editor who is using sources he has not personally accessed taken from another wikipedia article ? --Mattisse 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link above. I didn't see it at first. Thank you so much. --Mattisse 22:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification re: above thread

Hi there, I'm involved in a current dispute with User:Mattisse, and I'd like to ask for a clarification of the above thread with regard to the precise situation in the dispute.

I know Mattisse asked whether you have to consult a source before citing it - I know the answer is yes. That's all fine. However, the situation in our dispute is a little different. To be precise, User:Mattisse wrote a properly sourced statement in one article. I took the statement, along with the source, into another article. Is that allowed, given that Mattisse presumably checked the source himself? The crucial distinction with what Mattisse is asking, in case it is not clear, is that what is copied is not just the source itself, but the statement, supported by the source. For example, if I write "Tiananmen Square is 500 metres across " in Tiananmen Square, would another editor be able to copy that statement, source and all, into Tiananmen Square massacre?

My view is that this is in accordance with policy, since the statement, in its new location, is still just as supported by the source cited as it was when it was at its old location. It is only a change of location, not a substantive change to the statement.

I just find Mattisse's contention (that you can't copy a statement with its source from one article to another) a little bizzare, since it implies that:

• Every time an editor synthesises a paragraph in a branch article (say Mongol empire) along with its sources into a summary article (say History of Mongolia), that editor will have to personally check every single source for every statement in that paragraph, even though that paragraph is standing without challenge in the branch article.
• Every time an article gets moved, merged, undeleted, or otherwise changed in location, the editor making the move/merge will have to check every source in the article.
• Given that some sources are not widely available (and not available online), the above two points imply that often only the original contributor, and no-one else, can move material into/out of branch articles/main articles, or move/merge/undelete the article?
  • At least I find that implication a little bizarre, given the collaborationist nature of Misplaced Pages and the GFDL licence - although if I understand Mattisse's argument correctly, that implication is exactly what he is pushing for on my talk page.

Your help is greatly appreciated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Taking a properly sourced statement from one article and copying it into another (along with the citation to the source) is perfectly fine... with a caution: if you are going to change the context of the statement, make sure that the source supports the new context. If the statement is a simple statement of fact like "Joe Blow was born in 1925 <cite to a biography of Joe Blow>" then I don't think there is any problem copying the statement with its source. If the statement you are copying is something more complex (and especially if it is controvercial), then there is a good chance that context will have to be considered ... In which case, be more hesitant to simply copy the statement and source... you should get a copy of the source to make sure it says what you think it says. Blueboar 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, what he said. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense - Thanks. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of A7

I've started a discussion here on adding literary works and films to the list of items that can be deleted per WP:CSD#A7. SashaCall /_(Talk!) 01:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello. User:Caroig's {{Geobox}} template shows up technical categories in all articles which use it, see e.g. Warta Bolesławiecka and Category:Geobox City, Poland which shows up. Caroig said he didn't find any official policy saying that such categories in the article namespace are prohibited. I asked him to alter the Geobox code but he don't want to do that. I can't recall any Infobox which have such categories in article namespace. Caroig insists it is the same as categories regarding cleanup or wikification but I suppose it is not. Can you point me to proper policy or advise what to do, please? Thank you. - Darwinek 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Category:Geobox City, Poland doesn't exist (it is a redlink currently). You should be able to remove a non-existing category from a template that is intended to be used in the main namespace, per Misplaced Pages:Use common sense, which is covered by the policy WP:IAR.
2. If User:Caroig behaves as if (s)he owns the {{Geobox}} template, or if this user made that template too complex for anyone else to understand how to edit it, there is a WP:OWN infringement (we're talking about main namespace content here). WP:OWN is policy.

