Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:50, 7 July 2008

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

• WP:VPP

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

Footnotes/References

You'll see something like

You see the ? We don't know excactly what refering to, because the referencer will just appear as:

What we need is something like:

As you can see, with out my proposal, you don't know WHERE the letter (a b c d, etc.) is refering to.

Ok, so I have a few limitations, such as the pointed hat\accent\carat\lambda does not look like what it does in <references/> and I could not internal blue link , , or .

Please post this on Bugzilla, since I don't haven an account, thanks!68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing what the problem is here. The abcd just points out that there are multiple times that this one reference is used in the article. Everything marked is all using the same reference. The letters only appear in the references section so you can click on each one to take you up in the article, and see which parts of the article use that reference. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, this is a misunderstanding rather than a bug. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, unless I'm missing something, I believe the last two replies misunderstood the issue the anon user was raising: he was saying that since the note in the text only says , if you click down to the footnote as you're reading the article, you won't necessarily know which letter to click on to get you back up to where you were. I've had this problem myself. It's not an issue with single-instance footnotes, which is how someone can get into the habit of clicking down and then back up in the first place. Now when I encounter multiple backlinks in a footnote, I just hit the "back" button because I don't want to try to figure out which backlink to choose. Including the letter, a la , would help to counter this confusion, once people learned that's what it was for. - dcljr (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"I just hit the 'back' button": doesn't that solve the problem? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not all browsers work the same way. - dcljr (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all browsers have a "back" button or keystroke. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

However, many of them restrict "Back" behaviour to the page level; following a link to an anchored location on the same page doesn't always count as something you can "Back" out of. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 17:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please name these "many" browsers? All of the browsers I've tested (Firefox 2, IE6, Safari 3.1.1 for windows, lynx 2.8.6rel.4, and w3m 0.5.2) allow you to "back" out of anchors. Anomie⚔ 00:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Some older versions of the same, maybe some minor and/or lightweight browsers; personally I don't consider it a big enough problem to look into it in more detail. :-) No real objection if somebody wants to try and do something about it, though, but I don't know if it's a big deal in terms of the number of such references we have either. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 11:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Question from huwiki

Hi! maybe I am on the wrong village pump but I was wondering where I can find the sanctions of breaching the WP:HARASS policy? (Huwiki wants to adopt it.) Thanks, Cassandro (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:HARASS#Dealing with harassment. Basically, the sanctions are whatever administrator(s) decide is appropriate. We don't have any formal list that says "If you do A, then your punishment is B". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

k. d. lang

See Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Capitalisation. Whether or not to capitalize all proper nouns comes up from time to time. The current vote is 3-0 in favor of "k. d. lang" on the talk page. My understanding is that the only current exceptions to capitalizing a proper noun are for a few companies that have a trademark capitalizing the second letter, such as iPod. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-capitalisation of "k. d. lang" is perfectly covered by WP:NCP#Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Privacy policy has been marked as a policy

Misplaced Pages:Privacy policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to see here ... please keep moving ... the page has and continues to point to Wikimedia:Privacy policy, so it really a sort of soft redirect, but it's now marked as a policy page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles about couples, rather than individuals

I came across this stub article today: Andrew Turner (director). It's not very good yet, but the subject will easily pass WP:N. However, fundamentally, the article's about a couple, whose notability seems to be shared. I see no value in creating two parallel articles about them, as their notability comes from their joint business and sporting interests. I'm thinking about proposing a rename to Andrew and Sharon Turner or similar and wondered if there's precedant for this kind of move, or if there's good reason to fork it instead. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

While I am unaware of any moves that would qualify as a precedent for this case, there are a large number of precedents for combining closely linked individuals with no separate notability into a single article. Look at the plethora of articles on musical groups, athletic teams, and comedy duos. The only caveat I would give you is to make sure that appropriate redirects for the individual names are in place after performing the move. --Allen3  13:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I'll hang in here a bit longer to see if there are any dissenting views. Otherwise, my next steps would be to post to the article talk and to WT:FOOTY just to ensure consensus. --Dweller (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

See Category:Married couples for examples, though it looks like some of those articles cover a pairing even when the individuals have separate articles. Probably the only time you'll ever see Sonny and Cher categorized with Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Postdlf (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol. I'm convinced. In fact, so convinced, that I'll make the move and then notify. It's easy enough to restore if there's consensus against, but I can't see that coming. --Dweller (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Vernon and Irene Castle seems like a perfect example of when an article should be about the couple as a unit. Corvus cornix_talk 18:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've recently been copyediting Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone, which is about a couple (they each have their own separate article as well). Dcoetzee 06:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Even the Wright brothers have a single article together. Nyttend (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And Nervo and Knox. DuncanHill (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations to Misplaced Pages

I assume citeding a source in Misplaced Pages for another assertion in Misplaced Pages is generally deprecated. However, I have a special case I've run into where I would like to get the opinion of other editors. I have been unable to find a policy or guideline in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources or Misplaced Pages:Verifiability or related pages.

What about the situation where a List of... article, which would ordinarily have no citations and merely provide a hyperlinked list of terms to get to other WP articles, has grown over time to become a rather more "sophisticated list." An example where this has occurred is List of private spaceflight companies. The table that has emerged adds some useful information to the list, but the editor who added the table did not cite sources for his/her assertions and noone else has added references over the past ten months.

Question: Assuming the editor built the table from information in the various WP articles, would it be sufficient to source them from WP, perhaps with a date accessed on each cite? Or should the table not exist in a List of ... article at all? Or what? N2e (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Lists may be what you are looking for. In a nutshell, sophisticated lists are good, sourcing from unreliable sources like WP is bad. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This comes up from time to time at When to cite and Verifiability (WP:V), and details are often worked out at Featured list candidates. Last I checked, we had over 90K disambiguation (DAB) pages, and they're a kind of list, and I don't recall having seen any cites on any of them. But WP:V still reigns supreme: anything in article-space can be challenged, and if you can't provide a source, it can be removed. Of course, if someone starts wandering around DAB pages making random challenges, and they don't respond to dispute resolution, they're setting themselves up for a trip to WP:ANI for completely misunderstanding community standards. So, if a list looks a lot like a DAB page, it probably doesn't need citations, and you might raise some eyebrows for even asking, but if it has material that looks like it needs to be sourced, then it probably needs to be sourced. Is that circular enough? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

See also this 2005 discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Categories, lists, and navigational templates#Lists and references

As for DAB pages, they're not articles ("Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace" - Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), first sentence). List of... pages are articles ("Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Misplaced Pages's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others" - Misplaced Pages:Lists#Listed items). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the great advice and pointers, everyone. Please also feel free to drop over to the list: List of private spaceflight companies to constructively critique or suggest what should be done to resolve the issues with the tables in that list. N2e (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Francis is correct, but WP:V and WP:POINT are correct, too. If there is material on a DAB page that requires sourcing, then it should be sourced (in which case the page is probably morphing into something that shouldn't be a DAB page) or removed; if a list has the same function as a DAB page, you can challenge the material and force it to be cited or removed, but the consensus, the logic, the community standards that decided that DAB material didn't need to be sourced don't disappear when you click a link. It it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks, it's a duck. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

vd

For the templates, we can direct view , discuss, edit a template via somthing that looks like this:

v • d • e

in a upper left corner of a template. We also need to go directly to the history of the template. So we could have somthing like

v • d • e • h

. Although this might create a bit of ambiguity, cause it could the discussion history, so, I have no idea if there will be use for another proposal:

v • d • e • i • h • u

with, i=add a comment, h=template history, and u=discussion history.

If this requires a change in the program, please post this on Bugzilla (I don't have an account). Thanks!68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is something you should discuss at {{Tnavbar}}. Personally, I think adding such specific links defeats the purpose of quick navigation. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Enacting navigational pop-ups is the easiest method to quickly access the full menu. I believe most people are not interested in the additional options, and would find the suggested extension intrusive. Waltham, The Duke of 06:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, let's keep it simple. The VDE buttons will get you to the template page, you can access all other options from there. Mainspace should not be overly complicated to ease the life of the editor, mainspace should be reader friendly first. Arnoutf (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

BJBot has started damaging a large set of articles we are working on

There's a large set of country-specific drafts (country profiles) in the Misplaced Pages namespace that are under development with the intent to move them to article space when they are completed. This set of pages is listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lists of basic topics, and when complete they will be presented on Lists of basic topics.

The drafts include images of the flags and coats of arms of the countries the pages are about.

However, BJBot has started removing the coats of arms images from the drafts, replacing them with a notice image that includes on its page a warning that if we (the editors working on this addition to Misplaced Pages) put them back, we'll be banned.

These articles are being developed specifically for article space, and they are specifically about the countries that the coats of arms represent. This falls under fair use. An exemption should be made to the Misplaced Pages rule that images of this type can't exist in project space. I don't believe the rule should apply to article drafts.

The article drafts that BJBot has hit so far (that I know of) are:

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Topical outlines/Draft/Topical outline of Tibet --> see this version
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Topical outlines/Draft/Topical outline of Tokelau
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lists of basic topics/Draft/List of basic Cocos (Keeling) Islands topics
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Topical outlines/Draft/Topical outline of the United Arab Emirates

There are over 250 pages in the set (one for every country in the World), and if the bot hits all of these it will create a lot of work, because we are manually adjusting the size of the coats of arms to match the size of the flags they are paired with. The bot threatens to wreck that work, and has already wrecked some of it.

I fixed one of them, but after reading the ban warning, I wrote to BJBot's operator and got the following response:

"Non-free images can't be used in the project space, regardless of the intended destination. In the interim you can link the images or wrap them in <nowiki></nowiki> tags." (User talk:Bjweeks)

I requested that he reply on my talk page, but he wasn't even polite enough to do that.

We're trying to attract editors to these pages to participate in their development, and it would help immensely if prospective editors could see how the pages are shaping up. One of the most visually stunning features of the pages are the respective countries' symbols.

Your input concerning our problem would be most appreciated.

The Transhumanist    00:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Bjweeks is right. You're not supposed to use fair use in any other space than mainspace. Images are not so important that it will do irreparable harm to comment it out in the interim. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• I guess just move the articles into mainspace now (mark "under construction") or leave off the images for now. I do agree it's annoying. Perhaps we should allow "work in progress" tags which put off project space deletions for 30 days or something. I don't think there would be a legal impact, but I'm not a lawyer. Hobit (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest just linking to the image until the article is ready. Just make removing the leading colon a step in moving the article to mainspace. The bot is simply enforcing foundation policy. Resolute 04:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

BJweeks was too nice. Non-free flags and coats of arms are rarely acceptable at English Misplaced Pages, as a free alternative can normally be drawn using the blazon. (Citing WP:NFCC#1)

Resolute, technically, the restriction to article namespace isn't Foundation policy but English Misplaced Pages policy, though indeed a very well established one.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree; he was being too nice. We can't have non-free images in anything but the mainspace. It isn't going to cause irreparable harm for you to comply with existing policy and either comment it out in the meantime to keep it from rendering, or move it into the mainspace and work on it there, or create your own copy with a blank blazon. Celarnor 10:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. Bots are meant to aid human editing of Misplaced Pages - Bjweeks' bot isn't doing this. Also once again we are getting tied up in rules and losing sight of what should be our main focus, writing an encyclopaedia. However probably the best solution is to move the articles to the mainspace and work on them there. Cedars (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

They also do things that are too tedious to do manually, such as go through all the non-free images and making sure they aren't being used improperly. Not only is this an encyclopedia, but a free encyclopedia. We could easily just discard WP:NFCC and use whatever images we want wherever we want, but we've chosen to use free content. Mr.Z-man 03:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy, Prod, and AFD

I wrote an article last month called "Not sold in stores." Within minutes, an editor had tagged a "speedy delete" on the piece. I contested it. Another editor removed the speedy delete. Then soon yet another editor put a "prod" tag on the article, which was later removed by another editor. Then the article went to AFD and discussed extensively for about a week. The community decided to keep the article.

My point is that if all new articles to Misplaced Pages were vetted exactly in the same way we would have less crap on here and a finer, tighter, encyclopedia. Every new article on here should go through the same three-stage "vetting" process. That is my proposal.

A related proposal that I just thought of is that non-admins should be allowed to delete "speedy" or "prod" articles after reaching a certain auto-confirmation level, say like 50 edits.

My "Not sold in stores" article now has the imprimatur of Misplaced Pages. I am so proud -- and we should evaluate all the articles as carefully and lovingly as we did that one, starting next month. Who do you all (the community) think about that? JeanLatore (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is not a good idea, because if everybody were allowed speedy delete you would have run into the fairly big chance that that is just what would have happened with your article; it being speedily deleted, without you even having the time/chance to contest. Arnoutf (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That (about users having power to delete articles) was just basically a side-thought. My main theme was about the three-step process to evaulate new articles. JeanLatore (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

m:Deletionism vs. m:Inclusionism. Those meta pages give a little further discussion of the philosophies on deleting things. I'm kind of fond of this image as well for giving a visual aid. I don't personally see a reason to go deletion-happy, pointless orphan articles don't really hurt the project, though some of it is obvious garbage. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your vetting process proposal is. At present, in effect, any article can go through such a 3-stage process, and many do. This happens via the scrutiny of Special:Newpages and patrolling. I suppose I'm wondering what exactly you are suggesting. That every article should be created with a speedy delete tag already attached to it? Surely not, that would be awful! Perhaps that every article should be considered by a (renamed?) AfD-like process. It's just not humanly possible given the sheer rate of creation, even once you strip out the speedies and not-yet-challenged PRODs. But do bear in mind that Special:Newpages actually gets quite a lot of attention from both humans and bots, so there is a 'reasonable' degree of scrutiny. Splash - tk 15:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is a perennial proposal about unbundling the tools. –xenocidic (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The main proposal was about the 3-tiered evaluation process. Its great -- should be mandatory. JeanLatore (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering the rather less-than-unanimous consensus there was to keep the article in question, I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's "survived the vetting process". It can (and probably will) still be deleted in the future. As Splash says, the process you describe is already the core of the deletion process. Making it mandatory doesn't seem to gain any real benefits, as people will happily recreate fancruft articles every week if required, while users who are adding genuinely valuable stubs may not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Because its still around, dude. Still around=survived. The opposite of getting deleted. Its there. That's where i got that whacky idea, bro. People that re-create articles get blocked and will give up after a few years. JeanLatore (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The system simply could not handle every single decent new article going all the way through AfD. That process is massively overburdened as it is.

Better to continue to allow editor discretion regarding which articles should be put through CSD, PROD, or AfD (and, yes, sometimes all three). At this very moment, there are editors with the Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol who are sifting through all of the new articles. When they find a decent one, they mark it as patrolled. When they find one that needs deleted, they tag it appropriately. It's not a perfect system, but it works fairly well based on the volunteer resources available. — Satori Son 19:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above, that taking every single new article through speedy/prod/afd would pretty much turn away every user creating pages and overburden these processes. –xenocidic (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it would send a message to contributors -- Stop and think before you write an article. If you do not want this article to go through CSD, Prod, and AFD all in succession, Do not click save. The encyclopedia will be better for it. JeanLatore (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. Spartaz 20:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Anything that discourages people from trying something at least once is completely antithetical to everything that Misplaced Pages and wiki philosophy stands for. Being BOLD is one of our most central ideas. You do something first, and if it isn't a good idea, then someone will point out what's wrong with it and you won't do it again; you've learned your lesson from your very own little trial by fire. We have plenty of people who analyze new pages and tag them appropriately or mark them as patrolled if they look okay. The system works fine enough as it is.

Regarding that individual article, I really think its unlikely that it's unlikely to survive for any extended period of time. This "vetting process" only occurs with articles of questionable value. There's no point in speedy-tagging an article that no one is going to want deleted, just like there's no reason to AfD something no one feels really needs to be deleted. There's just no point; those things are there for when concerns are raised about notability or other issues inherent to the article that can't be repaired by normal editing; they simply aren't the kind of mechanism that you put something through if you don't want that mechanism to act on it. Celarnor 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't we have a vetting process - it's called AfD? doktorb _words 21:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD is not something that every article is meant to go through; it is where people discuss problematic articles. All articles are not problematic; it doesn't follow that all articles need to be discussed in the "Delete/Keep/Merge/Redirect" environment of AfD, which is meant to deal with articles that have irreparable problems and only those articles. Perhaps perennial RFCs on each article are more along the lines of what the OP was thinking. Celarnor 21:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) If we had an infinite number of editors, or an infinite amount of time available from existing editors, then sure, a complete vetting process for each new article would be great. But we get several thousand new articles every day, while the AfD process has roughly 100 new articles begin that process each day. If we increase the AfD workload by at least an order of magnitude, that means less available editing time for other things, and it means that routine "keep" decisions would swamp the number of cases where thorough discussions are important. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What you're actually saying is: "AFD does not scale" O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sold in stores (marketing), which is completely unsourced and appears to be OR, should never have had to go to AfD, and likely only passed because there seemed to be consensus to merge rather than delete. Sadly, the closing admin left the merge for someone else to do, and it's really not worth the time. This proposal, similarly, seems to be geared toward wasting more time and effort of good-faith contributors, rather than improving WP content. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify the above-poster's mischaracterisation of the situation, there simply was no consenus on the AFD for "Not sold in stores." There were 13 firm comments recommending either Keep, Delete, or merge (distinct from the comment comments espousing secondary concerns). Of the 13, only 3 were for delete, 5 were for merge, and 5 were to keep the article. JeanLatore (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You have counted the !votes correctly, but I was offering my opinion of the consensus. Regardless, my intention was to give people here some insight into who was proposing such a radical change. My apologies if my previous comments made it seem like I was calling you a persistently disrutive troll. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

i am extremley uncomfortable with giving every editor "speedy delete" powers. all it would accomplish is to creat e huge burden for vandalism fighters since the vandal s would have a cool new way to destroy the Projec.t As for the rest of the proposal, I like it except it might be ciscouraging to new users. Unlike a paper encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages can be endlessly eself-correcting and has an infinite amount of time to improve. The fact that a rubbishy article is create d is not really a bad thing since it will be caught and corected in most instances. There is no real need for a veting mechanism to destory bad articles before they are created since its always better to create and improve an article thatn to try and create a "perfect" article right from the get go (which can not happen since Smith Jones (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Something to be done?

Is there something to be done re: people who try to reset other peoples passwords? It seems like a hazard and I'm not sure what has already been done to stop that? Smith Jones (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bring em on. JeanLatore (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing can be done about it. It's a bit stupid of these people to try as it sends a password to the registered email account rather than gives a message saying, "Congratulations! You've just reset this user's password! This user's new password is 1234!" but there are cases where one tries to reset one's password legitimately. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless the person also has access to your email account, there is no security risk. We can't block people from trying to log in, so there's really nothing we can do about it, its just a minor annoyance. Mr.Z-man 23:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can an editor's password be reset without that editor's consent? --SMP0328. (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

not yet unless they have your email password (which takes a bit longer to get), but since that Community seems determined to lets this slide then one way somehow a compuer-savvy hacker will find a way to get a sys-op account and wreak some seirous vandalism. Smith Jones (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see this as an issue. Don't publish the email address that you keep in your preferences, and ensure it has a strong password. –xenocidic (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone can hack your email account, presumably they can hack your Misplaced Pages account directly as well. The odds of it happening are so low it isn't worth the trouble to do anything about it. And if someone hacks your email, them getting your Misplaced Pages password is probably the least of your worries. Mr.Z-man 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ombudsmen Committee formal proposal

My fellow Wikipedians, the Ombudsmen Committee proposal page has been expanded, updated and significantly upgraded. On the basis of this RfC and the support of at least two Arbitrators, numerous Administrators and many regular editors, we are proud to formally announce the proposal of an Ombudsmen Committee for community comment and consensus. For seven months this proposal has been discussed, debated, edited and crunched. I hope it meets the demands of the community and only serves to further the for benefit of all Wikipedians. With great hope, Bstone (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, well developed. Go for it. Arnoutf (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as it stands right now, I don't see much of a point to it. If it cannot overturn decisions, but merely echoes the conscience of the community, I believe it has no real purpose. —Animum (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Animum. I think I know what you're conveying. The idea is that a uniform, official voice and opinion would hold more power than many individual voices. Being that OmbCom would be official it means ArbCom and other groups which have come to a decision by an irregular process would suffer from the stigma of an official criticism. Is there any way I might be able to obtain your support? Bstone (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In the way I see things, the community itself is already that official voice. If there's something the Arbitration Committee won't do when the community feels something went wrong, I don't think it will respond any differently to the Ombudsmen Committee. The largest, earliest, and most powerful institution Jimbo put into effect, albeit unintentionally, was the community. If the Arbitration Committee is responsive to its criticisms, there's no need for the Ombudsmen Committee; if not, the Ombudsmen Committee can do nothing more than the collective can. Regards, —Animum (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the proposal as it stands is in ensuring that the committee would (a) carry appropriate weight and (b) reflect the opinion of the community. I would support giving it a "trial run" of, say, three months, after which it would be possible to reflect on the whole process, to determine whether it is a useful body in principle and to modify its structure as may be necessary. If there was a closely defined trial, I would give full support to the idea. Creating it without some kind of defined experiment is, I think, foolish and I would oppose that at this time. Sam Korn 19:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

May I comment on objections above. While there are no official powers there are two things that may happens. First, an editor who has gotten on the wrong side of ArbCom and is supported by an easily approachable OmbCom may feel much better, and may sit out any punishment more easily to return positively to the project (this in itself is already a huge gain in my view) Secondly, (if the OrbCom committee manages to gain the respect of the community) it may be that an OrbCom judgement may help an editor to appeal to ArbCom and be taken seriously. Of course, ArbCom holds final say, but if a respected OrbCom says something high quality ArbCom members may reconsider their own judgement, likely more than after comments by unspecified community members. These two benefits may exist without any formal authority, and are in my opinion substantial enough to support the idea (just as a sideline, before today, I did not hear anything of this initiative) Arnoutf (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf, thank you for the response! You summed it up quite nicely. I sincerely appreciate it. Bstone (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems like more bureaucracy with no benefit. The community's consensus should be reflected 10x before something would need to goto something like a Ombudsmen Committee. I just see no reason to further clutter Misplaced Pages. Beam 20:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This just seems like an excuse to create a new userbox. John Reaves 20:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, I promise I didn't put in 7 months of hard work and lots of collaboration on this in order to get a userbox. Truly, I feel that it's a good thing which can be very very useful for the community. It doesn't add more bureaucracy as it's a completely optional (and by design, non-binding) mechanism. I am sorry you don't see the benefit in it. Bstone (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with with Animum. If it can't do anything about ArbCom's abuses, then there really isn't much of a point. Until it becomes binding on ArbCom, I think it's somewhere between 0.25 and 0.50 on a 10-point usefulness scale. History over the past few months have shown the Committe to be potentially abusive of their power and collectively unresponsive to the community at large. I don't think they'll be any more responsive to some other group of editors representative of the community unless there's some teeth that it can sink into ArbCom from time to time when it steps out of line. Celarnor 21:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously advocating the theory that, to solve the problems with the Arbitration Committee, a smaller body should be allowed to overrule it? And that will make decisions more representative of the community at large? Sam Korn 22:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Something needs to be done to put the committee in check; if tweaked enough to make sure that this is representative of the community (i.e, short terms, more responsive to queries and criticism, etc), I think this could be useful for that purpose. Celarnor 10:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Second Sam Korn's comment above. Why does this remind me of the AMA? Risker (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam, did you perhaps read the proposal in full? I am confused why you would think that OmbCom can overrule Arbitration Committee when it is quite clearly stated that that would be specifically not possible. OmbCom is designed to be the conscience of the community, to point out irregularities in process and verdict, but ultimately leave it up to ArbCom or whomever to decide to vacate, reverse or otherwise change their position. Instead of many individual voices of criticism, OmbCom would be an official, unified voice. Universities and governments all have Ombudsmen which do exactly this- introspective, consultative, often critical but always non-binding in opinion. I hope this clears that up. Lastly, OmbCom is absolutely not the AMA nor is it designed to be anything like the AMA. Cheers, Bstone (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, I agree. I was replying to Celarnor, who advocates letting the ombudsman make binding decisions. Sam Korn 22:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, Sam! My fault!! Bstone (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as i can tell the situation is this. This committee will act as an independent body to review actions taken by the committee on a long term timescale, to ensure:

• Clarity
• Consistency
• Fairness

This is especially useful when cases need to be conducted off wiki due to privacy or other issues. The idea is to have a body who's role to continually monitor ARBCOM so that when issues and sweeping statements are made, the community can be provided with a clear and accurate response when one is needed instead the explosion of drama as we have had recently. They speak for the community when a clear voice is needed rather than a shouting mob. This commitee is completely answerable to the community and if the community doesnt like what OMBCOM is doing then it can be scrapped. This isn't a permanent thing like ARBCOM. I think we should give this a try and if it works we have achieved something, if it doesnt work then we get rid of it. Seddσn 22:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Animum as well. So basically, this is a group of non-arbitrators and non-mediators who can issue official, yet non-binding opinions regarding ArbCom cases that are supposed to reflect the opinion of the community. Its scope is so small and actual authority so minimal, I'm really not convinced that this is worth the extra effort nor that it will actually work in practice. We have a large and varied community, the more people you involve in a discussion, the less likely you are going to be able to get any resolution, so how will OmbCom be able to actually determine what the community's opinion is? Or will this be telling the community what their opinion should be? Mr.Z-man 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mr.Z-man, and thanks for your opinion. In light of your concerns, might you be willing to provisionally support the OmbCom for a, say, a year? After that period of time the community will give feedback on the OmbCom and determine if it's a project which still merits continuation? Since the OmbCom is owned by the community, the results of that RfC would be binding. Thanks and I look forward to your response as soon as you conveniently can. Bstone (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

To echo what Animum said, if ArbCom is willing to ignore the community, why would they suddenly start listening to OmbCom? For me to support such a large new process, I would have to be convinced that there would be significant benefit somewhere. However, I really don't see a need for this at all. If my understanding is correct, OmbCom is basically to ArbCom what DRV is to XFD. I'm picturing a bunch of "Wahh! ArbCom banned me!" complaints, lots of long screeds about why their sanctions are unfair because they were fighting for The Truth™ and not a very good signal to noise ratio. Also, I'm concerned about the requirements for members. While we technically allow non-admins to become arbitrators, it has yet to happen. The proposed OmbCom would require that we have a sufficient number of non-admins that meet the Foundation's privacy policy and the community trusts with information we don't trust most admins with. So, no, I don't think running this, even for just a "trial" would be beneficial. Mr.Z-man 03:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So as I interpret this, it is basically user-conduct RfC. But with fewer people participating (in line with many recent proposals which distrust ever-larger proportions of the community and so contradict themselves), and with exactly as many teeth. Which is to say: none at all. Splash - tk 00:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It serves no purpose other than, no offense, to make some people feel important. I'm sorry you wasted your time working on this Bstone but it won't help anyone at all. It will only add another layer of fail. I'm being blunt because it needs to be said: this isn't a good idea, and it isn't helpful. Beam 00:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise that people have put a lot of time into this proposal but frankly it looks a complete waste of time - another toothless talking shop and we already have plenty of those. --Allemandtando (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

OK - on further examination, I'll downgrade this from "waste of time" to "terrible idea" - the only people who will get any benefit out of this will be the POV pushers who will engage it's services every time that arbcomm drops the hammer and try to use it to spin out process. Kill this idea, kill it with fire/ --Allemandtando (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I respect greatly the thought, motivation, and effort that went into this proposal, but ultimately I must disagree with it. In my opinion, this is just another layer of bureaucracy with built-in drama-generating mechanisms. Furthermore, I find the proposal to be incomplete: the OmbCom is supposed to represent the consensus of the community, but the proposal defines no mechanism by which that objective is enabled (biennial election is not sufficient for that purpose IMO). I don't believe the minimal extra "oomph" provided by an elected body in voicing the opinion of the masses is worth the inevitable drama that will result. Powers 12:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a larger problem with the election process - who is it going to attract? I'm an editor, I edit articles, I have no interest in joining some talking circle when there is editing to be done. Whatever the intentions of the originator - The candidates are all (and let's call a spade a spade) going to be wikilawyers - the sort of people who get excited by the idea of some codified powerless bureaucracy where they can all shout "point of partmentary procedure!" at each other. We got rid of the last wikilawyer clubhouse (AMA) let's not create another. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• As I've said elsewhere I think this is a silly proposal that will do no good. The 12:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC) comment says it really well. —Giggy 15:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• I can't see that another forum for bureaucracy and elections and committees and wikipolitics is needed. Another committee means just another forum, not that everybody will suddenly stop arguing. Dean B (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose We do not need more bureaucracy and more paralysis. If anything , the June 2008 ArbCom proposals will do more to help logjams than this. Also, if we do not have a final arbiter, then we will be stuck in an endless loops of appeals. One cannot appeal a Supreme Court decision. ArbCom is our Supreme Court. Increase the members on ArbCom if you will, but there is no appealing ArbCom, other than to Jimbo directly (as tradition). -- Avi (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest that the community itself can overrule Arbcom if it so chooses. We name Arbcom our "supreme court" as a matter of convenience and practicality. However, it can, and will, be changed if its behaviour causes the community to sufficiently demand change. As such, I agree completely that there is no need for an ombudsman or Ombcom. As we saw with the vacated arbcom decision last month, the community already can hold it in check without an unnecessary level of bureaucracy. Resolute 05:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• The community is nimble and responsive, the community is active and involved, the community has direct access to all levels of power. There isn't a role for an ombudsman here. Darkspots (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment My initial leaning here is towards qualified support, but I think the proposal needs some further work. It does seem to me that the proposed committee would perform some of the role of the old AMA. It seems to me some of this is a useful role. Admins and even the occassional Arbcom decision can overreach, and potentially valuable contributors have occassionally received discouragingly unwelcoming treatment over minor and sometimes arguable policy violations. AMA was simply too lawyer-like. One of its biggest problems was that it tended to have the lawyer's ethic of representing anyone, folks with genuine grievances and outright vandals alike. A group able to step in to address perceived overreaching but which has the descretion and judgment to act only in genuinely appropriate cases would be a welcome improvement. That said, I think the proposed role is overstated. Suggest deleting the language about the "conscience of the community" etc. Agree this group would have no more right to call themselves that than Arbcom or the commenters on an RFC or anyone else. Less starry-eyed rhetoric and more realistic (and humble) goals would likely result in greater acceptance and greater success. I think it's important to word the proposal in a way that conveys a sense of savvy and discretion, so that we end up with a committee that isn't easily fooled and doesn't simply muck things up and cry wolf, as the AMA was sometimes prone to do, on behalf of everyone and anyone claiming to be a victim. If the scope is reduced to simply help identify people with meritorious-looking claims who have problems with admins, Arbcom, etc., and if the role is narrowed to be more a mediator/facilitator/neutral but helpful third party than some "conscious of the community" who'se going to be writing 200 page formal reports about what Arbcom did wrong and be creating their own bureacracy, precendents, ideology, manifestos, groupies, and jargon, I think everyone will be a lot better off. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Behaving like the AMA? I can't think of a better reason to oppose this idea. Seriously? How can we expect a small elected cabal to overule the larger also elected cabal? Basically this smells like we don't like the decisions arbcom makes so we will try and come up with some way to negate them. With respect this is a solution looking for a problem and has the prospect of destroying what little dispute resolution process we have. No ta. Spartaz 16:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment here. - Merzbow (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, you appear to be proposing the creation of a committee - how can you do this when the concept is not even policy yet? I had a look at your userpage, and I can't agree that consensus is forming towards this happening. If anything consensus seems to be going the other way now that more people are becoming aware of it. Policy formation, from what I've seen, is a long process that involves the views of hundreds of users in the same forum and in the same rough time period. You may have been pushing this for several months, but mostly without success. You may have generated interest because of a convenient RfC but that isn't sufficient consensus to form policy. John Smith's (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I couldn't believe it when Bstone said there was a consensus for this when it's quite obvious that if there is any consensus it is AGAINST this idea, without question. Bstone, what do you have to say in your defense? Beam 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I just haven't seen a solid case articulated for this. I'm not sure why we need another committee to put pressure on a committee that's already elected from the community (though formally appointed by Jimbo). - Philippe 21:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Silly. I can't believe this has reared its head again. I remember this from months ago, and then noticed it again recently when Bstone tried to appoint himself chairman of this committee, and was reverted. It should be strongly suggested to Bstone that he stop mucking about with policies. It seems pretty clear he doesn't understand how these things work here. This looks like an exercise in ego rather than a real proposal. Friday (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Superfluous. The community does not require a formal committee to express itself, as this particular thread finely demonstrates. -- Anonymous Dissident 03:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unnecessary extra layer of drama-generation; solution in search of a problem. Oversight over the ArbCom can be exercised through elections or through the community-based discussion and dispute resolution mechanisms.  Sandstein  11:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the pump has said "no thanks" - there is now an attempt to ignore what is being said here and spin our wheels with a popular vote - see here --Allemandtando (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge after AFD

Can someone point me to the template placed on article where the AFD has been closed as merge, please (it says that if the merge is not carried out promptly the article may be renominated)? Smile a While (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The template is Template:Afd-mergefrom and Template:Afd-mergeto. Davewild (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah; many thanks. Smile a While (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured media, video and audio

I advise to create "Featured media". Its subcategories would be "Featured pictures", "Featured audio" and "Featured video" policy. Putting video just under pictures is not correct in my opinion. Discussions here and here already.--Kozuch (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

How to handle non-English sources in the English Misplaced Pages?

I ran into a lot of non-English, and therefore, non-verifiable sources for the article Project 921-3. Does the English language WP have any policy about how to handle this? N2e (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, non English sources are allowed (although English sources are preferred). No, non-english sources are not "non-verifiable" as long as they can be accessed by anyone, and the language itself can be learned. Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Non-English sources is the relevant policy. Davewild (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That answers the question. N2e (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is substantial evidence that a foreign language is easier to learn than the basics of Quantum Electrodynamics. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Unprotecting difficult pages

This is a proposal for a method that could allow controversial pages under long-term protection to be unprotected without falling back into edit-warring.

The problem of continued protection came to my attention regarding What the Bleep Do We Know!?; that article has been protected since February, resulting in a stalled article. I first proposed this method on the Bleep talk page. There were questions about related policy issues, so I thought of proposing this procedure here, to find out if it might be a good plan for long-term protected articles in general; and also to request comment on the situation at that particular article (I'll also add a link to this section on the article talk page).

Background: Page protection due to edit-warring is intended to cool the situation so that after a short time the page can return to normal editing. Some pages have so much entrenched controversy that edit-warring returns immediately, resulting in long-term protection. But long-term page protection is incompatible with the basic idea of Misplaced Pages, so it's preferable to find a way to unprotect those pages, if that can be done without giving in to disruption.

Milestone consensus versions: A big issue with unprotecting during edit wars is that when pages are re-protected, they can end up in worse condition than when the prior protection was removed. Admins protecting a page in emergency situations can't be expected to know the content issues, and are expected not to impose their own ideas about which is the best version.

This can be addressed by identifying the most recent milestone version for an article, so that if the page must be re-protected, the admin is provided with a specific diff to revert to, as part of the protection process.

Proposed procedure:

• Talk page editors first agree to milestone-version unprotection. If they don't, then the process is not engaged.
• Talk page section is added with clear section heading to identify the milestone-version agreement.
• The protected version is defined as the first milestone version.
• Page is unprotected, normal editing resumes.
• If edit warring immediately resumes, page is re-protected as usual, however it is reverted to the same previously protected version, so no advantage accrues due to the edit warring.
• When there are article changes without edit warring, after a while, editors can agree on a new milestone version by entering that diff in the milestone-agreement section of the talk page, with sign-offs to show it's accepted.
• Later if edit warring resumes, when the page is re-protected, it is also reverted to the most recent milestone version, according to the diff identified in the talk page "milestone agreement" section. If no new milestone has been agreed, that diff will be the same as the prior protected version.
• (To make it easier for admins and content editors to know that a page is under "milestone version agreement", a template could be made for use at the top of the talk page).

Milestone versions would allow unprotection without allowing edit-warriors to try and impose non-consensed changes to get the page protected on a preferred version, because any protection would always revert to an agreed version. If there is no agreed-version, then it would remain stuck at the random one that was initially protected.

Perhaps it would be useful to test this method at What the Bleep Do We Know!? to find out how it works. Maybe it has hidden problems that would be revealed in a test, but if it works, it could be applied to various articles with long-term edit warring issues. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this person is infected with WP:The Wrong Version ideas. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist makes in interesting point here, although as he does so often, he stated it in an uncivil way. This proposal is specifically designed to address concerns about the WP:The Wrong Version. The wrong version happens when an admin either is not familiar with the article and a random version is protected, or if an admin has personal ideas about which version is best. The purpose of this proposal is to allow the protected version to change, subject to consensus, which is an improvement over the problems of "the wrong version". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, protection is not supposed to protect the "right version". Protection is a temporary measure. That's the end of it. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection is intended to be a temporary measure. An article that has been protected for five months is not under "temporary" protection. My sense is that Jack-A-Roe is trying to find a solution to what is clearly not a desirable state. Powers 23:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)\

Yes, that is my intent. Constant protection of pages is not what Misplaced Pages is about; so I came up with the above suggestion that could help in difficult situations.

Since the time I posted this, I've reviewed the list of indef protected articles. Some have been protected for months but most of those are probably ready for unprotection; I've posted a note about that at the RFPP talk page. There seem to be very few that have actual long-term edit wars requiring continued protection. For those few though, a procedure like the above could be helpful. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments about no consensus at AFD

Apologies if I've got this in the wrong Village pump, but I debated for a while and thought this was the most appropriate one. Anyway, I've been trying to come up with an alternative solution to the "default keep" of a no consensus result of AFDs, since in reality no consensus isn't a decision for keep. Here's my idea: currently we relist items if there's little discussion to get more consensus, right? Well, why don't we do that with "no consensus" AFDs? I mean, if it's a serious endless argument and after that, well, I'm not sure what we can do there. But I think it would be perfectly reasonable to have at least one shot at getting a consensus by extending an AFD for another five days. Comments? Red Phoenix 18:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a low participation at an AFD then a relist to get more opinions can make sense. However we already have difficulty with getting enough people to comment on AFDs and getting even more AFDs being relisted than we already do, will just make AFD more backlogged. Secondly if you still disagree with a no consensus then it is perfectly acceptable to renominate the article for AFD after a reasonable length of time (two to three months is usually fine for a no consensus). If the concerns raised in the first AFD have not been addressed it is more likely that the article will be deleted the second time round. Davewild (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not always like that, though, with concerns over the article not always being addressed. Sometimes it ends up in a debate over whether something either fits or doesn't fit a guideline, such as this debate where interpretations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the inheritance of notability are in heavy dispute. I believe a relist in these instances can be helpful and trendsetting for any further policy discussions that could be needed at some point. I believe backlogging is a minor concern at this point, since I don't see many articles each day ending in "no consensus", just a few that should be addressed for sure. Red Phoenix 19:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If it is a policy disagreement that cannot be agreed on in the AFD (especially when there was a reasonable participation as there was on that one) then I think it is better to be discussed on the relevant policy or guideline page. I see no reason to think continued discussion would have led to a definite consensus over an issue where there is such a disagreement between people. Until the community as a whole agrees on the issues discussed in that AFD no consensus's are likely to continue to take place. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And that's part of what I'm trying to help out with this proposal, because I think that quite a few "no consensus" could possibly be resolved with this proposal. Of course, it's all a matter of opinion, I'm not one to speak for all of Misplaced Pages. Red Phoenix 19:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As for that particular dispute that I mentioned, I've started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not, since it has nothing to do with this proposal and does not require further disussion here. Red Phoenix 19:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"No consensus" means exactly what it sounds like. "No consensus to change the state of this article" means that we keep it for the time being while we seek further consensus on the matter. Above all else, "no consensus to change" most certainly doesn't mean "consensus to delete", which is a proposal that has been shot down before with regards to BLPs. Usually, in the cases of low participation, the no consensus AfDs do get relisted for an additional five days if the closing admin thinks that further discussion might yield a useful result; if it can't, then it's probably a policy issue and, as it has been pointed out, the appropriate place to discuss those is at the relevant talkpages, not in an AfD specific to a single article. Celarnor 20:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Then why do I never see anyone trying to seek further consensus on matters closed as "no consensus"? Maybe if this proposal does not work, then we need to look into making sure we have consensus for such acts, even if it takes more time. Red Phoenix 20:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's because Misplaced Pages has a bias toward inclusion of articles. Like a tie goes to "keep" rather than delete. Unless something is a CSD candidate, once an article is posted on wikipedia, it is presumed notable, and the only way to delete it is with a strong consensus for delete. Your policy furthermore could be interpreted (and pardon me if this was not your intent) as "sore-loser-ness" in that you propose keeping AFD's open past their expiration to achieve "consensus," where the only resulting change could be to "consenus to delete." JeanLatore (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

People seek further consensus on matters all the time, usually by relisting an article at AFD after an appropriate breathing period. This allows people to step away from the dispute, and gives the nominator a chance to start afresh a statement that reflects the concerns presented in the first AFD. One problem with the debate you link is an inadequate nomination statement, which contains simply a link to a policy with no explanation of why it applies in this case.

If the closing admin believes that a lack of participation was the problem, he's always free to relist it and frequently will. However, I think most experienced AFD closers will develop a good sense of when more discussion is likely to bring resolution and when it is likely to be wasted energy. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You've seriously never seen any relisted discussions? One, two, three, four were relisted yesterday ... Celarnor 00:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No consensus means no consensus to delete. Article kept by default. No problem with this. II 01:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment No consensus is a valuable procedural check on deletion. "no consensus to delete" only applies if the page does not violate core policies (or foundation issues) and so the benefit of the doubt belongs with the page author. We don't really have a problem with too few pages being deleted at AfD. maintaining the benefit of the doubt allows us to do things like limit debate (five days) and delete pages permanently. Protonk (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy#Remove discouragement of cool down blocks from the policy

There is an ongoing discussion and an RfC at the above link of a proposal to change the language of the current blocking policy (which prohibits blocks whose sole purpose is to cool down an angry user) and to allow "cool-down" blocks under certain circumstances. Wider community input would be appreciated. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Image warnings

Lafayette Jackson Veterans Organization uses a couple of images that I've nominated for deletion. I've followed the instructions of the IFD procedure page, which says "You must inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page as well as notify the discussion pages of articles using that image using {{subst:idw|Image:Image_name.ext}}" The template given, however, is a warning for user talk pages, and as such looks rather odd on the LJVO talk page. Is there any better warning? Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

AFDs to delete multiple related pages

According to WP:AFD, If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately.. However I'm concerned that withing Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football there has been a recent trend to try and bulk delete many articles where at least one, if not more of the articles could stand on it's own merits (not necessarily "does stand", but "could stand").

One recent example is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Richard Asante where four of the six listed articles had previously survived an earlier AFD. Clearly these should now be discussed individually.

Another recent example is where severn articles about players are proposed for deletion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Doug Lascody where one previously survived an AFD, another is the goal keeper of the current US men's soccer team for the Olympics, and a third had a Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column. I feel these should also be discussed indvidually, as there isn't much similiarity between each case.

I realise that it is more efficient to list multiple articles for deletion when it's clear that deletion is the likely outcome. But I'm concerned that when the outcome is less clear, that grouping articles together is more likely result in the lack of a proper review for each article. Nfitz (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Another example today Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Overton United F.C. where articles for 9 football teams are being discussed. I note a lack of comments - is there a better place to discuss whether this is appropriate bundling or not? Nfitz (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WT:AFD? Usually if the pages are substantially different, editors will say so and the nom will either withdraw or be closed early for relisting. Most of the time, however, the issues are basically the same and a SERIOUS congestion and duplication problem is avoided by listing them together. See the Warhammer 40k listings that are up now for a counter example. Finally, I've seen multiple AFD's closed separately (Close one as keep, the rest as delete, etc), so I'm not sure the problem is that large. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines