Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new other than a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.

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

« Archives, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197

the "table of contents" of many articles break contents down into a single "part"

I learned in grammar school that one of the most basic rules of creating an outline is something like:

if you are going to create an indented sub-topic, you must create at least two sub-topics.

I think the idea is that in creating an indented sub-topic, you are breaking an idea into its component parts; but if a concept only has one part, then that part must be the whole concept. In that case, creating a sub-topic is misleading and not justified.

I think this is relevant in wikipedia because the tables of contents in many articles are in outline form, and so should follow the rules for outlining.

By the way, it bothers me that I have edited pages here on wikipedia at least twice in the past to make this suggestion and my edits were deleted. Please don't delete my request; instead justify your reasons for not implementing it if that is what you are going to do. What I would like to see is a generally available discusssion about this very non-trivial subject.

Please note that outlining is an important process: useful for organizing ideas before writing any complicated document, and probably useful for almost any planning. Wikipedia arguably is a very powerful standard setter, and as such may have a profound (in this case negative, I think) effect on the ability of many whom wikipedia influences to outline, write, think and plan.

Allow me to introduce an example below of what I mean:

From the "Quantum" article in wikipedia:

Contents [hide] 1 Development of quantum theory

    1.1 The quantum black-body radiation formula 

2 Beyond electromagnetic radiation

    2.1 The birthday of quantum mechanics 

3 See also 4 References 5 Notes

Above, "1 Development of quantum theory" is broken down (or outlined) into one component part. It seems to me that for this to adhere to the basic rule for outlining I am requesting that it must be either broken down into more than one part, or that "1.1 The quantum black-body radiation formula" should be "demoted" to a lower level, i.e. 1.1 would be demoted to replace "2 Beyond electromagnetic radiation" and "2 Beyond electromagnetic radiation" would be renumbered as "3 Beyond electromagnetic radiation" with remaining entries renumbered sequentially.

Another way of saying this is: Surely there is more than one part to item number 1 "the development of quantum theory"; if not, then I think "1.1 The quantum black-body radiation formula" should join the line above it or replace the line above it.

Summary: though it will be expensive in terms of person-hours, I think wikipedia should adopt a standard (which, considering wikipedia's considerable and growing influence will set a nearly universal standard) of not allowing solitary sub-topics in outlines (i.e. table of contents, etc). This would not be a new standard, it would merely be following long established rules of language (and thought).

69.225.94.162 (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Joe Cash email: joecash@sol.csustan.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.94.162 (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree in principle, and if you want to make such edits, then please do so. In addition, you could find the WP page outlining the policy about headers — wherever it might exist — and present your idea as an edit to that page; then see if it flies. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, with one provision: sometimes a section will have a lead/introduction, and then a subsection. This mught be legitimate style, but still render a TOC as you described?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above stated rule about outlines as I was taught the same thing. However, when I brought the subject up to the Wikipedia:Featured articles grammar and layout guru, User:Tony1, he stated he had never heard of such rule and that is was not in the critera for a FAC. So there you go! –Mattisse (Talk) 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Date links suck.

Hi,

I dislike date links. I think they should be excised from Wikipedia because they make articles harder to read.

I understand the main reason to keep them is to preserve autoformatting.

How would I propose that date links be invisible when reading the article? So a wikilink for 30 June 1944 would simply appear in the browser thus:

30 June 1944

Tempshill (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I know date links in general are a longstanding point of contention and irritation. I just don't know where to make the proposal. Over at the Manual of Style (dates and numbers) link there's just a large intimidating longstanding flame war about something I don't even know what they're arguing about. Tempshill (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you like a javascript tool to make them invisible to you? — CharlotteWebb 18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Tempshill, but I believe he or she is asking for a change in policy whereby the links would not be visible to the researcher (most of our visitors). Perhaps the Javascript tool should instead make them VISIBLE. I agree that highlighting the dates in blue is really silly and makes WP look like a conclave of nerds rather than serious writers and editors. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You say "sincerely" as if I might otherwise doubt the sincerity of your comment . In any case I do not understand why a casual reader would consider blue, clickable links to June 4, 2008 any nerdier than blue, clickable links to any other topic. Sincerely. — CharlotteWebb 13:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree 99% that date links suck. However there are a few cases where they are useful to readers, e.g. in Guns, Germs, and Steel "trying into explain why, for example, in 1492 Eurasia was almost entirely populated by settled societies with governments, literacy, iron technology and standing armies while the other continents were almost entirely populated by stone age tribes of hunter-gatherers" provides an opportunity to remind readers of Columbus' voyage across the Atlantic, which effectively started modern European colonialism - which is very relevant to the theme of the book. I can also think of a few day-month dates that might usefully be wikilinked: 1 January, 1 April, 25 December, etc.

I think what's needed is:

• A flexible policy based on whether the value of a date is significant to the reader, which generally depends on the context.
• A mechanism for formatting dates (e.g. dd-mm-yyyy vs mm-dd-yyyy) without wikilinking. But IMO it must also be one that's easy for editors to use - unlike e.g. the requirement to use ISO format (yyyy-mm-dd) for accessdate in "cite web". That's a matter for the techies to resolve. Philcha (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing that bugs me is overprecision about dates--which I think is related to the aesthetics of the blue date link. I have removed day or month information from dates to get rid of the wikilink--for example, who cares when in 1988 a particular book was released? I'd be very much in favor of a software solution to make date linking invisible. Darkspots (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If we can verify the exact date of book publication (or any other event) the relevant articles should include the date in some form or fashion. The other obvious advantage of wiki-linking dates is that a list of referring pages makes it easier to add births, deaths, and other cataclysmic events to our day/month/year articles. I would support a "software solution" in the form of a "[x] Suppress links to day/month/year articles" (replacing them by "plain text") in Special:Preferences as long as it is unchecked (keeping status quo) by default. Failing that (I doubt the devs would consider this a high-priority issue — bigger fish to fry, you know...) I have offered to create a javascript tool to do pretty much the same thing, for users who do not wish to see (or, worse, accidentally click on) links to day/month/year articles. Blurring chronological information, i.e. changing a known and undisputed exact date to an approximate time-span (solely to avoid formatting it as a date), is disruptive and downright harmful. Please do not do this. — CharlotteWebb 13:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

When you have a series of events--let's say a list of novels written by an author in a biography of the author--and some of the dates have day, month, year, some have month, year, and some have only the year, that date link really stands out and looks ugly. I'm not talking about changing the date of a battle or an election from a day to a year. but in that list of books, making all the past dates have the same level of precision--like month, year--helps a lot. When reading a biography, do you really care on what date in May 1988, say, an author had a book published? Not really. You want to know the chronological order in which things happened, you want to know about what was happening in history at that moment. Now there are no doubt countless exceptions to this--Van Gogh scholars care deeply what happened on each date of the last years of his life, as a random example. In a more general way, if an author has multiple works published every month, obviously more specific dates would be in order. But unnecessary precision is no service to our readers. I wouldn't change a date just to get rid of a link, but it's definitely one of a lot of considerations. I try to edit in every situation with an eye to what's going to make the encyclopedia better. Darkspots (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean but the exact date (if known) should at least be mentioned in the article about each book (if the article exists). If the article about the book doesn't exist yet (and we are unwilling to create it at the moment) but the exact date of publication is verifiable and undisputed, it should be mentioned somewhere in the list as the book title should probably redirect to the list (which may itself be a sub-section of the author's biography), and the list is a logical starting point for anyone aspiring to create articles about these particular books.

Of course this is something that applies broadly to all topics and types of verifiable information — somebody somewhere will be looking for it, so if we have it, it should be available without having to dig through old revisions.

Back on topic, I'm willing to acknowledge that there are several users who do not like to see links to day/month/year articles for whatever reason I will not speculate. But I would like to know whether they would prefer that any sort of automatic de-linking of dates is done only for themselves and others sharing this sentiment, or for everyone reading the content. I would be amenable only to the former option. — CharlotteWebb 17:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that the articles for the books themselves should have the exact date, in this little example. Darkspots (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you add nowiki tags to the date to make it not get autoformatted? It seems to me these are more useful by default than not; in the instances where you just have a list of chronological events, you could put tags around it so it wouldn't get linked. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Or just not use any brackets, perhaps. — CharlotteWebb 17:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few users that are unhappy with:

• mandatory date links. This is due to a bad software design that combines two entirely independent functions: (a) hyperlinks to date articles; and (b) formatting of dates. The cure is worse than the disease. Very few people have the disease but we are all forced to take the medicine. If you want a plain date, just take the square brackets out.
• the use of the Manual of Style (dates and numbers) talk pages for a war over binary prefixes. The policy page is defunct because you cannot read it and assume that it is policy. The binary prefix warriors decided that policy pages can contain proposals.

I would recommend that you take this issue to Manual of Style (dates and numbers), but like you, I am avoiding it and regard it as unserviceable for those of us outside that would prefer to remain unaffected by that war. Lightmouse (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yup, the autodud system certainly does suck. All of our attempts to get the developers at Bugzilla to decouple autoformatting from linking have met a dead end. Brion Viber there doesn't seem at all keen to push things forward, despite a petition I organised more than a year ago with nearly 90 WPian signatories (I'm quite sure I could raise many hundreds now). See HERE (Comment 35 ff.
• But the main point I have to make here is that autodud is not mandatory. See MOSNUM , which says "A combination of a day number and a month can be autoformatted by adding square brackets". I'm unsure how that can be contrued as compulsion. I encourage people not to use autodud at all. TONY (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my statement and pointing out the exact wording of the guideline. Links to dates are not mandatory. Lightmouse (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

But but by not linking, and in the current arrangement therefore disabling autoformatting, it gives the outward appearance of "This is the US Wikipedia. US date format rules!". Perhaps a Wikipedia International English Edition might solve it. I don't like being the doom monger, but its little things like this that I believe will eventually lead to a WP schism. There are international differences on date formats and it may have a massive amount of "I don't like it" in it but users should be able to come to Wikipedia and see something as simple as a date in the format that they want to see it in. A simple cookie and a some coding and people could have dates that are blue, black, pink or whatever colour they want and in the format that they want. The autolinking should be kept and should be mandatory but it should also have the ability for users to select the date appearance they want. It could even be made to work for IP users, with a splash screen allowing a user to set preferences (cookie) on their browser's first visit to WP and reading the preferences from the cookie on subsequent visits. I hope both sides of this debate can unite behind a common flag of getting a proper working solution implemented by the devs. - X201 (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The same issue applies to spelling. There is US spelling and non-US spelling. We solved that without autoformatting of 'color' into 'colour'. Lightmouse (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, most non-US spelling isn't confusing to a U.S. reader; when I see 'colour' I just smile about the silly 'u' in there but I still understand it means 'color'. Same for 'kerb' and 'curb', and so on. Dates, however, are more confusing; June 8, 2008 would be rendered 6/8/2008 in American short date format and 8/6/2008 in some non-U.S. date formats. Which is actively confusing, because to the U.S. reader, the second example means August 6, 2008. Apart from forcing everyone to use ISO standard 2008-06-08 (which I'd love, but nobody else would) making the server automagically display dates in their preferred format is a great idea.

That said, I never understood why the "this is a date" syntax is the same as the "this is a link" syntax. It's pretty non-orthogonal. Instead, it would be nice if some new syntax was invented to flag dates, like (( )) or something. That way, if you have your prefs set to, say, ISO date format like me, ((October 20, 2005)), ((20 Oct 2005)), ((2005-10-20)), ((20/10/2005)), ((10/20/2005 US)), etc could all render as a plain, unlinked "2005-10-20". This would have the added benefit of being able to do ((20 Oct [[2005]])) or even something like ((20 Oct [[2005 in film|2005]])) and get "2005-10-20". —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The principle of least astonishment should preclude us from piping date-links to a non-obvious target. A reader seeing "2005" in blue should expect it to link to the main article for that year (the fact that it also breaks existing date-formatting mechanisms is secondary to this). The effect of the "new syntax" you describe could be achieved using a variety of parser functions (without linking the result) by using a #switch statement and some variable representing the viewer's preferred date format (if the devs are willing to add the latter). Alternatively the #time function could be made more robust (it is apparently limited to 1970 and later).

Back on topic how would you feel about an option in Special:Preferences to make date links appear as plain text? — CharlotteWebb 10:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a perennial discussion. See {{date}} and [1]. --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Charlotte, a preference to that effect would be great, and better than nothing; so then dates would appear as they do after our signatures: BLACK (except that they would be formatted according to the original: 8 September 2005 OR September 6, 2005, not the British/Australian formatting that automatically appears after all signatures). However, this wouldn't solve the larger issue, which is that 99% of readers are not registered and logged in, so don't ever benefit from the actual autoformatting—they just cop the bright-blue irritation.
• X201: no, we'd like either no autoformatting at all (big deal, it just appears as either well-known system, like spelling variants) or as now, but not bright-blue and underlined. TONY (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think user:Scott5114 has expressed several of the same thoughts as I have. The software has combined two orthogonal issues ('this is a link' and 'this is a date'). The issue is very important when there is ambiguity (i.e. slash format dates) but less so when there is no ambiguity (ISO dates, mmm dates, mmmm dates). We are fortunate that most editors write dates in an unambiguous format, I can't recall the last time I saw a slash date here. As user:CharlotteWebb says, on principle, a link that looks like '2005' should not be a hidden link to somewhere else. In practice, such links do not achieve their aim anyway because readers will treat them as solitary years and just ignore them so they are a waste. Like user:Tony1, I want an end to blue linked dates whether in full or in fragmented form. We should simply format the date appropriate for the region. If anyone wants to use automatic formatting, then it should not involve the current mechanism. Lightmouse (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This had been a perennially occurring issue for at least two years. Is there any definitive answer on what the developers' plans are? Are they planning to implement it eventually? Have they decided to never implement it, and simply to ignore all discussion? Bluap (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"If anyone wants to use automatic formatting, then it should not involve the current mechanism." ← What about anyone who wants to click on a year, month, or day and see what other events occurred on that year, month, day... or to see whether the (potentially major) event they are reading about (i.e. the context in which the year, month, or day appears) is properly listed in the article for that year, month, or day... or to use Special:Whatlinkshere to assist in populating year, month, or day articles with topics/events associated with a specific year, month, or day? For one, I fear that explicitly de-linking dates on a non-trivial scale would impede or even stifle the development of year, month, and day articles. This is why I would strongly favor a user preference to render bracketed years, months, and days as plain text (in the user's preferred format) rather than as links.

The counter-argument to that, of course, is that maybe "dates should be plain text by default and we can someday rely on the parser to determine whether or not certain parts of a sentence resemble a year, a month, a day, or a range of years, months, or days, or anything else with chronological significance, which could be reliably auto-formatted according each user's preferences... and... (optionally) appear as links for all the nerds who want to have links." March 2000 feet north and deliver June 3 lost Cleavers and 1 October Sky DVD (director's cut!) and you will understand the difficulty of fool-proofing this approach.

So Scott suggests above that we use a different syntax to inform the parser that a certain string of text is supposed to be a date, one which would accept a greater variety of formats (perhaps even "slash dates" — with a big red "ambiguity error" if the month and day are both 12 or less), and output it the date in whatever format the reader prefers. That would be fine as long as there is an easy way for the reader to make links appear and disappear as desired, ideally as a Special:Preferences setting. — CharlotteWebb 16:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

One note on your question, What about anyone who wants to click on a year, month, or day -- I don't feel any need to make life easier for this hypothetical person at the expense of putting in a date link. They can click over in "Search" and type "December 7". If people of this type exist and if they number more than 12 worldwide. Tempshill (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Did we mention that search sucks too? Unlike some engines, on mediawiki search "December 7" and "7 December" are different queries. It's only the use of redirects that makes them work alike. Nobody's about to redirect "12-7" anywhere. We've got to get a "Did you mean...?" capability added. LeadSongDog (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this expense of which you speak? If it doesn't appear on your screen, why would you care? — CharlotteWebb 18:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability

I honestly don't think this is necessary, nor any of it's associated other pages. If content complies WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT then surely it should be included? I'd like to know what other people think.--Phoenix-wiki 13:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, we have our standards for a reason. We're an encyclopedia not a directory of everything that has been mentioned ever. Al Tally ^talk 14:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course we're not, which is what WP:NOT is for. While wikipedia discriminates against such things as opinion columns and speculation, the policy associated with wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information does not discriminate against notability. The policy lists specific things that articles cannot be - none of these taboos mention that non-notable aren't allowed, although non-notable articles must still establish importance or the topic's "claim to fame".--Phoenix-wiki 14:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. (BTW, V, OR and NPOV (bar POVFORK) are content criterion, so they can't render N redundant anyway). Orderinchaos 14:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles can be deleted, and I don't see the problem. Why should we keep out stuff like Garage bands? In practice, it would be very difficult to make the article verifiable, but if someone manages it, there's nothing wrong with letting it sit unviewed. Saying that something "does not belong" is not a reasoned argument; what are the costs and benefits?--Phoenix-wiki 14:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the three are in fact deletion criteria - if they're being used as such, they're being used improperly. An article which can pass WP:N but which may have problems in *all* of the other three would always be kept providing there was no outright consensus to delete, but with a recommendation to fix urgently. If the problems are so major as to cause major concern (eg BLP) it's usual to stub the article. Orderinchaos 14:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

They aren't common deletion criteria at AFD, but take a look at the new sourcing adjudication board proposal, and new page patrol. Unreferenced material may be removed per WP:V, and I for one am prepared to do this. (See also:[2])--Phoenix-wiki 14:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix, this page is for discussing policy. "Notability" has never been policy and by the grace of G-wd never will be . — CharlotteWebb 14:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol Well It might as well be a policy, and the only other place this fits is misc, which isn't exactly where it fits, though according to that narration at the top, this is for guidelines too ;-)--Phoenix-wiki 14:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since the deletion policy says a topic not meeting the notability guidelines is a reason for deletion, the notability guidelines are often treated like policy — somehow ABOVE WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Mentions of "notability" have been creeping into WP:NOT, another policy. An essay, WP:ATA, is cited whenever anyone gives their personal opinion that something is notable. But that's all "nn" ever was — an opinion in AFD debates. And "nn" was flipped and turned into WP:NN in a horribly misguided move. Now, I've argued to delete because I thought something was non-notable too, but that's just my personal opinion...out of billions.

I think many of the current notability guidelines need to be deleted or re-started from scratch. The problem though with guidelines is that once created, they're rarely deleted. So I guess I would support marking them rejected or historical, and at least disputed. I suppose one could even create a competing guideline about the "presumed" notability across an entire group of subjects — although creating parallel guidelines is discouraged. Some topics are generally considered to be notable by default — mountains and cities for example. If editors want to say that a topic needs outside coverage before a topic can have an article, that's fine I guess — but coverage does not make something worthy of notice. WP:N should be deleted. I can understand why coverage would be a good idea for biographies of living people, bands, and some other topics, but "notability" has become a black hole that no topic can escape.

What started as an excuse to get rid of articles on garage bands and people/websites nobody cared about has transformed into Frankenstein's monster. Is Frankenstein's monster notable? This isn't the Notability Project anyone can edit. And I've seen no evidence that other encyclopedias use "notability" as their criteria for inclusion. The Wikimedia Foundation's vision statement is "the sum of all knowledge", not "the sum of all knowledge that's worthy of notice." — and who exactly is it supposed to be "worthy of notice" to anyway? The notability guidelines are a prime example of how inventing new rules you think everyone else should follow is actually detrimental to Wikipedia. If it's common practice for people to argue to delete an article because they think a topic is non-notable, fine, tell people that. If it's common practice for people to argue to keep an article if it cites a lot of outside coverage, fine, tell people that. But don't create a new round hoop while thousands of square articles are laying around and say "These square articles don't fit through this new hoop I invented!" Wikipedia was not paper and Wikipedia was not a bureaucracy, LONG before Wikipedia mutated into the Notability Project.

Do I think Project Chanology is worthy of notice? No. Do I think the article should be deleted? No. I'm sure someone else thinks it's worthy of notice. Do I think every topic in Encyclopedia Brittanica is worthy of notice? No, and it doesn't have to be. Is there some way to quantify the "value" of attention? The DGAF scale? Is the thinking that because certain sources have "noted" a topic, then the topic must be "note-able"? Does a source writing about a topic mean they think the topic is worthy of notice, or that they have a mortgage payment this month? The notability guidelines are, for the most part, broken. And I blame Radiant! for starting this mess, by tagging WP:N as a guideline after 16 days. I can understand that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." But the notability guidelines are not what keeps Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate collection of information. No, what keeps Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate collection of information are editors. Editors are trusted to use their judgement to evaluate whether an article is neutral or not. Do editors have to provide outside evidence that an article is neutral? No. So why can't editors use their judgement to evaluate whether a topic is "notable" or not? Even better, remove the whole question of "notability" from the equation. What does "notability" have to do with encyclopedia articles? --Pixelface (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear!--Phoenix-wiki 20:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability guidelines might as well be policy, unfortunately. Hopefully one day we'll see them gone. While it isn't an opinion held by many editors, I would rather see a low-quality article with a few sources on an obscure subject than no article at all. I think that it'll be gone eventually once Wikipedia is mature enough. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The reason I created this thread was to get rid of it in the very near future (The next month or so).--Phoenix-wiki 20:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that we do not need notability, try doing some new page patrol. Notability provides us with a way to delete the tripe. Maybe we don't technically need notability due to our other, more important policies. However, 'notability' is easy to judge- it can be quickly judged, and the crap can be deleted. Our other policies require a little thought, and we just don't have that time, nor can we afford for the piles and piles and piles of rubbish to stay lying around while we all argue about whether it is technically verifiable. I just don't think that removing notability is, at this time, a good idea. It would create far more problems than it would solve. J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no speedy deletion criteria for being non-notable, and the usual crap falls under WP:NOT, the rest of the non-notable stuff, why not keep it if it's verified etc?--Phoenix-wiki 21:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Notability provides us with a way to delete the tripe" ← If no other concerns apply, I seriously doubt the content is "tripe". — CharlotteWebb 19:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Something could easily be verifiable without being notable - a minor mention, a mention in a minor publication, or a mention in a source that is reliable for what it is cited for but not reliable to establish that it's worth reading. Almost every person, thing, and business establishment has been mentioned in the paper - who hasn't had their name in the paper? So with a verifiability standard alone, nearly everything in the world could be the subject for an article here. That would be nice but it's not going to happen, and if it did it would be a much very different project than Wikipedia. With the number of volunteer editors we have, we simply can't write a good article and keep enough interest to maintain it, about everything in the world. If we try, coverage will be spotty and uneven, we will have lots of bad articles, and visitors will have a lot of junk to wade through before they find anything useful to read. That's one of the main argument for notability, in my mind. Also, being forced to explain why something is notable helps article creation - it makes editors cut to the chase and state, concisely, why something matters. Practically, more power to you if you want to make a change but it seems very unlikely that enough people could be convinced to do away with the notability requirement. Wikidemo (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confused here. We want to let the previously non-notable things in, and not bother with notability at all. WP:NOT keeps out most of the crap. We're not saying to go out there and launch a drive to create the articles (I persoanlly think we should get our topics up to scratch first, they're a disgrace), but if some random new editor creates a verifiable, neutral article about their pet dog, why would we delete it? In practice, it would be very difficult to make the article verifiable. But if someone manages it, there's nothing wrong with letting it sit unviewed.--Phoenix-wiki 21:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't get behind articles for pet dogs and I suspect most people couldn't either. --Pixelface (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

They would be almost impossible to reference, but if they were good and verifiable, why not?--Phoenix-wiki 22:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not your personal webhost, and if the dog is dead, Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Pixelface (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not per WP:N then, that's WP:NOT, which, while debatable and lacking an objective set of criteria, is certainly more objective than WP:N, which is just not needed.--Phoenix-wiki 22:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

An important point to note here is that WP:NOT, while it contains some inclusion (or more specifically disclusion) guidelines, is mostly content and behavior issues - things that can be fixed without removing articles. While notability is mentioned in NOT, it is not called out as a specific guideline that falls under NOT. In other words, for the bulk of articles on WP, NOT does not say anything about if they should stay or go, only about their content. We need some inclusion guideline to keep WP maintainable and not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thus, we need something like NOTE to have that inplace. --MASEM 23:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is whatever its users want it to be. If you think that the notability guidelines are no longer supported by the community, then start a discussion to abandon them. But from what I've seen, they're pretty well accepted and I don't think you'll be able to convince enough people to abandon them, but you're free to try. Considering we have WP:IAR, whether WP:N is policy or guideline is mostly irrelevant. Mr.Z-man 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't you just go and create the articles on whatever you like without worrying about this? More than likely it will be noteworthy, and even if it has no refs, if you write well and it's beleivable and all people normally just ignore the fact that it has no references and take your word for it.--Serviam (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, I was going to argue against this, on the basis that not everything that is verifiable really merits inclusion in Wikipedia, but then I realized that WP:NOT already says that anyway. In fact, having actually read that policy in its entirety, I've come to feel that Phoenix-wiki's suggestion might not really be a bad idea at all. The point being that most of the notability guideline is actually redundant with various sections of WP:NOT, whereas I'm not at all convinced that the remainder is all that useful in the end. To take an example, it would be extremely difficult for an article on a garage band or a student club to pass all of WP:V, WP:SOAP, WP:FUTURE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE; but if it did somehow clear all of those hurdles, it might well be worth having. Of course, if we did get rid of WP:N, I'm sure some of its content would just end up moving to WP:NOT, insofar as it's not already covered there. I'm not convinced that this would necessarily be a bad thing. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• First, this discussion should be at Wikipedia talk:Notability. This village pump was, I thought, for notices about discussions elsewhere. Second, people sometimes forget that notability applies to articles, not to the information contained in an article. Sometimes verifiable information is presented under too specific and non-notable a title, and the solution is not to delete, but to merge the information to the correct location. Notability is, in essence, less about deletion, than about correct presentation of information: ie. arrange material so that the notability is obvious to the reader as they read the article. Put minor stuff within an article, rather than creating a new one. Get the balance right within an article (per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV). Another way to look at it is to say that WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV concern the arrangement and presentation of verifiable information within individual articles, while WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT concern the arrangement of information within the encyclopedia as a whole, and to what degree the information should be distributed between different articles, or presented in its own article. All these references to information refer to, of course, verifiable information. Does this way of looking at things make sense to people? Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think notability is such a basic policy of Wikipedia, it wasn't initially called out, but just asssumed as obvious in WP:NOT, and should be strengthened, not weakened. And I agree that the discussion should move to Wikipedia talk:Notability. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with relying on WP:NOT is that this policy is consistently under attack from the uber-inclusionists as well, including some of those that have commented above. A quick perusal of the wikilawyering and edit warring at WP:NOT and WT:NOT over the last few months would be useful. If we really want Wikipedia not to be an encyclopedia, but a repository of everything that has ever existed, this would be a good way to do it. Black Kite 10:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability is important. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and every topic must be worthy of notice. Every time someone creates an article about a garage band, or their WoW guild, or their fanfiction, Wikipedia gets worse. Wikipedia grows ever more unreliable with every assertion that some gaming clan is "THE GREATEST EVAR!" People will, in good faith, claim a MySpace page is a good source for their garage band. With a project this size, a line must be drawn in the sand, and reliable secondary sources is a good place for that line. --Phirazo 04:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you; but RS already requires that reliable sources be present for articles, and myspace simply doesn't qualify. Having a guideline that says "you need at least two RS for an article" is all fine and good; its when there gets to be too much creep (ATHLETE, CORP, MUSIC), that it becomes a problem. Things are no longer eligible for inclusion because they have secondary sources discussing them; they're eligible for inclusion because of some other arbitrary criteria (played on one of a set number of teams, an album in a set number of labels, etc). I don't have a problem with something saying "you need RS for an article", thats simply obvious and part of being an encyclopedia rather than a vast repository of FRINGE and OR, but all the separate notability guidelines create a lot of problems. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE (and the rest of WP:BIO), WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, and so far as I'm aware all of the other secondary notability guidelines state that the main criterion is the presence of reliable sources. They identify cases where we accept articles even when there aren't any reliable sources. I'd be perfectly happy to get rid of them all and cut our content back to what can be sourced, too, but I suspect for reasons diametrically opposed to yours. —Cryptic 07:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am of two views on this one. Notability is important but it is used as an indiscrimate weapon in deletion debates. I think the notability guidelines are quite suitable to invoke on content debates for any given article. In those cases, both sides of the debate must make their notability claims with vigor and well cited sources. On the other hand, deletion debates are a poor place for notability discussions because any editor can merely say Not Notable without justifying it. This happens all too often when editors with little or no content knowledge on a subject weigh in on a deletion debate. They just say its not notable as if they really knew that. If they know its not notable, then they need to cite some evidence to that effect by challenging the evidence that others claim make it notable. In content debates, notability ought to endure rigourous scrutiny. In deletion debates, notablity ought to be assumed unless there is indisputable evidence that something is not notable.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that plain Keep votes claiming "It's notable" are far more likely to occur than Delete "It's not notable". Surely if we are going to have quality articles, the burden of proof should be on article editors to show that something is notable? Black Kite 14:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your 2nd thought wholeheartedly. However, my experience with deletion debates tells me that when notability guidelines are cited, its not a debate about the actual evidence or lack of evidence of notability, but merely a Its Notable--No Its Not Notable exchange. I would much rather see a deletion debate made on real notability substance rather than an exchange without substance. Here's a typical entry: Delete Fails my notability checking. Had this entry said: Delete Sources A and B do not meet the criteria for notability because ...... the debate would be on substance, not opinion.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Conclusively proving that something isn't notable is basically impossible, you have to prove a negative - that there aren't any sources. Whereas to prove that something is notable, you only have to show that some sources do exist. Mr.Z-man 22:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:N was created precisely because people were saying "Delete, it's not notable" in AFD debates. That statement was then twisted around into "Every topic on Wikipedia should be notable" — instead of what it should have been, "If you create an article and editors think it's about a non-notable topic, there's a good chance the article will be deleted." Black Kite, are you also saying that the burden of proof should be on article editors to show that something *is* neutral? That significant views *are* presented "fairly"? Editors should cite some outside evidence for an article's neutrality? If editors don't have to prove an article is neutral, why must they prove the topic is notable? Notability is totally subjective and varies from person to person, group to group, culture to culture, place to place, and time to time. The quality of an article doesn't depend on whether the topic is "worthy of notice" or not. --Pixelface (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I see the concept of notability as it is used currently on Wikipedia primarily as a way of enforcing our core (and not really contested) inclusion standards of no original research, verifiability and neutral point of view. Take the base notability criteria - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.". If there are no reliable sources on a topic it will not be possible to verify the information within the article (WP:V), if those sources are not independent of the subject they are likely to have inherent bias (WP:NPOV) and if the topic hasn't received a certain level of coverage then it won't be possible to write a coherent article without editors introducing their own work (WP:OR). There are exceptions such as with fictional elements where primary sources are considered a reliable basis for an article, in those situations it really becomes an editorial decision rather one of delete/don't delete on how the information should be presented (as lists, group articles, individual articles, etc.) and how much detail is appropriate for the encyclopaedia. Guest9999 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL at the remark about "what started as a rationale for getting rid of articles about garage bands" because that is totally correct. Seriously, notability has become a big stick for the deletionists to whomp around, and I'd love to see it gone. Obscure crap is one of the things Wikipedia does best. :) I'd LOVE to kill that notability business. Barring that, could I please have a stick labelled "persnickety bitches" that I can use to whomp all the deletionists with. I've said it before and I'll said it again: We're all nerds by dint of being Wikipedia editors, but he who has nothing to contribute ornothing better to do than patrol, deletion and fuss his or her way through the Wiki bureaucracy is a sad, sad soul. Get a life. Or maybe just go away and leave us alone. If you only have negative energy to contribute, get the eff out of here. jengod (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"primarily as a way of enforcing our core [...] standards of no no original research, verifiability and neutral point of view" ← This is also how "BLP" was advertised in the beginning. How ironic. — CharlotteWebb 16:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletionistists will just find another stick if notability is taken away. There's still WP:OR and WP:V, which are also good reasons to delete garage bands and fancruft. Most of the time "not notable" means "no sources" or "lousy sources." --Phirazo 03:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary subheading

Phirazo's comment above says what's important to this: 'Most of the time "not notable" means "no sources" or "lousy sources."' While I agree with the inherent idea that our notability guides are not useful in and of themselves, they are an important tool in the policing of the junk. It's a matter that notability is a pretty well established standard: if it has sources or sources are evident, then it is notable. Notability is a mere extension of verifiability as I understand it, and it's useful as the hundreds of random bands (et cetera) can protest wildly about their many fans only until we say "Fine; prove it." That's why it's not policy, not anything else. If there's any change to be made it should not be to delete the page, but rather to make it more clear: it is verifiability that matters, and these are guidelines which suggest, in general, what will pass the notability barrier and what should be SNOWed and upon what we're generally agreed. It should not be a matter of codifying practice, but of recording it: general rules that everyone can agree on to avoid arguing the same points for every dubious topic. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia "Probation," rehabilitation of problem users, and article improvement

An idea came to me this weekend as I was reading about users, who for whatever reason, have been placed on "probation" (either under "community" supervision or the supervision of a single "mentor"). My theory relies on the tenet that the best way to improve Wikipedia is 1) through the writing of new articles on notable subjects and 2) through the addition of clearly-written, NPOV, and referenced edits to existing articles. Users placed on community oversight or probation should therefore be required as a condition of their probation to make a certain number of reliably sourced, well-written article edits each month. Failure to do so would result in the revocation of the probation and the blocking of the user (indefinately if necessary). Those users who are incapable of constructive improvement of the articles directly, however, could be assigned to assist an editor in good standing or a group of article-contributors (like a wiki-project), where the user on probation would do research for the editor, write memoranda, and copyedit the prose of his "mentor." I think of it as "community service" requirement of probation.

This can only be a benefit to the encyclopedia, as not only will this result in literally thousands of good article edits a month, but also will teach the probationer-users the value of research, good writing skills, and how to work with others the Wikipedia way. As always, I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, JeanLatore (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit more skeptical that trying to force people to do some sort of "community service" will really result in much of an improvement to the encyclopedia. More likely, it will just drive the person away or result in half-assed contributions that are little better than nothing. It also IMO violates the Wikipedia principle that such actions should be preventative of future problems rather than punitive for past actions. Anomie⚔ 01:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

But it is preventative, not punitive. If a probationer is busy writing articles and doing research for his study-group or mentor he has less time for disruption. And if it drives the person away, tis no big loss, since the "probation" would have been imposed in lieu of a ban anyway. JeanLatore (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As shocking as it seems, some Wikipedia editors are grown-ups. We can't very well require that they do any work at all, since they might have other obligations. I edit WP whenever I get the urge and I'm sure that many probationary editors do the same. Putting them on a work schedule seems unfeasible and counterproductive. Phiwum (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is it "counterproductive"? The situation will either stay the same or get better -- keep in mind the proposal calls for "reliably sourced, well-written article edits each month," not simply any edits to articles will do. Edits that are simple spamming or tagging simply won't count. And this proposal is quite feasible, given that it would be extended in lieu of a total ban. Thus it would give the user a second chance, can only be a benefit to the project, and would serve as rehabilitation. JeanLatore (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is counter-productive because there's a strong possibility that it can drive people away and make them no longer want to participate. The tenets of the projects are openness and that anyone can be redeemed. Indefinite blocks are extremely rare and are only used in the most egregious of circumstances. Anyone can be 'rehabiliated', and it is left up to the user to figure out how best to do that; it doesn't matter *how* they redeem themselves, just that they do, whether it be contributions in the mainspace, MedCab, RfA, reasoned arguments at XfDs or policy proposals. Having a hard-set "This is what you have to do or you get blocked" doesn't really make sense. People get blocked because they've done something incredibly stupid or wrong, have gotten warned multiple times (as you were before your block for incivility) and haven't gone along with policy. A block is a block. It's meant to be a block, to prevent them from doing anything further to damage the project, and hopefully knock some sense into them as a result. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

An interesting and novel idea, but I don't like it. More likely than not, it's just going to drive people away. Like some other things that you've said elsewhere, this really brings to light the fact that you don't realize that there's a lot more to Wikipedia than sourcing and article-writing. You have to remember that not everyone here is a writer; we have people who spend most of their time in the Wikipedia space discussing policy or on the noticeboard giving their opinions on various things, other people who spend most of their time reverting vandalism and dubious unsourced statements from articles, people who spend their time copyediting, and people who spend their time at XfD discussing what does and doesn't merit inclusion in the mainspace. There are many things that have to happen here to make a quality encyclopedia, and as odd as it may sound, writing articles is only one of them. Regulating the behavior of editors so they *have* to make edits seems counterproductive to me; its important that we don't regulate off-wiki behavior, and forcing people to either stay on-wiki long enough to make so many edits a month constitutes exactly that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed an interesting and novel idea. I think some of the editors on probation are there because they honestly don't understand how to contribute, and some 'rehabilitation' process may help them. Others I am not sure about, and I seriously doubt we can find enough capable, professional, and more than all patient editors who could be the tutor in the process. So although the idea sounds sympathetic I seriously doubt it will ever fly. (besides this is agree with some of the above issues) Arnoutf (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While I don't support the idea because it seems punitive and fails to consider the personal motivations (and abilities) of individual editors, I think it's worth a try. Specifically, I think JeanLatore should try it themselves. Decide on the number of "reliably sourced, well-written article edits" that might be expected from a probationary user and try it for a month. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I already do that. If you would stop making fun of my ideas you would see that most of my editing is to law articles. JeanLatore (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to strongly object to the statement "The tenets of the projects are openness and that anyone can be redeemed." Redemption is not our business. It's irrelevant to what we do here. We don't try to make editors who want to contribute usefully; we merely welcome those who already meet that basic requirement. Wikipedia is not therapy. Friday (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Friday's comments, so consider my first thought to be a 'me-too'. Wikipedia isn't therapy, and it's not worth our while to coddle editors who can only be made to contribute constructively while they are held cornered at gunpoint.

Beyond that, I am concerned that probation of this type would (further) entrench the mistaken notion that the most valuable – or only valuable – edits to Wikipedia are always those that add material. It just ain't so. Wikipedia is stuffed full of tremendous amounts of information. We've got raw data just coming out of our ears. What many of our articles need most desperately is not the addition of more information (however well-referenced) but rather the judicious use of red pencil. We have fertile soil and the healthy plants; now we need to mow the lawn and pull the weeds. We're building a botanical garden, not a jungle. Imposing some semblance of order – within and across articles – is a valuable service to our readers. I'm tired of seeing editors who actually edit being treated as second-class contributors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a very great idea, JeanLatore. Speaking of edits, the article for Grandpa's Magical Toys has been merged unfairly. Angie Y. (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. It didn't realise the variegated nature of participation on wikipedia per "Celarnor." So are you saying I could just cease article writing and simply pontificate on policy full time? What good would that do? JeanLatore (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

With your understanding of policy, very little. However, there are others which a much greater understanding of policy than you, and their focus is beneficial to Wikipedia through maintaining and/or improving those policies. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

But aren't those admins? I would assume they got to be admins through first editing articles no? Or does Wikipedia have a divide between the "workers" who write and "wonks" for administrate and opine on policy? JeanLatore (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

One does not need to be an admin to understand or edit policy, one only needs to be able to do so. People become admins through an understanding of most aspects of Wikipedia (usually). Your idea of how Wikipedia works is incorrect. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Friday as well. I don't see a good reason why editors who could be contributing content themselves should instead be holding the hand and reviewing all the edits of a troublesome user through some sort of probationary period. If someone actually cares enough to want to reform to help the project, we can certainly help them, but if they just want to avoid getting banned, don't waste people's time. Mr.Z-man 02:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about WP:COI and what it means to "exercise great caution"

Since the end of April, I've used this account to make suggestions on talk pages of articles within the scope of WP:FILM. I have limited my participation on these articles about upcoming Disney releases because the studio is a client of my employer. To be doubly sure I did not find myself on the wrong side of WP:COI, I started using this account only after a helpful discussion on this page.

Now, another question: Oftentimes I've found that my suggestions are not picked up after a few days of waiting. In these cases I've tried to locate editors who had already contributed to the article, or failing that, posted a comment on the WikiProject discussion page. This works, albeit quite slowly. After doing this for a couple weeks, I found a comment from the lead coordinator of WP:FILM following me on the discussion page of one such film:

There's absolutely nothing in COI that prevents you from editing the article, so long as you are performing neutral, uncontroversial edits. I appreciate your candor in disclosing possible bias, but if your edits involve facts which are unlikely to be contested and are reliably sourced, then - IMHO - by all means go for it.

I'm curious to know if other editors and administrators here agree with this suggestion? I don't know what WP:COI means precisely by "exercise great caution" but this strikes me as a reasonable interpretation.

My requests to date have been entirely factual in nature -- this film is rated PG-13, here is the official website, that producer's name is wrong, and so forth. (Click here to see my contributions.) And I have always provided reliable sources -- no IMDb, for example. If at some point one of my contributions was disputed, or I wished to join a pre-existing debate, then I think it would be prudent to cease direct edits and involve myself only with discussion pages.

But I'd like to hear from the community first. It would no doubt make my life easier, the movie pages more complete, and it would free up time for other editors as well. But I'm unsure what WP:COI allows exactly, so I'd love to get a second (and third and fourth...) opinion on the matter. Thanks. NMS Bill (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My view is that for the sort of changes that you describe, ie. simple facts with no interpretation provided, then you should go ahead with the changes. As long as you are open about the possibility that a coi exists. For changes that could be controversial, or if you are reverted, it's better to use the procedure you describe and try to get an editor without a coi to make the changes. And even in these cases, if no one responds on the talk page within a couple of days you should feel free to make the changes yourself. Taemyr (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In the Starwood Arbitration which was on the issue of COI of an editor (he was editing many, many article on the subject of which he had a financial interest in and entering his company name and link), the finding of ArbcomWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Proposed decision was the following:

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, discourages editing of articles concerning matters you have a substantial personal interest in, such as articles about an organization you are deeply involved with. However, such editing is not prohibited, if editing is responsible. –Mattisse (Talk) 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not familiar with that ArbCom ruling, but I think that addresses my situation. I have no interest in spamming up Wikipedia, I just want to make sure that these articles are brought up to Wikipedia standards. And Taemyr's points about a waiting period for more controversial edits and resorting to discussion if reverted are well-taken also. NMS Bill (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

use of youtube

I was told that use of youtube videos was discouraged on Wikipedia because of copyright problems etc. Today someone added a youtube clip to Gideon v. Wainwright under External links. My edit removing it was reverted with the comment that the youtube clip was the work of the editor introducing it into the article and that was sufficient for copyright and GNU issues. Is it correct that youtube clips can be added on the say-so of the editor, without a more formal release process? Thanks, –Mattisse (Talk) 17:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not, especially when they're actual TV clips. The program itself would have to run under a similar license. Removed again. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! –Mattisse (Talk) 20:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense. The video, copyrighted or not, is not hosted on Wikipedia, it's hosted on YouTube. Only a link is provided here and the link per se is not copyrighted. Using that same theory, we could not provide links to The New York Times or to any other source either, as that content is copyrighted. This looks like a misunderstanding of copyright to me. What does the WMF lawyer say? — Becksguy (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You can be considered as aiding copyvios by willfully providing links to copyright infringing material. It's one thing to provide a link to the NYT which has published that information for reading on the web, it's different to link to a video that was only shown once on broadcast television. This is not to say that you can't link to a youtube video that the copyright holder has put up on youtube specifically (as some bands and network stations do). --MASEM 20:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the statement that providing a link can be considered as aiding copyright violations. Are there any legally authoritative reliable sources that support that? Ultimately this is a first amendment issue. I might point out that self censorship is even worse than imposed censorship. In either case it has a chilling effect. Yes, I read WP:EL, but that specifically doesn't forbid YouTube links. It's cautionary concern places an intolerable burden on editors that have no training to determine what might be a copyright violation on YouTube, or anywhere else. Unless a YouTube poster announces that the content is illegally ripped, or the content has a copyright notice, we have no reliable way of knowing that it is a copyright violation. In any case, if there is a copyright violation, it's committed by the person posting it, not the host, nor us, per the DMCA. IMHO. I think it's ironic the link in this case is to a YouTube video that is about another great constitutional right; due process. Note that there are currently 1750 external YouTube links in the Wikipedia domain. — Becksguy (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ^[3]).^[4]--Hu12 (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Becksguy, that unless there is a specific WP policy approved by WP's attorneys, the rest is just POV and amateur interpretaion of the law. Until such policy is determined, I see no reason to delete links to relevant content. I'm not sure -- see question below. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WP policy states the following: "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." How do we know? --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There has become a "strict" almost unwritten policy that linking to Youtube as a reference isn't allowed - but this is not accurate. You can link to YouTube as far as I know so long as you're sure that that reproduction of material as posted on YouTube isn't in violation of copyright, i.e. whoever posts it on YouTube has permission from the copyright holder to put it there. Does that mean you have to now verify if the YouTube content isn't violating copyright? Probably - if you don't want some naysayers to remove it then go for it. I suppose it can be considered a bit beaurocratic, but on the other hand it's reasonably common on Wikipedia - for example to use copyrighted material (such as images) on Wikipedia you have to get permission or else it gets removed. Here you could say the same thing applies, except instead of using the copyrighted material we are simply linking to it. So it's not a case of directly violating copyright, but rather a case of contributing to copyright infringement. My extra 2cents is that Wikipedia should by now have an official policy on the whole YouTube thing - the issue has been brought up above on 9th June 2008, I brought it up a few months back and they then referred me to a post several months back about the same thing. This means people have brought this same issue at least 3 times now. Surely we can put up a policy somewhere? Run it by the wikilawyers if necessary. Rfwoolf (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

From WP:YouTube "Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites: There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would happen infrequently). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate copyrights. Therefore, each instance of allowance is on a case-by-case basis." Rfwoolf (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I just cited the WP policy above your comments. It does not say "as long as you're sure that" ... it is not ... you can link to it. It says that you can't link to it if you "know" that it is a violation. I interpret that as, if you or others don't know one way or the other, then linking is alright. I beleive that WP policy remains purposely ambiguous and reading more than that into policy is POV. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You've got it exactly backwards. You may not link to a Youtube link unless you know that it is not violating copyright. It's the same thing as copying and pasting material from somewhere else -- don't do it unless you know it isn't a copyright violation. Corvus cornix_talk 16:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Corvus, how can I have it backwards when the policy page says: "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work."? --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a specific copyright listed on the youtube page, you must assume that it's a copyright violation. Therefore you may not link to it. Corvus cornix_talk 17:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

CC, can you point me to or quote from a WP policy which supports your statement, or is this just your opinion? --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Policy is cited above. Additionaly Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking. If a link to youtube has a CBS show posted by "bobotheclown6251", one easily assumes (common sense) this user does not have copyright permission, so per WP:COPYRIGHT (external Web site appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright).--Hu12 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the connection between "one easily assumes (common sense)" and WP policy. This still seems like personal opinion/preference to me. I wouldn't oppose developing a more specific policy, but I do oppose people citing their interpretations as policy. I think this sets bad precedent. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: If you insist on inserting a link to youtube based on your personal interpretation that you are allowed to do so because you aren't specifically forbidden to do so, you're liable to find yourself blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 17:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption

Yup, --Hu12 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The provided policy quote from Kevin Murray clearly says that one can link unless one knows it's a copyright violation. The assumption is clear, it's not a copyright violation, unless known to be. Just like the assumption of good faith here, or the assumption of innocence in the American judicial system. Is there a suggestion to reverse that and assume guilt initially and then have to prove innocence, which in this case, would be copyright violation innocence? — Becksguy (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't going to happen. Unless you can prove that the youtube link belongs to the uploader, it will be removed. That's clear precedent, and will continue to be so. Corvus cornix_talk 18:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

'Assume good faith' does not mean 'assume correctness'. Links to YouTube should be removed where there is a reasonable doubt about the content's provenance. The test that we apply here is one of common sense. Assuming that material on YouTube is not a copyright violation unless proven otherwise seems an unreasonable assumption at odds with widely-acknowledged reality. Besides, linking to material of unknown source on YouTube does a disservice to our readers—such content does get caught by YouTube (or the content's copyright holders) eventually, leaving us with aggravating, broken links.

Our obligation to extend good faith only goes as far as assuming that the editor adding such YouTube links means well but is misguided. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In most cases, YouTube links are unnecessary despite any copyright issues. External links should be kept to a minimum, those that add significantly to the article. As YouTube content is user generated, it is rarely a reliable source for anything either. Mr.Z-man 05:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If the article would be enhanced with a video then upload the video to Wikipedia. If for some reason the video isn't acceptable by WP policies, then it's not really acceptable to evade those policies by linking externally. The same approach is generally taken with respect to (still) image galleries. While Wikipedia provides a lot of value by linking externally, in an ideal world Wikipedia would also be reasonably complete in isolation from the rest of the internet (DVD versions, etc). Internal completeness also avoids issues of outside content becoming unavailable. We can't approach the completeness goal if people are constantly external-linking materials of types which could be appropriately included. --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reautoconfim after long absences for semi-protected articles

It seems to me after seeing stuff like this that there needs to be a smarter way of auto-confirming users. I believe the current policy is that the account must have a certain number of edits and be a certain minimum age. Perhaps we should require that there be a number of edits over a particular period of time. I'm not sure how it would work exactly, but it seems like there should be a better way of weeding out accounts that are designed to evade semi-protection. --Selket ^Talk 06:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

An interesting idea, but I'd be very concerned about discouraging users from returning at all -- as seems to be the common sentiment when discussing periodic removal of the +sysop bit for inactivity, generally speaking we should try to make it as easy as possible to return from an absence. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution

It appears that after a long but failed effort to adopt Wikipedia:Attribution the proponents have devised a new unique and confusing custom tag to legitimize the instructions as a "summary" of other processes. This lacks the consensus to be anything other than Essay status and should be so tagged. While I don't specifically oppose or support ATT, I don't think that we need to confuse the issue with a new process category which is not described at WP:Policy. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a slight mistatement of the situation... the page has been marked as a Summary for almost a year now (first tagged as such back in June 07) but that designation has not been without opposition. There are some who feel it should be marked as historical, there are some who feel it should be made an Essay, and there are some who feel it should be made a Policy or Guideline. Everyone is pointing fingers, saying that the other editor's views do not have consensus... but no one has demonstrated that their view does have consensus. While "polls are evil"... I have started one in an attempt to see if there actually is any consensus. Please opine at WT:ATTBlueboar (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected and have ammeded my comment above (italics). I agree with Blueboar that there are many opinions of what ATT should be, but in the absense of consensus after this much time there are but two options: (1) Failed (formerly known as rejected) and (2) an Essay which reflects the opinions of the proponents. However, there is a relatively new subcategory of Essay known as Supplement, which may apply here. I see this as less of an issue with the content of ATT, but more related to clarity in defining what it is. A bigger question is why we have developed policy pages that are so complex that they need summaries to be effective. At minimum the policy should be summarized within its own page, and more preferable would be just cutting the crap from the policy pages, so that these are more readable, understandable, and actionable. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability of High School Organziations

Resolved

 – §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Per an exteremely lengthy Afd discussion it was propsed by the closing admin that a centralized discussion take place to determine the notability of High School Athletic Conferences and other organizations that bind schools together. I and many others agree that we need a guidelien when it comes to the notability of schools Wikipedia:Notability (schools) and the organziations that bind them. The main category under discussion is Category:High school sports conferences and leagues in the United States. Thanks for your time. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that all High School sports conferences and leagues should be considered notable. High school sports are given significant media coverage in the United States, and sources should be available for all high school conferences; they may not be readily available online, but they will be found in newspaper archives that aren't always available on the internet. High schools are typically considered notable and these organizations group and supersede the high schools themselves, functioning much the way that college athletic conferences do. Obviously these are different in scope than college conferences, but I believe there will be significant sourcing to indicate notability for high school conferences as well. matt91486 (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As usual, if people do their work in order, this becomes a non-issue. The initial stub should contain links to direct and detailed discussions of the topic in multiple independent sources. Those links can certainly be to paper sources, not on-line ones. There is no reason to produce any kind of special guidance for school organizations ... either they meet the general criteria, or they are not notable.
Kww (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. A rush for specialized rule sets only seems to complicate the field. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All attempts to develop sports realted notability guidelines have failed. There have been many attempts and these all unravel into the basics of WP:N - significant and independent third party recognition. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OKay, I didn't realize past failed attempts at this. Thanks for your time. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"No other restrictions"

Okay, after seeing a start of a debate on if Trademarks would be considered non-free, sparked by someone moving {{trademark}} to {{non-free trademark}}, I noticed a line in Wikipedia's holy definition of what's free and what's not, the Definition of Free Cultural Works:

*No other restrictions or limitations: The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work. In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free"

There it was, black and white, and is a trademark a "legal restriction" in the eyes of something Wikimedia policies actually use, so, is this enough? I'm not siding anywhere, I just wanna kinda get something going here. ViperSnake151 20:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a relevant legal restriction. No words or images exist that can be used for every purpose in every context without any legal consequence. The issue here is whether the mere reproduction and distribution of that content infringes someone's right to prevent such reproduction and distribution without their authorization. Trademarks only function as trademarks in particular contexts for certain specific uses, to identify the source of commercial products and services, and are not even restricted to words or images that the commercial producer created. You can copy this picture freely, but someone will get litigious if you copy it in the form of advertising for your own brand of computer. Postdlf (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a vivid example, Postdlf. I think we can now be sure that the Board resolution and the EDP don't apply to trademarks (or insignia or ...). Editors should collaborate to ensure that the project stays within these other laws, but we can be assured that we are neither interfering with, nor supported by, the free content pillar in such endeavours. As an exmaple (that is under discussion elsewhere) I am now fairly happy that the image of a London police box is free (provided the architect died more that 70 years ago - did they?) but I still oppose its use in Template:TardisIndexFile and other templates on trademark grounds, and basic fairness to an organization that I pay a licence fee to every month! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[ Darn. I just read that Trench died in 1979 [5]. This restricts police box image use in those jurisdictions where 2D images of 3D structures are derivative works. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC) ]

To follow up on your digression... The police box could only be copyrighted to the extent that it has some nonfunctional, original sculptural form. It looks just like a rectangular box with panel doors on the sides, so I'm not sure what could qualify it for copyright protection. Furthermore, doesn't the UK have freedom of panorama? So its placement in a public place would permit anyone to freely take derivative photographs of it. Postdlf (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes police box photo must be free thanks to UK freedom of panorama (though I am not 100% sure if the fiberglass prop in the BBC Wales reception is permanently installed) - the Earls Court would make me happier. The lack of non-functional originality may also help. That doesn't get us around the BBC's (admittedly bizarre, and quite frankly annoying, but tested in court) trademark registration. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Creation of New Negotiation Board in the Dispute Resolution Process

I have noticed that there is a current hole in the negotiation step of DR that none of the current processes cover. I would like to propose that a new board be created for disputes which range over multiple articles/pages but which don’t require the intervention of administrators and in which both parties are civil. Most of these types of threads get posted at ANI are disputes even though it is specifically mentioned in the ANI header that ANI is not part of the DR process. RFC works great for a single article but when there is the same dispute on multiple articles it falls outside the scope of RFC. The only processes that are currently set up to handle such a thing that are part of the DR process is Wikiquette alerts and that only applies if a party is uncivil. To my understanding ANI is mainly to report abuse that requires administer intervention that is too complex for AIV but in which there is no real dispute. All you have to do is take a quick look at ANI to realize that even though there is a notice there that specifically says its not part of DR people ignore that and post disputes there anyways. If we are not to create a new board to deal with this type of dispute then I think we should consider adding ANI to the dispute resolution process as that is what is happening anyways. --Nn123645 (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC-4)

It's sometimes helpful to cross-post notice of ongoing discussion, pointing people to a centralized location (whether it's a noticeboard or just another talk page). Just something quick, a brief summary and a link to a main thread. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolving unresolvable disputes

At the current ongoing RFC for WP:FICT, we basically currently have 3 main stances to this in the !voting: ~50% believing the middle-of-the-road solution to be fine, ~25% believing it to be too lax, and the other ~25% believing it to be too harsh. I am not trying to get input on the core policy/guideline issues which have been expanded to WP:NOTE, but trying to figure out what can be done here from the difficult time we've had trying to gain any consensus.

The problem is that those that believe it too lax and those that believe it too harsh are not offering any other solutions or suggestions that make concessions that the other extreme viewpoint. The overall goal of the FICT rewrite was to plant something in the middle of these views that could be seen as, at worst, a starting point to fine-tune the opposing inclusionist/deletionist views, but neither side seems to be moving, nor do I expect them to. While there is discussion of how strict

So, my question or what I'm trying to figure out is:

• Can I say anything about consensus towards the guideline per the AFD (given that it's still open and things may change)? At some point, are these extreme points ignorable and/or cancel each other out, despite their points being backed by reasonable interpretation of policy and guidelines?
• Is there some higher level of authority to take the dispute to? ArbCom is not the place, since this is primary content related, and there's no significant behavioral issues involved (and I'm sure they're sick of hearing these types of cases).
• Because this is such a key issue to how a significant fraction of WP articles are approached, is it possible to get a statement by the Foundation, in context of WP's mission, as what they want to see done with these types of articles? I really don't want to take it this way, but if neither side is going to budge to the other and/or calmly accept that a solution that weakens their view, this may be the only way to break the conflict. --MASEM 14:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I probably can't offer a good solution, but here are some thoughts. I, like probably many others, have stopped following the WP:FICT dispute for quite a while. It just takes too much of my time. From the little that I saw, it seems to me that an attempt for compromise is probably ill-advised. Sometimes one has to go either left or right: Either treat fictional topics like everything else (i.e. they must show notability individually, by means of independent sources, for each article); or allow them in unlimited amounts, as long as they can be verified against the fictional work. Compromise will only lead to inconsistency, tons of borderline cases, and endless fight, and will make no one happy. Now what to do? Maybe draft two competing proposals, and then decide on one of them. Unfortunately there's no governing body on Wikipedia who could clearly make that decision (a problem that goes far beyond the present case). But perhaps, invite everybody for comments. Let the foundation say what they have to say on the topic, if anything. Let the lawyers say what they have to say, if anything. If there are hard restrictions from that side (so that one of the proposals would be ruled out from the start), the matter is solved. Otherwise, hold a poll, and keep to the results. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles that promote business

While browsing I came across CLAAS - An article on a company that appears to be just a promotion for that company. How are they able to get away with that when other businesses cannot? What have they done different that put them under the radar? All I see basically is a list of products and a link to their "offical website." It appears this is against Wikipedia policy and not fair to other businesses! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinamongurl (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, feel free to follow WP:DELETE and propose it for deletion as spam. We can't keep track of every article, and depend on users to watch out for violations — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Global rights usage has been marked as a policy

Wikipedia:Global rights usage (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) 18:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Article specific blocks

Has the possibility of article specific blocks been previously discussed? It seems like a simple and effective method of enforcing topic bans without fully blocking a user whose conduct hasn't already risen to the level requiring such a measure. Article blocks could be used for articles and subject areas under probation, as a result of an Arbitration case, etc.

A simple mechanism, such as a log that allows you to add usernames to a list of article-blocked editors and also view the list, would be all that is necessary as far as interface goes. These blocks could appear in the block actions log of the administrator, and may or may not need to be listed in the block log of the individual editor (probably, it would be beneficial if it were included).

Additionally, it would be handy to be able to block editors from a particular namespace or other defined area - like protected categories established for problem areas (like all articles associated with Israel-Palestine, various other nationalist conflicts, etc.).

Thoughts? Avruch^T * ^ER 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Article-specific blocks would be useful in enforcing WP:COI. We could create the mechanism and let admins use it for a while. I'm not sure if protected categories would be practical. You'd need to have a category that couldn't be removed from a page except by an administrator. That sounds like it could be tricky to implement. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, could you just do it by linking to the page from the category page? Kind of like protection people used to use for salt pages? Avruch^T * ^ER 01:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A closely related discussion is archived here.
Kww (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Is using pictures from wikimedia on other sites hotlinking?

I get stock pictures for another forum from wikimedia, and don't host it elsewhere. I've been accused of hotlinking. Is it hotlinking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.32.37 (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I call it leeching, but 'yes', according to the definition at hotlinking. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that there's anything wrong with that. J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that hotlinking has its risks. --Carnildo (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Crediting the photographer in image captions

I recently came across a case where an editor felt that to satisfy the CC-BY license, the copyright holder must be credited in the caption every time the photo is used in the article. I'm pretty sure this is not the case, as the credit on the image page satisfies the attribution requirement, but IANAL and there is no WP policy/guideline directly addressing this subject. Language at Help:Image page#Source and author implies this, but does not directly state it. If my assumption is correct, adding photo credits in articles should be expressly forbidden for consistency of style and consistency with WP:OWN (with limited excepions, of course, such as when the photographer of the image is relevant to the article). However I'm not sure the appropriate place to add it... Help:Image page? Wikipedia:Image use policy? Wikipedia:Captions? Some/all of the above? Other? – flamurai (t) 00:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless the photographer is relevant to the picture, which most often isn't the case, they shouldn't be listed in the caption. Who took the picture is irrelevant to the commentary on it. Not sure if it should be added anywhere, but it's basically common sense. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Flamurai is quite right and I stand corrected - section 4c of the by-sa license says "Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit." So as long as we are crediting authors of images on the image page consistently, looks like we're ok. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, if the photographer is notable in her or his own right (i.e. has a WP article) it may be beneficial to add their name in a caption. I often add photographers' names to captions - of course, I'm mostly working on 19th century topics in Japan... Pinkville (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Important BLP issues remain somewhat un-addressed - views sought on WP:OPTOUT

The issue of Wikipedia's responsibility to living people continues to be important - and I asked a question about this to the current candidates for election to the board of trustees here.

If you take a look, you'll see an emerging consensus that this is a matter for us here on en-wikipedia to at least try and address, and you'll also see a pretty clear view that there is a significant problem here, and our systems to prevent defamation and harmful material being published may not be working as well as they need to.

With that in mind, I'd like folks to take another look at WP:OPTOUT - and I'd especially like to encourage as many people as possible to register their views at Wikipedia:OPTOUT/Long_Term_Straw_Poll. Thanks for taking some time to consider this very important issue! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability RFC

Apologies for delayed posting of this here; there's a current RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability, the GNG, subject specific guidelines, and definition, characterisation, or evidence?

This is discussing very broad topics and reasonings, and the broadest reasonable participation would be useful. As yet, there's no intended or expected outcome, just a common feeling that something isn't quite working right. SamBC(talk) 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Graphs

JUST LOOK AT THAT UPWARD SPIKE! Oh, the bottom line of the graph isn't 0, it's 20 million.

This meets your Y=0 intercept criterion, but is equally or more misleading. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This does not meet the Y=0 intercept criterion, but is less sensationalized. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm all for not having an overflow of policies people are supposed to know about, but we need one on graphs. Graphs of data that purport to show a trend should have their origins at 0 so that the trend is not exaggerated or sensationalized. This graph to the right, for example, taken from New Deal, currently is sensationalized; it greatly exaggerates the drop in unemployment from 1929-32, as well as the subsequent upward spike. This trashy data interpretation is common in daily newspapers (even the Wall Street Journal) who always seem to have a nagging fear that they need more exciting-looking trend lines in graphs in order to make their stories look more exciting; but this is an encyclopedia. Exceptions are OK as long as the graphs are explicitly labeled with an appropriate disclaimer.

I couldn't find this policy on Wikipedia. Does one exist? If not, where do I begin? Tempshill (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: The main reason I want a policy on this is mostly so there can be a shorthand so that editors concerned about this (namely, I) don't have to explain and try to establish validity of the whole theory every time a change request is made for a graph. Tempshill (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You express a valid concern, but zero is not always the relevant Y intercept as zero is typically not the appropriate X intercept. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue describe is one of the classic techniques of using statistics to distort the truth. It is definitely mentioned and discussed in the 1954 text How to Lie with Statistics. Article reviewers should be wary of this and the other issues, but most people are statistically illiterate so I don't expect you to get a lot of headway. GRBerry 21:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that graphs should not be drawn to look misleading, but often it depends on the circumstances and type of variable being measured. I suppose one major exception to this is temperature. There's often no need to make a temperature graph's y axis start at 0°C as that's an arbitrary value chosen to match the freezing point of water. If the graph was about gas pressures or very cold temperatures, you would make the scale start at 0 Kelvin since that value is quite relevant. For most everyday graphs, however, the temperature scale would not need any specific starting point. Tra (Talk) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what's wrong with the second graph there other than the choice of vertical scale. Is that all? We can just choose a more reasonable scale to fix that. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 21:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The other graphs are just there to demonstrate that a rigid criterion can be manipulated. We just have to be willing to use good judgment. You just can't make very issue a matter of policy. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cutting down on policy-proliferation is always good, but I sympathise with User:Tempshill having to explain things all the time. It seems like an essay on the subject would do the trick well enough, documenting the different aspects of "how to make good graphs" (including, as in all things, common sense). Does that sound like it meets your needs, Tempshill? An explanatory essay that you can link sounds about right from my point of view (who knows, it might even make it to MoS-guideline status in some possible future). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 21:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

An essay sound like the approach. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The criteria you're concerned about meeting is that the ratio of areas in a graph showing a change should be similar to the actual change. A graph showing an increase of 5% should not be offset in a way that looks like an increase of 50%. I think a policy should be set but rather than talking about offsets it should talk about area proportionality as the same misrepresentation can happen for things like log-scale graphs. Likewise, graphs showing the derivative of something without any reference to the constant factor have this problem as well. Rather than denying these outright, perhaps they should have some kind of not proportional caption with a link to a Wikipedia: page on reading graphs? I don't agree with Kevin Murray's comparison graphs. The one with the zero offset still does a better job of showing how the change is small with respect to the total, while the small version does not. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see some graphic examples of your proposal. It sould be an interesting solution. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Murray, I would give you 1/8th of a Tufte Barnstar for these graphs if such a thing existed. A picture is worth 984 words or so; thank you. I do disagree that the 2nd graph is less misleading, though - despite the vertical scale, I still see the rise from bottom depth to top height as an increase of about 75%, rather than an increase of about 350%. I think the essay idea is fine and I'll do it. Tempshill (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Any barnstar can be created, and 1/8th well earned is better than 8 from folly. I like GM's idea but am concerned that a graph loses its meaing without some visually perceptible variance. In my business huge dollars can be gained or lost on minute marginal change which is not always relevant to the total value, since the probable risk is rarely a loss of all, but a loss of some increment. I have to make subjective decisions on how to demonstrate data to sophisiticated investors who don't have a lot of time to spend on preliminaries, but a flat line does no good in showing the nuances. I'm glad to help, and if needed be your devil's advocate in the process. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything that can be done to reduce the general misunderstanding of graphs (and statistical theory) would be helpful. So yes, we need an essay (at least). How to Lie with Statistics is certainly a great, and maybe groundbreaking book. I also recommended books by John Allen Paulos, especially Innumeracy and A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper which includes those fallacies and others. Area proportionality makes sense per Gmaxwell. — Becksguy (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Size of talk pages

Somebody just changed the automatic archive setting of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) from 150 kbyte to 750 kbyte. There are some users for whom that will be inconvenient, expensive, or both. Some people pay for data or download time. Some people use small screen devices. I know that there is no fixed size threshold but there is a convention for article size that results in a size warning notice. Is there a size convention for talk pages? Lightmouse (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's way too much. WP:ANI is 250, so I reduced it to that. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, 100 is the common size for your average talk page. However, with pages that have hundreds of archives, double or triple that is probably better in the long run. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Could someone come over please to Talk:Philosophy to help on explaining WP:NPOV. I'm not asking for any help on the technical details of the subject, just another helping hand to explain what the policy is. The problem is that some of the sources conflict (not very much). I explained WP:NPOV and what is required in such cases (we present alternatives and so forth - I have put a quotations from policy on the talk page). But I am rather getting at end of tether. Thanks in advance! Peter Damian (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

PS this refers.Peter Damian (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard? Mr.Z-man 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't know about that. Peter Damian (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nike

I am certain I have read a policy about articles being located at the most assumable location, but I am finding nothing right now. In other words, if someone is looking for Nike, Inc., they should not find Nike (mythology) or a disambiguation page, as the company is the most commonly searched for usage. Any ideas? JohnnyMrNinja 15:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of Wikipedia:Disambiguation (which is a content guideline rather than a policy, but anyway). Sometimes it's hard to tell what the default article should be, personally I prefer to err on the side of caution and have the disambiguation page itself be the default (without a pressing need to the contrary). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, if there is no policy on it, then what are thoughts on making one? I personally do not like dab pages as default because they tend to be over-used. I think Nike is a great example. It can easily7 be assumed that someone searching Google for Nike is looking for the Nike brand (to test this, search google for "Nike" and see how many pages you have to go through to get a "goddess" or "missle" page). As such, I would think a simple hatlink on the company page could handle it, saying "For the goddess, see Nike (mythology). For other uses, see Nike (disambiguation)." I agree as a matter of aesthetics that I would like the original meaning to be default, but Wikipedia isn't about aesthetics, it's about getting information to people that are looking for it. Putting the information in the most logical location for people to access seems vital. JohnnyMrNinja 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that follows; Nike, Inc. might crop up a lot in Google, but that doesn't mean most people are looking for it, just that they have a high Google index (which they can afford to achieve, while I understand shares in Nike (mythology) are at a bit of a low this century ;-) ). I know that for me, personally, I'd expect to get the latter if anything, since I'm far more likely to be looking for it than the company. Any given person's mileage will, as usual, vary.

I wouldn't support moving to a policy because one of the tests of whether something should be a policy is "what can/should be done if somebody breaks it?", and as I say it's too subjective to even tell if somebody has broken it. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Johnny, from your frame of reference Nike shoes are the most common use of Nike. For me I think of the Nike missle system, because my interest is in history and shoes are just something to wear, when crocs are inappropriate. Others think of the Greek goddess. Who is right? There is no universal right, that's why we have the disambiguation pages. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are probably best when there are multiple significant uses of the word. Look at America, for example. Most people are probably searching for the US, but... Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• One problem with linking to a main article and having a hatnote is that it can become very hard to search "what links here" for misdirected links. Far better, in my opinion, to have a disambiguation page. DuncanHill (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I have been fixing those links by regularly checking new incoming ones since January 2007. - Ev (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's take page views for 2008-05, as those aren't subjective: Nike (the dab page) 55,398, Nike (mythology) 31,281, Project Nike 10,223, Nike, Inc. 172,441. As the dab page hits are higher than the goddess page and the missile page combined, it is most likely that people searching for Nike are not looking for these pages. As the company's hits are far higher than all other pages combined, it is clear that this article is what most visitors are trying to read. Further, though most of the links to Nike have been un-disambiguated, it is clear through the remaining talk and user page links that the vast majority of people who link to Nike assume it is about a company or brand, and not a goddess or missle. Personal interests should not come into play. I am not saying I have an interest in the company. I have an interest in putting things where people can find them. JohnnyMrNinja 16:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How are people not finding the shoe company if it is listed among the options at the DAB page? The statistics you cite are a form of recentism and popularity; what is popular now may shift. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the page views, they are not finding it through the dab page, so they are probably either finding it in Google or through links from other articles. It is unlikely that they are typing in "Nike, Inc." to find it. JohnnyMrNinja 17:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

By that same argument, it would be very difficult for someone to find "Nike (Goddess)", especially without a disambig page at the proper place. I think a better solution to the issue is to leave the dab page there and let people pick what they mean. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The disambig page is very important. It doesn't make sense to me why we would want to inconvenience readers who don't care about shoes by removing a disambig page with several good academic and historical references linking from it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not removing, moving. And those people are very much in the minority (based on how much the pages are read, at least). JohnnyMrNinja 17:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You're removing it from where it belongs, at Nike. People search for Nike, they could be studying Greek Mythology, they could be studying military history, or they could be looking for shoes. Per DISAMBIG guidelines, if there's a risk of confusion, then the disambig should be there at the search result. Judging that the numbers of views for stuff other than shoes are well into the thousands, I'd say there's certainly a risk of confusion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I already said my prejudices regarding disambiguation :-), that I prefer leaving them as primary when there's disagreement on the question. As you say, most people aren't hitting the disambiguation page anyway, they're going straight to the article. Do we have a style guideline on whether corporations should have suffixes like "Inc." in their title, now that I come to think of it? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 17:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)We generally only bypass disambig pages in cases where it is really obvious like Detroit. There are other Detroits, but given their relative importance, it can be expected that the vast majority of users will be looking for the city of 900,000 in Michigan rather than the city of 247 in Alabama or the 1993 DOS video game. Mr.Z-man 17:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the missile links really qualify as none of them are actually titled "Nike", but "Project Nike", "Nike-Hercules", "Nike Apache", etc. The company's article has over 5x as many visits as the goddess, so what would the problem be with a hatlink? What about Jupiter? Should that be moved? JohnnyMrNinja 17:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. After all, the disambiguation page Mercury is the first example given in the disambiguation guideline. - Ev (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Johnny is right, Jupiter should be a DAB page, following the example of Mercury and Nike. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes to the Jupiter move, considering the number of entries in the disambig page. Like Z-man said, we don't bypass disambig pages with a hatlink unless it is really, really unlikely that you're looking for anything else, and I don't think that's the case here. Judging from the numbers you gave, the mythological subject alone is getting tens of thousands of hits; not to mention that the shoe company's hits most probably come from google, considering there are way more hits to that page than the dab page. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(don't want to get too indented) Mercury is an element, a planet, and a company, all of which have modern currency, so that doesn't really apply (it's also a God probably, though Google doesn't show that Wikipedia article). At the very least, there should be some sort of rule about this. Currently this is very inconsistent. JohnnyMrNinja 18:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are already guidelines at DISAMBIG. If there's a risk that someone is searching for something else, then you have a dab page. It isn't really that complicated. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Google versus WP Johnny a constant theme in your discussion is what Google does. Why I love WP is that it does not cater to all the crap, hype, and recentism, that is inherent in any search engine. I come to WP as a first resource to quickly get unbiased information. However, if I am doing exhaustive research, then this is just the first step. Look at Britannica, how do they handle multiple topics with the same name? We can't precisely follow that model, but we can try to emulate the logic based on our electronic restrictions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

JohnnyMrNinja's figures show that the shoes manufacturer is clearly the most viewed article of this disambiguation page, and by a significant margin. However, I don't think that viewing rates should be our main deciding factor for how to disambiguate. The somewhat subjective ideas of "encyclopedic significance" and the general expectations with which a reader approaches a book, a dictionary or -more specifically- an encyclopedia should be just as important. I see taking these other factors into account as the common sense and occasional exceptions with which our guidelines should be treated.

What does a reader expect to find in an encyclopedic context ? A search for "Nike" at Britannica, or a quick look at whatever encyclopedia or dictionary you have at home shows how these subjects are usually presented. For me at least, searching for "Nike" in an encyclopedia and automatically finding myself looking at that swoosh would be a big surprise... something contrary to every expectation that years of reading have generated. — For me personally, such difference of priorities is the one that differentiates between the yellow pages I have by the phone and the books I have at my right.

Sure, when watching TV, talking on the street or at the mall, Nike means shoes... but when opening a book that is most certainly not the case. — The moment something that calls itself an encyclopedia chooses to give prominence to a shoes manufacturer over the millennia of Greco-Roman heritage that forms the very core of our Western civilization... well... I'm at a loss for words... - Ev (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to JohnnyMrNinja for soliciting input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. However, there's no problem to solve here. Somebody types "Nike" in the search box, gets the dab page, clicks on the link to the shoe company or the link to the goddess or the link to the missile system of their choice ... it works just fine. Nothing to solve. Let's move on. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)