Actually what is that led you to state I behave as if I own the template? Because I asked a user who suggested something to support his statement with more detailed arguments? – Caroig (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

1. "Geobox" is a kind of self-reference: the word "Geobox" is relevant for those building the encyclopedia, but it has virtually no relevance in the general categorisation schemes for main namespace articles, e.g. it's not as if this category would belong in any subcategory of Category:Boxes (which doesn't even exist). Although this specific case isn't mentioned in WP:ASR, it falls under that guideline. It is also inappropriate to categorise cities as a kind of "box". "Geobox" is also singular, while Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (categories) specifies to put (main namespace) categories in plural. So if Category:Geobox City, Poland (or any similar) were created it would be up for WP:CfD in no time. After its removal we're back at the first step above for removing the category name from any template that is intended to be used in main namespace.
2. Why don't you use {{Infobox Settlement}} in the Warta Bolesławiecka and similar articles? Compare the article on Sejny where that infobox is used. --Francis Schonken 17:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• There are many such categories created by User:Caroig, e.g. Category:Geobox Settlement, Slovakia and Category:Geobox Building, Slovakia. Do you think I should nominate all categories of this kind to WP:CFD? - Darwinek 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  Category:Geobox2 appears to be the "root" category of this categorisation system. There is no supercategory defined for that category. In other words, this category scheme does not resolve to Category:Categories, which it should per Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Browsing categories ("Category:Categories - List of top-level categories. Requires this category be defined on the top of a tree." - my bolding). So it would be possible to CfD Category:Geobox2 and "all" subcategories (without needing to name them individually). For subcategories named (for example) Category:Geobox Settlement, Slovakia a renaming/merging to Category:Settlements in Slovakia would probably be preferred (as suggested below) - then, yes one would need to list each proposed merger/renaming for such categories as part of the WP:CfD process. For the "technical" categories (e.g. Category:Geobox2 documentation) and for the templates that generate names of "geobox" category names I don't know: either the Misplaced Pages community decides to ge rid of the system, either they should be renamed/re-organised/rewritten in a vein to separate main namespace content and other content per WP:ASR. Caroig could help with that reorganisation, or otherwise, most likely, the Misplaced Pages community could decide to dunk the geobox2 system. If Caroig's intention was to create a bot-like application, which he seems to suggest ("... machine-parseable ...") he should seek permission via the procedures explained at WP:BOTS before setting up the system. See also the main principle of page naming (also applicable to Category names) at the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions policy page: "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" (my bolding) - machines are not part of the picture of those who should be able to easily recognise page names. So, yes, currently Caroig's approach is in conflict with a host of policies & guidelines: thus far I named the policies WP:OWN, WP:BOTS, WP:NC, and most notably also the guidelines WP:ASR, WP:CAT and WP:NCCAT. --Francis Schonken 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  Omission of parent category fixed. There is no indication of an active bot so WP:BOTS is not relevant; machine-parseable has other meanings such as Google being able to recognize data. Are there issues other than the category structure or naming? (SEWilco 20:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

  Please could you first have a look at what the {{Geobox}} is, where and how it is used, read the debates on its talk page before suggesting it should be ditched and stating the intention is to create a bot-like application? I really don't know what might have led to this conclusion. If you feel there's something wrong with the categorization of the various subtemplates or the auto categories, why don't you post it on the {{Geobox}} talk page? – Caroig (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  If issues weren't resolving on Template_talk:Geobox, and an editor brings it to the attention here at VPP, there's nothing wrong with discussing it here. I keep my part of the discussion here, while I think the issue broader than the categorisation included in the {{Geobox}} template (the topic discussed on the {{geobox}} talk page), and broader than that template over-all. Of course I also expressed my opinion on Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_25#Geobox_categories (which is currently: "rename" if the proponents of the system are willing to collaborate towards an appropriate renaming scheme, otherwise: "delete")

  The debate had only started at User talk:Caroig#Suggestion so it's odd claim the discussion wasn't leading anywhere. While some reasoning was given in the reply, those who object to this feature didn't state their reasons clearly at all, what should any one make of: I am sure there is something in WP:MOS/WP:CAT. The debate rightly belongs to the {{Geobox}} talk page so that the users after whose requests the disputed feature was added can have their say. Dealing with the topic here, behind everyone's back, is not a good practice either on Misplaced Pages or in discussions anywhere generally. So please put your further comment just there. – Caroig (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  As for the WP:BOTS issue, I brought it up based on the content of the {{Geobox2 category}} template, used on "geobox" category pages , the content of which reads: "This is an auto-generated category of all (...) that make use of the {{Geobox}} template." - "auto-generated" seems to indicate a bot operation. --Francis Schonken 11:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  The lack of understanding (in case of machine readable or auto-generated or how a bot can be set up) or that something just seems is not a good base to suggest ditching a template, which is just one more and versatile Infobox. If there's something that's not clear it's a good practice to ask and check the issue first before jumping to such far-fetched conclusions. – Caroig (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• The more common format for categories seems to be something like "Category:Misplaced Pages Geobox Settlement in Slovakia". See the list of categories starting with "Misplaced Pages". (SEWilco 17:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

• Perhaps the template should be generating Category:Settlements in Slovakia? Due to Special:Whatlinkshere is there a need for Geobox categories? (SEWilco 17:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC))
  • These settlements are already properly categorized. Per common sense and also some policies (see above) there is no need for such categories although user who created them argues they are needed, because "I don't think there's a problem having a category indicating the article contains geodata in a machine-parseable format." - Darwinek 17:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Then the category name should be something like Articles with geographical coordinates, following other "Articles with..." categories. But that cat doesn't include other coordinate-including articles. Discuss with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. (SEWilco 19:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

Nominated to WP:CFD --> here. Please vote and express your opinion. - Darwinek 20:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the debate to be placed on just one place, the best one might be the {{Geobox}} talk page: Template talk:Geobox#Auto categories. – Caroig (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletions without Debate

When a contribution is deleted without the deletor and/or wikipedia staff even having the courtesy to contact the contributor and debate the significance, where does the contributor go to debate the significance of the contribution? Especially if the contributor is above average sure the deleter is wrong and should be forced to debate the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OlympedeCleves (talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to your edits being reverted? If an editor reverted your edits, then I would check in their edit summary for the reasoning behind their edit. Most of the time, the editor in question will leave a note on your talk page explaining the reason for their revert. If they did not, then feel free to leave a message on their talk page. Sephiroth BCR 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussions about contributions to an article usually take place on the Talk page of the article. There are exceptions, such as if the topic belongs in another article or just not here. Check the History of the article to see if an editor put comments there during the change. (SEWilco 17:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

If you refer to pages being deleted then see Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy, Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion, Misplaced Pages:Why was my page deleted?. PrimeHunter 20:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want a debate, the correct forum is WP:DRV.--Bedivere 16:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

General references that apply to multiple pages?

Is there a standard for handling a set of general references that apply to a large number of pages? The two approaches I've seen are:

1. Add a link to a separate page showing the references.
2. Create a template with the list of general references.

Both have received objections by some users. The former doesn't present the information on the same page, while the later can result in an unwieldy list that can appear on all of the associated pages. Either seems preferable to independently maintaining the same list on a multitude of pages. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If the references are relevant to the articles, the "unwieldy list" belongs on those articles. (SEWilco 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

Less than 100% of the references are relevant to every article. — RJH (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of included irrelevant references on an article; those are not references to that article. Are these references likely to change? If not, then, I would just copy and paste the references into each article. Karanacs 15:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand why we are including references to articles that aren't actually used in those articles? Let me get this straight. You read a book. You put information from that book into an article. You cite that reference. How does a reference that you don't read and that does not contain any information get into a list of references for a particular article anyways? This is confusing to me. If the article uses or cites the reference, include it in the References section. If the article does not directly cite a reference, but the work in question contains information that could likely be cited, or which is closely related to the article, include it in the Further reading section. If the reference is entirely unrelated to the article in question, don't include it. What is the specific problem we are trying to fix with these random "other pages" or "templates" or whatever? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No original research

Misplaced Pages:No original research has been unprotected after a long period due to repeated disputes. The main focus of the disagreements has centered around WP:PSTS. There have been some changes since unprotection that seem relatively uncontroversial and within consensus. There are two proposed changes to the policy (Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#Misplaced Pages:No original research#Reliable sources and Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#Taking the dive (PSTS proposal)). Please also be aware a variety of proposals were recently reviewed (Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#Alternative proposals: straw poll.), mainly based on two approaches to the section. Further input is welcome and encouraged. Vassyana 23:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of citation when I -am- the citation

I currently maintain the wikipedia article for the USS Springfield (SSN-761), and am a crewmember of that ship. I'll admit that I haven't added all too much to it, and there's much more that could be done with it. But I keep it up-to-date with all the current information of the command and a brief overview of its operations. Currently the page is rated poorly because of the lack of citations. But when I update the article to reflect that CDR Paul Savage is the commanding officer I don't use a citation. I don't need one. He's my boss, of course I know who the commanding officer is. I know what awards we receive, what operations we're on. I know this because I'm on the ship every day. How am I supposed to reflect this for Misplaced Pages citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divsky (talk • contribs) 23:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:No original research. You are a primary source, thus can't be used as a reference here. Surely there is documentation somewhere. I'm sure a base newspaper would have an article on a change of command for the boat. Certainly orders were posted under a document number. --Gadget850 (Ed) 00:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The content could presumably go into the article's talk page until you find a cite.LeadSongDog 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for serving our country, that's a wonderful thing for you to do. However, being a member of the crew doesn't count as source. I found that out the hard way with a different article. Again, thank you for your service. . CelticGreen 01:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please also see WP:NOT - the goal of Misplaced Pages isn't to collect all the information in the world, it's to be an encyclopedia. What's interesting to you, other crew members, families of crew members, and former members of the crew may never be published in a reliable source (using primary sources, such as published orders, is controversial); if not, then Misplaced Pages isn't the right place to post it - a blog, or a personal webpage, are better. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 11:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the content of that article is entirely reasonable stuff to include in an article on the boat; it covers her basic history (construction and commissioning date, plankowner CO, homeport, her one major refit period, last deployment, and current operations); the current CO, XO, and COB are also encyclopedic information that's reasonable to include in such an article, I'd say, while the awards section is seen in a number of other articles about past and current US Navy vessels. While I agree that sources should be cited for the assertations of fact (perhaps the Navy's website or the Groton base newspaper would have such references?), I don't see anything wrong with the content of the article as it is now.

Divsky, thank you for serving our country; as someone who knows (not from personal experience, mind you, but from a lifelong fascination) what the two kinds of ships in the ocean are, I particularly want to thank you for going into the Silent Service; it's arguably the hardest life in the entire military. That said, as people pointed out, Misplaced Pages policy recommends that primary sources (such as personal knowledge from being a member of the crew) be avoided when possible. While you may use them to help identify notable things that can be added to the article to improve it, you need to find a way to back up the claims with independantly verifiable cited sources. Navy press releases would be an excellent choice, as I believe they're archived on the Navy's website.

Thanks again for helping defend the country--AND for being smart enough to ask for advice on this issue; it's much better to ask than to editwar! Rdfox 76 12:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC) (Edited to correct my mistaking who said what. Rdfox 76 12:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Top is where??

I was instructed to take this thought process here. Going from a visual POV, when talking to people I was told to put clean up tags under the infobox templates. It would still place the tag at the top of the article, per guidelines, but it wouldn't throw off the orientation of the pages. The guidelines say top of article but do not specify if that top should be visual or literal. Putting the tag below the infobox on the edit page visually puts the tag at the top of the article, per guidelines, and side by side with the info box. It's visually pleasing and does not throw off the page orientation. The issue is, is it MANDITORY that the tag throws off the page and makes the articles look bad, or is it acceptable for the tag to go below the info box in the edit mode aligning it at the top of the article with the top of the info box? John Black (fiction) being an example of how the Soap Project participants have been instructed. Thank you. CelticGreen 01:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I had never thought about the difference, but the after-the-infobox approach in John Black (fiction) is much more visually appealing than the before-the-infobox placement in Nikolas Cassadine. I believe the phrase "they should be placed at the top of the article" at Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Cleanup is purposely subjective, and it should be an editor's choice. The only reason I could see putting them before the infobox would be to make them more easily found for removal, any dummy can just scroll down to find the tags. I actually think the difference should be made clear in the guidelines as well. — TAnthony 01:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is mandatory. This question should not need to be asked, it simply doesn't matter whether the cleanup tags are above or below the infobox. To quote, "Don't edit war over the colour of templates," "some things in this world are more important than others."Atropos 02:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

For background, it may be useful to note that, when article message boxes were recently standardized, the early versions of the standard layout broke very badly in some browsers if they were placed beside any floating elements (such as infoboxes). The workaround, of course, being to place them before the infobox instead. I believe the problem that caused this has since been solved, but it may explain why some pages might still say that cleanup tags should always be put before infoboxes. In general, I fully agree that the proper answer is the one given by Atropos: whatever works. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say to put it before the infobox. For people using a high resolution monitor, it won't really matter, but for people using lower resolution (not very wide) monitors, putting the templates under the infobox will lead to pages looking something like this:

                                           |                   |  |
                                           |                   |  |
                                           |                   |  |
                                           |      Infobox      |  |
      Large blank space                    |                   |  |
                                           |                   |  |
                                           |___________________|  | <-- Side of the screen
_________________________________________________________         |
|               Cleanup templates                       |         |
|                                                       |         |
|_______________________________________________________|         |
Article text                                                      |

If the infobox is very large, the blank space on top of the article would be very large as well. Mr.Z-man 17:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not true at all (but I'm impressed with your drawing). I also disagree with your concept of high and low as I have both at the house and it does not leave a large blank space on lower resolution, what it does is leave a large area where you only see the tag clean up or otherwise. Borrowing your template, or trying this is what I see on both screens.

                                           |                 | <-- Side of the screen
_________________________________________________________________ |
|               Cleanup templates                                ||
|                                                                ||
|________________________________________________________________||
                                           |                   |  |
                                           |                   |  |
 Article text                              |      Infobox      |  |
                                           |                   |  |                                       
                                           |___________________|  |

To see what it actually looks like, again, I would direct you to the John Black (fiction) page. With a widescreen, you don't see any article when the tag is at the top. When it's put below the info box it lands side by side with the infobox but doesn't interfere with the article and there is no blank space. CelticGreen 18:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate to take the, um, sane perspective on this issue, but if the article is in need of clean-up ANYWAYS, then wouldn't the entire problem be solved by actually fixing the problems noted in the clean-up template? If the article is already "ugly" and in dire need of some form of clean-up, than does the addition of the template REALLY detract that much from the article, regardless of where it is placed? And if the template looks ugly, why not just fix the article so the template can be removed?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Clean up is just an example. There's also tense, citations, etc. Clean up was just the example I chose to use. CelticGreen 18:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did a little more testing and the issue is browser dependent. On Firefox, the template is compressed to fit next to the infobox if you put it below and there is not a huge difference between above and below. On Internet Explorer (at least IE7) it is not compressed and if it cannot fit next to the infobox, it will put it below. Compare:

--Mr.Z-man 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the placement of these temporary messages (whether for cleanup, tone, refs, current event etc) should take into account the structure of the article, rather than the visual appearance, as not everyone views pages in the same skin, or they have their own style or no style applied, or they may not even be viewing the page and they are using a screen reader or a tactile display. These output devices present the information in a linear fashion, starting at the top and working down, so by placing the tag below the infobox, information in the article is presented (that in the infobox), then you get the message, and then the lead section. This confuses the article message and the article content as the message is in the middle of the content, so the message should be placed before content. A good way to find out the linear layout of a page is to view it without any style applied. The Misplaced Pages:Accessibility guideline provides some layout examples on this. This layout also provides a visual separation between the message and content, showing that the message applies to the infobox content as well, and doesn't mix the two together. Any issues with the visual appearance should be addressed so that the non-visual appearance is still logical and understandable by non-visual users, and the best place to discuss the visual appearance is probably Misplaced Pages talk:Article message boxes or Template talk:Ambox. Or just fix the articles. mattbr 22:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Z-Man, thank you. Yes, I use Firefox (it helps with the spelling). So I was not seeing the big white space you described. Now that I see it, I agree and understand. I was going by Firefox so I didn't see that big white gap. Thanks for the research. CelticGreen 22:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on sourcing revisited

I asked a question about and User:PalaceGuard008 asked a question below mine on his copying text and sources from another Misplaced Pages article. We disagree on what you said. He says what you said was that it is O.K. to copy text and sources and put them in a different context.

I wrote an article in which I used sources referencing ancient Chinese history. User:PalaceGuard008 copied much of the text and all the book sources and put them in his article Caisson (Asian architecture) which is mostly about a period in Chinese architecture that is much later. Further, he has incorrectly applied the book references in the context of his article. I have endlessly discussed this with him on the article talk page, his talk page and my talk page.

In the answers you gave up regarding copying sources and text from other Misplaced Pages articles, were you saying that his copying text and references from one Misplaced Pages article and putting them in a different context in Caisson (Asian architecture) is correct? I have the books and he is misusing the references.

If you agree with me that he is acting incorrectly what should I do? If I try to remove any he just reverts. I even supplied an online source that referenced a statement he was using one of the books I have for, and he reverted that also.

If you say he is right, then I will drop the issue. Thanks! --Mattisse 01:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My view is that Mattisse is confusing the issues.

In my view, the issue is the relevance of the facts presented by these properly sourced statements to this article. I believe these facts are within the scope of the article. Mattisse disagrees. I believe the correct way to resolve this dispute is through a full discussion on the talk page as to whether these facts are relevant to the article. I have implored Mattisse about five times so far to return to that discussion, but he has refused to.

Mattisse, instead, is dressing the issue up as one of sources rather than contents. He is advocating that I cannot copy the material, complete with sources, from one article to another, simply because they are different articles. Notice that in the above post, he keeps on using the words "different context" to confuse the issue of "context" in the sense of "quoting out of context" with the issue of "relevance" to an article's subject matter. For example, he says "Caisson (Asian architecture) which is mostly about a period in Chinese architecture that is much later" - which is completely false and completely groundless, as even a cursory reading of the article will reveal; moreover, that is an issue of relevance to subject matter, and bears nothing on an issue of "quoting out of context".

As another example, he says "He says what you said was that it is O.K. to copy text and sources and put them in a different context." I said no such thing. Mattisse is deliberately misusing the word "context" to confuse the issues.

As far as I can see, the issue is: is it within the policy as to sources and citations to move statements of fact, properly sourced, from one article to another? Given that what was adopted was a whole section of material, there is no question of quoting out of context, and thus I believe that the answer is yes.

Here, the dispute is properly one about the relevance of certain contents to an article. Such a dispute is not regulated by the policies as to sourcing, but is an editorial dispute as to contents which should be resolved by discussion - which Mattisse has steadfastly refused to engage in. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse has a strong aversion to plagiarism which might be affecting his viewpoint about copying Misplaced Pages GFDL text. Text can legally be copied between articles but you should state (such as in the edit summary) where the text came from so there is a record connecting to the edit history of the text being copied. Relevance of the text to the destination article is dependent upon each article. Try discussing each individual change one at a time to identify specific issues. (SEWilco 03:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

Misplaced Pages:Banning policy

I've started a discussion Misplaced Pages talk:Banning policy#Request for comments: Community bans to help clarify our confused policy on banning disruptive editors. - Jehochman 04:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hello,

I was wondering if it would be possible for me to draw simple line illustrations as seen from a book and be able to use them as images for my article without breaking copyright laws. My article is seam types. I would appreciate any feedback.

Thank you,Snap pea 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Snap_peaSnap pea 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You'll probably get an answer here, but there is a page that specializes in this type of question: Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Here comes the probable answer. If you're copying a line drawing, or creating one by tracing or reproducing an existing image, that is a copy for copyright purposes and would be subject to the same infringement / Misplaced Pages use analysis as any other copy. In other words, it doesn't buy you anything. On the other hand, if you create a drawing based on an impression without actually copying, that is a completely new work but you have to be careful not to step over the line between that and copying. Also, a line drawing like that is usually not a useful image. We often have a discussion about that for images of famous people, but the same reasoning would apply for pictures of animals, plants, products, scenes, etc. Better just to get a camera and take a picture, or find someone who has. The exception might be a map, chart, or diagram, where you need to create a new free work based on an existing copyrighted work. Wikidemo 22:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If the illustrations in a book are unique to that book, then modifications of them are still problematical. On the other hand, if there are dozens of books that show illustrations of the same seam types, then synthesizing illustrations from a couple of them would not, in my opinion, be a problem. Still, taking pictures for illustrations would seem to avoid any possible doubts about copyright infringement. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Date wikilinking policy

There appears to be some inconsistency/ambiguity in this policy. WP:CONTEXT currently states the following re: date wikilinking:

• Dates when they contain a day, month, and year — ] ] — or day and month — ] — should be linked for date preference formatting.
• Stand alone months and days of the week should generally not be linked. Stand alone years do not need to be linked but some users prefer it, and some users prefer to link (with a piped link) to articles formatted as "year in subject" such as 1441 in art, 1982 in film, and 18th century in United States history.
• Misplaced Pages has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. As a general rule of thumb, link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic.

The guideline states that one should only link to days of the year "if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic" - but in what way could linking to individual days ever deepen readers' understanding of a particular topic? Day pages are by definition a hodge-podge of information about things that happened on that particular day in history, how could this information ever be relevant to a particular topic? I would submit, almost never, so such day-date pages should almost never be linked, but in practice people seem to be linking them all the time. So this policy appears to be inconsistent with current practice.

Also the first paragraph says "Dates when they contain a day, month, and year...should be linked for date preference formatting. It's a little ambiguous, because it appears to indicate that such dates "should be linked" at all times. Shouldn't it read "When dates containing a day, month, and year are linked, they...should be linked for date preference formatting."? That would remove the ambiguity. Is this ambiguity perhaps the reason so many people add day-date links to pages, because they think they are supposed to? Gatoclass 07:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That bit isn't actually ambiguous, it does mean always linking them - date formatting preferences only kick in when the date is wikilinked. I type ] ], you see 8 July 2001, I see "2001-07-08". Linking to an absolutely-specific-day is generally not done, except where that day is itself notable (I'm assuming there's a 2001-09-11 article). SamBC(talk) 11:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, you're right, someone on another page just explained it to me. Oh well, at least now I understand why pages are so full of "irrelevant" date wikilinks. But I do think the reason could be made a little more clear on the guideline page. Perhaps I'll have a crack at clarifying it myself sometime in the next few days. Thanks for your help. Gatoclass 15:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Limit newpage creation to autoconfirmed users to reduce CSD articles?

About 2000 new articles are deleted every day, most of them via speedy deletion. Currently, a person can register at Misplaced Pages and immediately create an article. Such a new editor, however, cannot move pages or edit semi-protected pages until becoming "autoconfirmed", which currently requires a four-day waiting period. (See Misplaced Pages:User access levels for details.)

What do others think about applying the autoconfirm criteria to the function of creating new pages, so that the newly registered editors would have to wait four days before creating an article?

(Note that the createtalk function, for creating talk pages, is separate, and would remain as is, available immediately upon registering.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I take it you missed the announcement that anons will be given back the ability to create pages? See here. Dragons flight 11:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't, but I missed the point that it makes no sense to restrict registered users if anons have no such restriction. So I'll wait to see how the experiment turns out, and if anons are subsequently (again) prevented from creating new articles, I'll try to remember to bring this up again. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 11:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If the experiment produces the result that I am anticipating, this proposal may receive a boost in popularity. Imminent changes notwithstanding, I would support this proposal. Adrian M. H. 12:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

removal of admins comments on talk pages

I was a little confused, and wondered if someone could clarify what is and is not acceptable. If an admin makes comments on your talk page, ie. warnings, blocks, etc - is it acceptable to remove these comments, rather than archiving them?Sennen goroshi 03:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Archiving is preferred, but there's no rule preventing you from simply removing them. Warnings are meant as communication, not as a badge of shame. --Carnildo 07:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

However, please remember that by removing the warning, it is considered that you have read and understood it. Carnildo is correct though, you can remove any message you wish from your talk page, including notices of warnings, blocks, etc. It is preferable that you archive messages, but it is not mandatory. Seraphimblade 07:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

New essay

I've written a new essay Misplaced Pages:Don't "call a spade a spade", partly in order to reply WP:SPADE, with which I heartily disagree, and partly to give form to the "How to win a content dispute" essay I've been thinking for months about writing. I welcome any feedback or improvements. Cheers. -GTBacchus 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree and well argued. There is never a need to use any sort of derogatory term. D3av 10:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Banning policy RfC

We are discussing the wording of the banning policy in light of recent disagreements between administrators over how to apply the policy and the conditions under which an administrator may unblock a user. - Jehochman 15:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines