Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Village pumps: Policy • Technical • Proposals • Assistance • Miscellaneous

Skip to: Table of contents | First discussion | Bottom of page

Village pump policy discussion   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.	Shortcut: WP:VPP
Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page.
« Older discussions | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Template:Archive list/root/definedTemplate:Archive list/nobr/definedTemplate:Archive list/links/undefined

Contents 1 Tor nodes 2 Ipblock exempt proposal 3 WP:RFC/U - time to get rid of it? 3.1 How to guide 4 Inline citations usually use wrong style 5 Visitor counter request 6 Ability to share articles on Facebook, etc. 7 Is dismissing someone's views because of where they live a personal attack? 8 Disambig and selfref templates exempt from NPOV? 9 reusing images from wikipedia 10 Vandalism in Immigration to Brazil 11 Notability for Role-Playing Games 12 SPCA, International 13 Test Wiki? Nostalgia Wiki? What are these things?? 14 Notable Wikipedians 15 Youtube as a source 16 No policy or guideline addressing anonymity? 17 Maintenance categories etc. 18 Corpse pictures considered unencyclopedic 19 External links 20 Serbia vs. Kosovo 21 Wikipedia:Delegable proxy 21.1 Posting to elicit a negative response 22 Put your comments AT THE BOTTOM. 23 Barnstars 24 Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles has been marked as a guideline 25 IP sock 26 Blocking Policy 27 street addresses 28 Hidden categories discussion 29 are graphs of equations OR?

[edit] Tor nodes

An ongoing discussion is in progress regarding adjusting the blocking policy in reference to TOR nodes. The discussion is here. Regards, M-ercury at 13:18, January 8, 2008

[edit] Ipblock exempt proposal

A proposal has started to allow established or trusted editors to edit via Tor, or other anon proxy. This discussion is located at

talk page

The proposed policy in its “needs to be worked on” form is located at

project page

Regards, M-ercury at 23:22, January 14, 2008

[edit] WP:RFC/U - time to get rid of it?

Moved from archive as it's premature to close this - future datestamp applied to make sure it isn't archived again - Will ^(talk) 17:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Moving from WT:RFC...

About two months ago, I listed Requests for user comment for deletion under the premise that it did not work, and it's basically a quagmire of personal attacks and a stepping stone to ArbCom. The consensus in the MFD, including the creator of the process and the MfD's closer, is that it doesn't really work 99.9% of the time, and only exists because there is no other process existent. Just get rid of it and reinstate the Community Sanction Noticeboard, as that actually did do some good. Will ^(talk) 17:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I personally prefered CSN better than RFC/U. D.M.N. (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support CSN provided there was a minimum time for comments (about 7 days). There should also be a maximum time for banning (1 year, same as ArbCom). R. Baley (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

CSN had teeth, RFC/U hardly any. CSN saw discussion and nuance, RFC/U sees ganging up and party-lines half the time. With the same provisos as R. Baley, except I'd prefer six months, it would be good to have it back. Relata refero (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could merge the two... CSN to me always seemed to arbitrary. Consensus could be declared in an hour or never... that kind of gives power to people who can generate a mob of "me too"s on demand. RFC is very structured but seldom goes anywhere. Is there any realistic way to have CSN but with a more normalized process, to give the accused a change to reply, slow down the mob mentality, and reasonably assess consensus? --W.marsh 18:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it need a new name possibly? Also please note than CSN only closed three and a half months ago and consensus might not of changed much since then. Also, a lot of things that "could" of gone there are instead now sent to WP:AN or WP:ANI, meaning they get a lot more traffic and stress put on them. D.M.N. (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

W.marsh, don't you think a minimum one-week period for each sanction discussion would help with the mob of "me-too"s? (Too much evidence has emerged lately of off-wiki co-ordination for us to discount that as a factor.) Relata refero (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A week sounds reasonable. If it's truly an emergency WP:BLOCK should apply, and if someone's transgressions don't seem blockworthy a week after the fact, then a ban was a bad idea to begin with. I'd also like to look at a waiting period before people start bolding words (ban, don't ban, etc.) maybe 48 hours of pure discussion without people taking definitive stands like in a vote. I think that would lead to better discussion, people tend to feel psychologically committed to a stance once they're locked in to it. --W.marsh 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

At Arbcom they've decided to take the ambitious step of waiting (I believe 48 hours, but I can't remember) before voting on the proposed decision page. We could do something similar, discussion can take place for 2 days, but no proposed "remedies" (ban, topic ban, etc.) could be offered until 48 hours after a new complaint had been certified (maybe not "certified," just following the initial complaint --basically enforce 2 days of discussion before any talk of "banning"). R. Baley (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC works when it's used for asking for comments, it does not work when sanctions are sought, but that is not its purpose. The CSN should be brought back and RFC kept and used for its intended purpose. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Community Sanction Noticeboard had its own problems, though I'm not sure that it needed to be eliminated. Part of the problem is that dispute resolution mechanisms seem to come and go - Mediation went away, and now it's back under a new name, the CSN came and went, ANI seems to alter its mission every so often. I see three main problems with RFC/U: it is not empowered to sanction, it's intended to keep reduce the burden on ANI, and it's a mandatory step before going to ArbCom, which can sanction. The solution I see is to 1) bounce more stuff, both from RFC/U and ANI, to Mediation (wherever it's living right now), 2) have some level of sanction available at RFC/U, which would probably require administrator patrolling, and 3) allow admins to move complicated cases off ANI to RFC/U. Perhaps a name change would be in order - instead of "Request for Comment/User Conduct", it could become "Administrators' Noticeboard: Ongoing Problems" (to distinguish it from AN:Incidents). Making it part of the Administrators' Noticeboard would mean that sanctions would be available and it would be an appropriate preliminary step to ArbCom. It would also reduce the load at ANI, where probably half the volume of discussion is on complicated, drawn-out issues, even though those are fewer than 10% of the actual incidents reported. Community Sanctions would all get moved to AN/OP, also. As part of the AN cluster, AN/OP would be fairly highly visible. Argyriou (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm Opposed to this. Many of our processes suffer from a lynching mentality and RFC is as bad as some of them but it does serve a purpose. I really do not see a return to the votes for lynching that CSN turned into as a viable alternative. If we are replace this process we need some other way to garner community feedback into problematical or disputed editor behaviour and a noticeboard doesn't seem the way forward. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Rlevse's and Spartaz's comments. --Iamunknown 00:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Both W.marsh and Spartaz voice important concerns. The CSN was split off from ANI, and then was merged back into ANI after only 8 months. I think ANI, with its high visibility and traffic, is the proper place for most such discussions. The deletion discussion is very instructive as to the potential problems that must be kept in mind. I oppose any page dedicated exclusively to "sanctions," as well as any form of voting for a ban.

Getting back to RFC/U, I think its purpose and its place within the DR process should be better defined. The list of DR options here is rather bewildering, and does not indicate (what I see as) RFC/U's status as a second-tier DR forum for problems that have proven intractable in the first-tier forums. The third tier, of course, is Arbcom.

There is a grave problem when people see DR as a list of hoops that must be jumped through before you can ban someone. Emphasis should be placed on restoring relationships and on helping problematic editors to become better ones. Note that I am not talking about obvious trolls, who should be dealt with easily enough in the first-tier DR forums. To me, the purpose of the first-tier forums is to have one or two experienced editors tell a problematic editor that he/she is behaving problematically and should change. At this point, the case may be obvious enough that a block or ban would be appropriate. The purpose of RFC/U is then for the larger community to communicate that same message. If the problematic behavior continues, then an admin can enact a community ban, and the tougher cases can go to Arbcom. If I am out in left field on this, then tell me so or ignore me. If not, then the DR guidelines should be a lot more clear that this is the case. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be good if it worked that way, but the practice is less harmonious. The process seems to escalate conflict rather than diminish it. I don't however know how to substitute it. CSN was seen as a kangaroo court, so that too had problems. DGG (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Practice does not need to be harmonious. I'm not so naive as to think that a large fraction of people are actually focused on "restoring relationships" etc. But I'd settle for orderly. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have seen in the few RFC/U's I've seen (as an outsider) is that there is very little in the way of objective evidence. It usually ends up in IDONTLIKEHIM comments, or sometimes people siding with the nominator they like or the defendant they like, or even lining up with the POV they like.

Any complaint, whether it is in an RFC/U or an AN/I or a proposed AN/OP, should have specific charges based on policy or guidelines and specific diffs to support the charge, and diffs to demonstrate attempts to resolve the problem. A user who behaves badly should be warned every time the problem is noticed. Just as we warn against vandalism, we should warn about NPA, incivility, etc. (If we had more warning templates, users might issue warnings more often.) If we warned users more often we might see fewer problems. If problems persist, then the warnings will provide the evidence to justify blocks.

AIV is not contentious because there is a visible history of escalating warnings to demonstrate the problem, to demonstrate attempts to resolve the problem, and to justify the length of a block. 3RR is not contentious because diffs provide objective evidence of bad behavior. RFC/U, AN/I, CSN almost always are (were) contentious because there is usually no objective evidence to demonstrate the problem and attempts to resolve the problem. I think that RFC/U would be more effective if it required specific charges of violated guidelines, specific diffs to support the charges, and specific diffs to demonstrate attempts to resolve the problem.

I was just about to make these suggestions about specificity over at WT:RFC when I saw the link to this discussion. I might still suggest it over there to try to improve the process while waiting to see if a consensus develops over here to eliminate or replace the process. I'm also thinking of starting a new section over here to suggest that we should issue warnings for bad behavior much more often. I have seen a lot of incivility go unwarned. If we had escalating templates for warnings, editors might use them more often. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, RfC on User Conduct should be used to elicit a wider community involvement in the background of the situation instead of the superficial cat-calling that we stumble acrost in article-talk and user-space. I frequently accidently wander into a vicious debate, simply because I visit a lot of pages. The RfC/U posted to the article-talk, and user-talk of both the RfC presenter and the subject would allow for impartial input. Which should continue for a minimum of three days there. Then, as above mentioned, the subject can be given some breathing room inwhich to evaluate improvement or at least detachment. After sufficient time, if an editor feels that anti-project editing still exists, then it would be appropriate to escalate to CSN and allow at least 3 further days for responses to be gathered. So my nutshell, RfC/U as a precursor to CSN and a necessary part of DR.Wjhonson (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with ANY system of open community comment on another editors actions, regardless of which Wiki-acronym you attach to it, is that it is always open to sniping and abuse (once someones name shows up there, everyone they ever have pissed off gangs up on them). The question is whether such abuse is willing to be tolerated in order to have a system whereby the community can comment on user behavior. You can't have a system in place that is immune to this kind of abuse, but neither should you throw out the baby with the bathwater... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly in favor of the WP:RFC/U system. It isn't good at seeking punishments for past bad behavior, but that's partly because sanctions are preventive, not punitive -- the point is, sanctions should be applied when bad behavior continues, rather than because it existed. RFCs are good for that -- if a user pushes POV, for instance, and it becomes well-established that this is the case in an RFC, and they continue to do it, sanctions can be safely applied. RFCs sometimes get out of control, but that's actually a good thing -- think of it as water in the mountains, it needs to come downhill somewhere. WP:RFC/U is a good way of handling that release of tensions because of the way its rules keep editors from commenting back and forth, which tends to build tension. Plus, they have a good way of adding lots of uninvolved editors to the mix, which distributes the energy. Mangojuice^talk 15:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what to think. The Wikipedia community hasn't shown itself to be anymore trustworthy than the Wikipedia admins. Both increasing and decreasing admin accountability or things like RFC/U seem counterintuitive. Making it more strict allows people to witch-hunt users and admins they don't like. Making it more lax allows trolls and corrupt admins to do whatever they want. The problem is that so many Wikipedia editors have zero regard for reason. That needs to be addressed first, I think. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC works (as stated above) when it's used for asking for comments on behavioral issues of a user or users, it does not work when used for witch-hunts, lynchings, Public floggings, personal attacks, bitterness, and character assassinations. Since this process does seem to escalate some conflicts rather than diminish them, perhaps modifying the guidelines within the process is needed as opposed to removal. Without RfC/U, the only formal steps in dispute resolution that focuses on editors are AN/I and ArbCom. Conversly AN/I could serve as an appropriate venue and does provide wide community involvement on issues (Apropriatly a modified format would be needed on AN/I to replace RfC/U). Processes exist to have a purpose, I belive this does, but some reform may be needed to improve it.--Hu12 (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to guide

I think RFC is a good way to gather evidence and gauge community sentiments. If an RFC/U convinces an editor to cease causing problems, that is a good result. If they continue, a note can be posted at ANI requesting a community remedy, such as an editing restriction or ban, with a link to the RFC/U. If there is no consensus at ANI, the case can go to ArbCom, and again, a link to the RFC/U provides much of the necessary evidence. The processes work when people use them correctly. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, if we ever want RFCU to ever work, we need more admin intervention - Anittas was indefed a second time in October. The attack he was blocked for was on RFCU for twelve days, but nothing happened until ANI got wind of it. Will ^(talk) 00:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inline citations usually use wrong style

Inline citations throughout Wikipedia are positioned incorrectly, probably resulting from the uncertain appearance of the source code.

Many <ref> </ref> elements and related tags have incorrect formatting around them, examples

Kernels of popcorn should have 15% to 20% moisture content^{[citation needed]}.

Kernels of popcorn should have 15% to 20% moisture content. ^{[citation needed]}

It should be: Kernels of popcorn should have 15% to 20% moisture content.^{[citation needed]}

Popcorn has high density^[1].

Popcorn has high density.^[2][3].

Popcorn has high density. ^[4]

Popcorn has ^[5] high density.

It should be: Popcorn has high density.^[6] or Popcorn has high density.^[7][8] or Popcorn has^[9] high density.

Related pages:Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Footnotes, example article1, example article2, example article3 and see Random article for other instances of articles that have wrong citation style.

The style needs to be clarified somewhere as soon as possible. Where and how should this be clarified? 209.244.43.112 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps here?. Otherwise, for a more general Manual of Style forum, here. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The style has been indicated on Wikipedia:Footnotes, what needs to be done is the style made overt, perhaps with an obvious notice on all related pages with a link to Wikipedia:Footnotes. Another idea is to make a short summary about use of citations on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. (I have a dynamic IP, I would have waited for my address to return to 209.244.43.112 but do not have time.) 209.244.43.122 (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Ref tags and punctuation. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The long-standing consensus that footnotes followed punctuation was removed from WP:FN after a protracted edit war last November.[1] A handful of editors dominated; everyone else eventually gave up rather than engage in edit warring. A broader audience may help restore the guideline to reflect actual practice and long-standing consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If we really, really care that much about where the {{fact}} template is placed, then we should ask for a bot to fix this, not try a massive (re)education program of thousands of editors.

As for replacing "Popcorn has high density.^[10][11]" with "Popcorn has high density.^[12]", sorry, that's wrong. It's perfectly acceptable to support one sentence with multiple sources (rare, but acceptable); and it's a bad idea to combine two sources into a single footnote because that is inconsistent with using a named reference in multiple places in the same article.

And yes, I support putting footnotes after punctuation, but wonder how important this is, overall. I'm always quite happy just to see new information added to articles supported by anything, even just a URL. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there were multiple sources was not the problem, the issue was that often there is a period before, and after the inline citation, probably because the source code for multiple inline citations is confusing. 209.244.43.122 (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

May be best to just add a statement like "Be sure to place <ref></ref> case correctly in the text, directly after a word, comma, or period without any characters added." to one or more guideline pages, and try to straighten out the style of inline citations whenever we happen to be editing an article. 209.244.43.122 (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

From memory, the dispute in the guideline was whether it meant "Always put the citation after a punctuation mark", or "If a punctuation mark is present, place the citation after the punctuation mark". Personally, I'm in favour of the latter, but not the former Bluap (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's what it said for a very long time (and this still reflects current practice on most articles, certainly on most FAs):

Wikipedia's house style is that ref tags are placed at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the footnote refers.[2] This is the format recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style. When placed at the end of a clause or sentence the ref tag should be directly after the punctuation mark without an intervening space, in order to prevent the reference number wrapping to the next line. The same is true for successive ref tags.[1] The exception is a dash — which should follow the ref tag, as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style.[3]

Several persistent editors objected and edit warred, wanted no rule whatsoever, everyone gave up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your obsession with format is silly. I'd rather read editors discuss the merits of a reference than its format. If you must dictate the form, create a pop-up template every time someone clicks on the <ref></ref> markup, like for example with photo upload. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference itself is certainly more important than the style for the position of the tags, however the current not unified system for the appearance of citations on article pages is unencyclopedic. --209.244.43.112 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

To reply to the mid-sentence example just added, there is nothing wrong with a sentence saying "The high density^[13] of popcorn allows it to...". This is consistent with the old MOS paragraph that SandyGeorgia quoted above. Bluap (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If perfect consistency is desired in these matters, a bot should be created, or editors who care can form a WikiProject. This should NOT be an editor responsibility. If we want editors to be bothered with things like this, we're going to have to start paying them for full-time services -- a volunteer organization means that a volunteer gives the organization a limited amount of attention and can only be expected to follow a limited number of rules. Professional organzations with full-time personnel are needed beyond that. There are literally hundreds of things that would be higher on my priority list for an education campaign for editors. As others have said, I'd rather editors spend as much of their limited time as possible focusing on good content and reliable sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The pages describing how to add internal citations are guidelines, not policies, editors may ignore them. Someone else with more time can cleanup the style if they chose. I propose a alteration for the How to use section on pages Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes, here. Already altered Help:Footnotes, here. I believe this will be all that is needed. --209.244.43.112 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There's two separate points being discussed here: 1) Whether we should have (reinstate) the MOS guideline on footnote placement standarisation and 2) whether all editors should be "trained" to follow it. Obviously #2 is not going to happen and yes even if it was possible, there's a number of other things far higher on the "train editors" list—but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a guideline. MOS guidelines are used to define standards for Good articles and Featured articles, where we want to be as encyclopedic as possible. So yes, IMO the old guideline quoted above ought to be put back. --jwanders^Talk 09:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Visitor counter request

Could you please have a look on m:Meta:Babel#Visitor_counter_request? (Regarding privacy policy) --- Best regards, Melancholie (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see Wikipedia tracking visits to individual articles. As usual, we don't have 99% of stats we need. No surprise there (see meta:GUS for another much needed thing to do).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ability to share articles on Facebook, etc.

I would like to be able to share wikipedia articles on sies like facebook. Sites like these allow people to share articles from many news sources, and I consider Wikipedia articles to be article just like any other, though they are not always as timely.

Just my two cents. Thanks, Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgrade18 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're referring to Wikipedia adding links to each article like this: Save to del.icio.us • Share on Facebook • Digg This! • outside.in: geotag this story • Discuss on Newsvine • Stumble It! • Sphere: Related Content • Add to del.icio.us. (For an example, see this blog page.

It's an interesting idea; it's something that could go into the left margin (quickbar) below everything else. Thoughts by other editors? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, too spammy. We're effectively endorsing those sites by doing so. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention such a feature can be used for spamming. We have a big enough problem with spam as it is. MER-C 12:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how links generated by MediaWiki software could be used for spamming, but I agree that there would be a problem deciding which sites should get "endorsed" by Wikipedia. (Maybe we could charge any interested website, say, $100,000 per year for a standard link on every article?) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's already been implemented on Facebook's side. Instructions can be found here; I imagine the other sharing sites have similar setups. --jonny-mt 15:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is dismissing someone's views because of where they live a personal attack?

Please see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#HD-DVD. Firstly I'll freely admit I got carried away in the heat of the moment and undoutedly violate WP:Civility in the discussion as well as let the discussion get too off topic and to ORry (partly my fault). However I have concerns about one of the comments, specifically "Blu-Ray had not already 'won' in Europe, please stop saying things like that when you don't even live in the same continent as me to judge.". It is my understanding that this is a personal attack. A minor one perhaps, which is why I don't want to complain about it. However in discussing the matter with the person who made the comment, the other person does not agree it is a personal attack so I wanted to see what others think. As I understand it, you should never use what someone is and what they believe in this way. It may be okay to say something like 'I live in Europe and from what I've seen this is how things are here'. But it is not okay to say 'you don't live in Europe so you obviously don't know' . Just the same as it is wrong to say 'you're not a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu/whatever you obviously don't know' . Both are a form of personal attack, even if not meant to be one because in both cases you are dismissing the views of the person based on who they are. Ultimately of course, it doesn't matter, all that matters is what the sources say which is why people should be careful about saying 'I am XYZ and from my experience' since that's OR. And as I already said, I admit I let the discussion get too ORry (and so did the other contributor). But IMHO, it's still not acceptable to dismiss what I was saying based on where I live (in any case, I was clear from the beginning I was basing my views on the sources I had read including some which I linked to, not my personal experience, even if I didn't include enough of these sources). What do others think? Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read all your exchanges. I think this is a tricky call. The IP was making arguments with an original-research component, but was also arguing based on sources. I don't think he crossed the line into personal attack--if he had said "What do you know, you're a stupid American" that would have gone over the line. The tricky part comes in that he was obviously thinking something to that effect--he definitely thought you were an American for most of the exchange--and that was flavoring what he was saying. You caught that something was going on. Online exchanges that leave people with a sour taste in their mouths often come from false assumptions on the part of one (or more, of course) of the parties.[2]. Darkspots (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Darkspots. What was said doesn't appear to be a personal attack. --Kbdank71 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if it was a personal attack, it sounds like it was minor enough to not get in the way of a constructive dialog, unless you decide that you want to let it get in the way. The best way to handle minor personal attacks is to ignore them. Wikipedia isn't the "real world" - you don't lose face if you fail to respond to provocation. (In fact, as far as experienced editors are concerned, you gain reputation if you're able to stay focused on content discussions.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually the real world works like that too... People who go around getting upset at the slightest provocation are usually not well respected either. In general, people who act in a mature, dignified manner even in the face of insult usually gain the respect of other mature people. Its only the juvinile and immature that have respect for those that escalate conflicts rather than resolve them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think I would classify it not as a personal attack, but as an ad-hominem argument and therefore a logically invalid argument. Saying that you live in a certain place is not an attack. Dismissing your point of view may violate the WP:CONSENSUS policy but is not necessarily a personal attack in itself. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig and selfref templates exempt from NPOV?

I've recently run across someone claiming that the content of disambiguation/link templates are not part of our encyclopedic content, and are thus not subject to our content policies, specifically that they are not obliged to convey a neutral point of view. In particular at the Wikia article, where {{selfref}} is being used to restore a disclaimer notice that was roundly rejected by the community just recently (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 5#Template:Wikia is not Wikipedia). Is this supported? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything - images, categories, infoboxes, other templates - it doesn't matter what - that is part of a mainspace page is subject to all the policies and guidelines in Wikipedia regarding content. Content is the face that Wikipedia shows the public. If someone wants to argue that one or more parts of an article page are not subject to certain policies or guidelines, it's up to them to come up with the proof for that argument. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So you will be able to answer the following questions:

Why the template {{POV}} is only transcluded on pages of the main namespace?

Why the template {{talkheader}} displays the NPOV policy only in the talk namespace ({{ns:1}})? 16@r (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The {{POV}} template belongs on article pages because it states that an article definitely has a POV problem. In that location, it gets a lot more attention than if it were on the talk/discussion page. I've removed a number of such templates, often simply noting that no specifics have been given, but also often doing some cleanup. And where the template remains after being reviewed by an editor, it serves as notice to readers that they should treat the article with even less credibility than otherwise.

This template is hardly the only one that goes on article pages: see Wikipedia:Template messages#Article-related namespace. The general principle is clear: if an article has a specific problem or needs specific kinds of help, put up a message to that effect. (One article messagebox I'm not personally that thrilled with is the one about an article needing expanding; almost every article does, so what's the point?)

As for the {{talkheader}} template, that provides general advice; there may in fact be no problem whatsoever. (It lists the NPOV policy (along with the two other core policies) under the heading "Article policies", so it's clear it applies to the mainspace page, but I don't think that's your question.) Putting this large messagebox at the top of every article would be extremely distracting - and largely pointless, of course, since most of applies to the talk/discussion page. And since pages are read much more than they are edited, it's not a good idea to provide general advise to the small minority of readers who are also going to edit. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reusing images from wikipedia

im doing a website for a class and i was wondering what the policy is on using images that are on wikipedia articles on this (external and non commercial) website. i know they're not public domain (the pics i need are all attached to wiki articles on british comedies - screenshots/dvd covers/title screens). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbhimanyuDas (talk • contribs) 08:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Details about what license images are under should be on every image page. I'll help you with specific images if you like, but it is more than likely that screenshots and DVD covers will be used under a claim of fair use, and so you would have to do the same on your site, unless you recieved permission from the copyright holder to use the images. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Click on an image to see the image's description page. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism in Immigration to Brazil

Please, can somebody block the article Immigration to Brazil. There is an IP doing vandalism there.

He is including information about Dutch and French settlers there, which is wrong, since both did not have any impact in Brazil's demography. They only settled Brazil for a few years then returned to Europe; they do not make part of the "immigration to Brazil" issue. I told this to the IP, but he is reverting me.

Can someone do something about this vandalism? Opinoso (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's policy on vandalism. You are incorrect in calling the edits by User:91.141.232.77 to be "vandalism"; this is a content dispute. No administrator will protect this article or block the IP editor. Rather, the matter should be discussed on the article talk page.

I also note that if you have documented evidence that "Dutch and French only settled there for a few years and then returned to their homecountries", then that information should be added to the article, since the question will inevitably arise again, rather than removing any mention of early Dutch and French settlers because you believe it is irrelevant.

Also, please remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is not only to provide information but also to point readers to further information. The ideal way to do so is to cite your source of information in the article. That also makes it clear that what you're saying is not simply your personal opinion.

For further information on content disputes, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since my edition on the article is not vandalism, I ask someone to please revert the edition of user Opinoso. He is trying to omit that the French, the Dutch and the Spaniards settled in Brazil.

--91.141.238.10 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My Dutch ancestors settled in Brazil and then moved on to New Netherlands, they didn't return to their home country, therefore your edit is incorrect. Corvus cornix_talk 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability for Role-Playing Games

Some users have begun tagging RPG-related articles indiscriminately with the Notability-Books tag. Given that RPGs are indisputably popular, but that they appeal to a specific subculture and thus references to them do not frequently appear in more mainstream, widely acceptable articles, is there a way to create a more industry-specific notability guideline for these games and their spinoffs? Thanks. Snuppy 15:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indiscriminately is a value judgment. If you feel like users are tagging articles haphazardly and not discriminating between those that assert notability and those that do not, you should make a report to WP:AN/I, preferably with diffs that show tags on articles that indisputably meet the standard of Wikipedia:Notability (books).

That out of the way, you should check out the proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability. Darkspots (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Snuppy 18:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the term "some users" actually only refers to me: see my talk page for the ongoing discussion. The allegation that the Notability cleanup template in question has been placed "indiscriminately" is not supported by any evidence. For an example of its application, have a look at the role-playing game Via Prudensiae for an example. Clearly this is a role-playing game, but the article itself describes it a a book, and there is a picture of the book cover in the article. Hence I have used the notability template that refers to WP:BK which I think is entirely reasonable to do so. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article refers to it being "published as a book", not being a book. A subtle distinction perhaps, but one that most roleplayers will make without a thought. You play the game, you read or refer to the book. The words "book" and "game" in that phrase would make no sense if they were swapped. What's wrong with just using plain notability in the absence of an appropriate specific guidelines? SamBC(talk) 14:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• The difference is almost jesuitical, but I am not disagreeing with you. Nothing is wrong about using more general notability criteria, but my view is that WP:BK is the closest specific guideline as the game comes in a book format, is marketed like a book and used like a book (although it is a game). It is therefore not unreasonable to apply the Notability (books) template to highlight the cleanup issue which this article has. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that you were tagging them with the book version while that was proposed, IIRC, why not tag them with the proposed RPG version? It's quite mature and reasonable now. One point some of us have been trying to make to you, Gavin, is that tagging them as books when people (who know more about the subject) have told you they find it inappropriate just gets people's backs up, and it's worth doing things a little differently just to avoid that. SamBC(talk) 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SPCA, International

Eep! Forgot this was policy. Moving to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). superluser_tc 2008 February 20, 20:01 (UTC)

[edit] Test Wiki? Nostalgia Wiki? What are these things??

I recently stumbled upon http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org and http://test.wikipedia.org. I assume the first is there, as its title suggests, for nostalgic reasons, but what does the second one do? Are there any other similarly obscure Wiki sites? Why isn't there a http://test.wiktionary.org, for example?

Also, could someone make an article listing all such "obscure" Wiki sites and clarifying their purpose?

Thanks It Is Me Here (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See m:Table of Wikimedia projects. For explanation see also the main page of each project. I think http://test.wikipedia.org is not specifically related to Wikipedia but more generally a site of Wikimedia to test the MediaWiki software.--Patrick (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the Test Wiki's where they patch code fixes before they go live here. It's also used for experimental features that aren't ready for production use yet. One of the interesting features is flagged revisions support, so that good revisions of articles (e.g., featured versions) can be marked in the history. If such a system was implemented, vandalism by IPs wouldn't become visible to most users until someone sighted the revision (rather than reverting afterwards like we have now). Interesting ideas eh? There's another list of all these wikis at Special:Sitematrix. • Anakin ^(talk) 13:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Wikipedians

I'd like to get some input on my entry at Template talk:Notable Wikipedian#When should this be used? about when this template should be placed on talk pages. It is my view that it should only be used if the person is either a) a regular contributor (hence 'Wikipedian', or b) there is some other good reason for adding it, e.g. they were fiddling with their own biography to make themselves look good (edits of a controversial nature, I guess). For minor things like single edit accounts I don't think we have any good reason to be highlighting this. If you read a section just above my own there you'll see a case of this being potentially harmful. Richard001 (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Youtube as a source

I've read here and there that you cannot use Youtube as a source, and yet, doing numerous google searching fails to turn up any policy that says so.
In particular, I'm hoping to use Youtube as a source to prove that a band was on a TV show. If the interview with the band was flighted on Romanian TV, and there is a clip on Youtube, is this not acceptable as a source to prove they were on TV? Rfwoolf (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's probably a better question for WP:RSN, but my read is that what you'd want to do in that case is cite the source not as YouTube, but as the TV show itself; then in the source you can link to the YouTube reproduction of the show for convenience. As for YouTube being unacceptable as a source, the closest policy to saying that would be WP:RS. However, YouTube's really just a medium, and as for the reliability of a source, you have to consider what's being played over that medium and where it comes from. A lecture by some internationally renowned scholar broadcast over YouTube is likely to be a reliable source. Some guy ranting into his webcam probably isn't. See WP:SPS for more information about this and other self-published sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that we don't link to copyvios, so that excludes a YouTube clip of a TV show. Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point (although I thought YouTube was pretty aggressive about purging copyvios from its site; isn't that why you can't find Daily Show/Colbert clips there?). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No YouTube is not aggressive about purging copyvios from its site. As far as I know, they only remove copyvios in response to Cease & Desist letters or other strongly-worded complaints. Mike R (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Youtube is no different from an external link. It may contain some reliable sources, mostly it has lots of unreliable garbage. There is of course a problem of citing video sources in general - note that they are very rarely cited in academia, for example. Even documentaries and such don't have (I think) any standard citation format in Harvard style or such. At the very least, I'd expect to see time frame specified just as pages in a printed source.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how YouTube is different from WikiWorld. Opinions? superluser_tc 2008 February 22, 18:11 (UTC)

Sorry if I've missed the point, but WikiWorld is a comic strip created from free content found on Wikipedia, and YouTube is a video hosting service. Quite different. As for the matter at hand- almost every video on YouTube is either an unreliable source (some guy moaning into a webcam) or a copyvio from another source. As such, neither would be usable as sources. You could cite a programme that just happened to be illegally uploaded to YouTube, but linking to the YouTube clip would violate policy. The very rare occasion YouTube could be a legitimate source is when the publishers of a reliable source (TV show or something) upload a clip to YouTube. I know that some record labels occasionally upload their own music videos, and so I would imagine there will be a few clips of reliable TV shows that have been uploaded legally around the site. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My point is that WikiWorld is an unreliable source. My question stems from this--I had been thinking of doing a series of videos based on some of the articles here, and then linking back to the videos. As the videos would be GFDL or CC-licensed, I'm wondering why WikiWorld would be used, but not (appropriately-licensed) videos. superluser_tc 2008 February 23, 20:53 (UTC)

Where is WikiWorld being used as a source? Corvus cornix_talk 23:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that linking to unofficial YouTube videos is not acceptable (not reliable sources). However, linking to official content hosted on YouTube (such as music videos uploaded by the label itself) I would consider viable. For example, linking to LisaNova's YouTube page makes complete sense. It's the same as linking to a band's official MySpace page. If it contains further reliable information related to the subject, I think it can be included. And what does WikiWorld have to do with anything? ^_^ ~MDD4696 03:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the solution is to cite the original TV source that showed the band. But I also agree that Youtube is just another source of media and I think you should be able to cite from it, if that was the original source from which a notable topic began... such as LisaNova, or Daxflame--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No policy or guideline addressing anonymity?

I was surprised to find out we have no such policy. WP:ANON is a sketch of an essay with a few useful links... that's it? Anonymity is an (unofficial??) fundation of this project, yet we seem to ignore it. Isn't this strange? At the very least, I think we should try to make WP:ANON more useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at the "Privacy" section of the Editor's index to get a more complete list of pages where this subject is covered. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maintenance categories etc.

It appears we now have an elegant solution to the problem I raised a few days ago, namely how to stop maintenance categories (like "Articles with unsourced statements...") showing up on article pages. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#HIDDENCAT. Would it be considered in breach of current policy to go around putting the new magic word on all maintenance categories? If so, can I propose a slight change to the Wikipedia:Categorization guideline, so that it allows such categories, but only as hidden categories? (Previous discussion has taken place at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Maintenance categories.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corpse pictures considered unencyclopedic

Please see this discussion thread from a few days ago on one of the Reference Desks. In brief, it is debated whether it's appropriate for articles such as Wilhelm Frick to include images of the subject's corpse. I say not. (I'm "--Anonymous" in the archived thread.)

I know perfectly well that Wikipedia is not censored and I agree that it should not be censored, but this is not license for images that do not add encyclopedic value. And just because someone was executed does not mean that it is informative to see what his dead body looked like. Only if there was something notable about the person's dead body would that be the case.

And in the absence of encyclopedia justification, the inclusion of such images is simply bad taste. I say they should all be removed -- except, of course, if there was something notable about the person's dead body. A picture of Benito Mussolini's body hanging on a meat hook in a public square, if we had one, might be appropriate. That was a notable event. An execution is not notable, and pictures like the one that started this thread are not encyclopedic, I say.

Since this affects a number of articles (I don't know how many), I call for discussion here.

--207.176.159.90 (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Most people have encyclopedic value because of things that they did while they were alive, and a picture of them when they are not alive wouldn't seem to have any value.

But this is already covered. I don't see any need to add "Wikipedia is not Shakespeare's Brutus" or "Wikipedia is not Doubting Thomas."

It doesn't seem to add anything that's not already policy, and it would seem to discourage people from adding such images when appropriate. For example, the corpse of John Paul I might be encyclopedic (good luck finding a free image), since the embalming process was actually an issue. superluser_tc 2008 February 23, 09:52 (UTC)

1 - It is notable. This was the death of a nazi, it arguably does have encyclopedic value. If there were photos of the corpses of famous people like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, etc I would definitely think the images encyclopedic. Certainly the death of a nazi is notable? (given the efforts to find them and bring them to justice, the amount of blood on their hands, the lack of photos of the individual, and, the notability of the individual itself)

2 - The image is not that bad - it's in black and white (which is already less gory - no red blood or skin tone), and is quite washed out. AND its been set to a very small size in the article - you can hardly see most of the detail

3 - It might be difficult to develop a blanket policy on such things. I think the overiding policy issues are things like "How much does it offend" and "How encyclopedic is it?". In this cases there is strong argument for encyclopedic merit and the image really is not that offensive -- however that is subject, and opinions may vary. Therefore, perhaps we should get users to vote on this. I have a feeling the majority would not find the image offensive. I certainly don't, especially because it's not in colour and of poor quality.

Rfwoolf (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please also see the past debate on the talk page Talk:Wilhelm_Frick#Dead_guy_image. Rfwoolf (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a simple policy for images is "Is it notable"? To which I would disagree with your comment in section #1. He was notable for what he did while he was alive, not for anything particular about his death. The anon's Benito Mussolini counter example makes a good point and I would also point out that there might be some encyclopedic value to corpse photos of Bonnie and Clyde or Billy the Kid since there is controversy about their death. Being a nazi doesn't make his corpse photo de facto notable. You could possible argue an exception if we had no other visual image of him, period, but that is not the case here since we do have a very good image of him alive. There simply isn't a need for it and removing it is not censorship, it is just being prudent and using images that actually contribute something to the article. However, I will point out that there would be some value in adding this photo to the Cadaver article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• There are Bonnie and Clyde corpse photos for precisely that reason. Without them, somebody's always claiming famous people got away. The Barbarosa syndrome, call it. [3]. Anyway, corpse photos are as interesting for what they don't show as for what they show. In the case of the Nazis, they look good and hanged. And not very well (lots of blood). That correlates with historical accounts and is illustrative. They also look well nourished, which is somewhat ironic, considering. So that, too, adds. Their victims had it harder (all things considered). SBHarris 05:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO An execution is a notable event so it makes sense to me that a photo of the cadaver of an execution victim would be relevant to the article about that person. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Particularly someone executed by the Nuremberg Trials, a notable legal proceeding. Darkspots (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As the image is free, and there is no other image fighting for that space in the article, and it is an image relevent to the article, I see absolutely no problem. Pictures of the subject's corpse should be treated just the same as pictures of them when they were alive- if we discuss a concert a pop singer was involved in, and have a free picture of said concert, we include it. If we talk about the execution of a criminal, and have a picture of said execution, we include it. Images don't have to be 'notable' to be included in an article. This post basically boils down to 'Wikipedia is not censored, but I don't want to see that.' J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, images should relate directly to something stated in the text of the article. If the article discusses the subject's exicution, an image of that execution is directly related and can be included. If not, then there is no reason to include the image. It's as simple as that. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Once again I will note that this discussion has nothing to do with censorship, so any commentary along those lines are off subject and moot. The purpose of any image is to illustrate something of encyclopedic purpose. To that regards, what does this photo illustrate? That he died? Yes, is that particularly notable? No. That he was executed? No, looking at the photo (without any caption) there is nothing to indicate that he did not die from a fall down some stairs. That he was a Nazi? No, no Nazi emblems in the photo. That he was connected to the Nuremberg Trials? No, once again this photo fails to illustrate anything worthwhile or encyclopedic. So what is the point? Why is it needed? In the context of the Frick article, it serves absolutely no purpose. However, as I noted above, it would serve a very encyclopedic purpose in the Cadaver. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. Also, as the image is in the public domain, there's a good reason for putting the image into Commons. So unless the picture adds more than a brief description of it does (e.g. "William Frick was convicted under the Nuremberg Trials and was hanged until he died."), I don't see the point. It also really doesn't do much to prove that he died, as he would be celebrating his 131st birthday next month. Put the image in Commons, and maybe in cadaver, and certainly add a link to "Wikimedia Commons has media related to:", but don't put it in the article proper.

When newspapers consider printing gory photographs, the arguments are typically not ones of censorship or offending readers, but questions of whether the photos are hard journalism. The papers that don't print them know that the papers that do will sell more copies. That's not the point. The point is: Is it journalism, or in our case, is it encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not The Nazi Hunter. superluser_tc 2008 February 23, 21:14 (UTC)

• "Not censored" is not equivalent to "we do not take any consideration to the sensibilities of our readership". There is a major difference. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The contrast between the main photo and the one after execution is stunning and says more than words can ever do. Images are also a language and a communication of facts, and should not be undervalued. This image adds considerably to the value of the article. The hanging of this once-powerful individual is a major part of his story. There is no reason not to show this. In fact, as it was such a significant part of his story, there is every reason that it should be shown. Tyrenius (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Likewise Emmett Till. Should we have a picture of Emmett Till's corpse? superluser_tc 2008 February 24, 04:47 (UTC)

The contrast of quite a few folks living vs dead photos would be stunning. Should that be an encouragement to start including side-by-side Alive/Dead photos in infoboxes? of Ronald Regan, of Princess Diana, of Benazir Bhutto? of Anna Svidersky? If we had free use photos of anyone's corpse, is the "contrast" alone, truly a reason to include the photo? And before anyone brings up the "Think of their family" angle as a reason not to post corpse photos of the folks mentioned above, I will point out that Wilhelm Frick has family too, possibly still living--though that is not my reason for thinking the photo should not be included. I do agree that his execution was historical and if the photo actually was of his execution, not an after the fact matter, I would probably be arguing for its inclusion because that would have some encyclopedic value. But a simple picture of his corpse, does not. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Herewith a philosophical thought:
Consider if the image in question was a completely different image, for example "Wilhelm Frick at his 65th birthday". Would it be a problem to include it in this particular article?
Some will say 'yes' because so far the article only has 1 image of the guy, so to add more will improve the article and make it a better encyclopedia.
Agreed?
So can we agree that the problem here that in this case, we need to consider whether or not the image is offensive, not whether we should be adding an image of the guy.
Consider the article we have on cats - 17 images of cats, when we probably only need 5. Why? Because people appreciate as much multimedia coverage on an article as possible, it's "encyclopedic".

Summary of the arguments (change as you wish while remaining fair):

• Whether the image is / is not encyclopedic or has / hasn't encyclopedic value.
• Whether the image is / is not relevant to the article.
• Whether the image is / is not offensive.

Some people argue more than one of these points:
some people don't care how offensive it is or how enyclopedic it is, but as long as it's "relevant" to part of the article it should be included.
some people don't care how relevant or encyclopedic it is, they find it too offensive.
You may amend this comment as you wish. Rfwoolf (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The cats & dog examples both serve your point and discount it. On almost a monthly basis a battle will rage on some cat/dog breed article about the excessive amount of images and the point that Wikipedia is not a photo gallery. Gradually consensus seems to be emerging that more editorial discretion should be used in images and you are starting to see fewer photo galleries in these articles. That is significant, since I'm sure that more editors have a stronger emotional attachment to their kitty or puppy pics then to a corpse photo. As for your birthday example, yes there is a difference with that verse the corpse photo because while people are living they are doing notable things and obviously their appearance changes as they age and people will have different "visual images" of that person at different stages of their lives. While multiple photos from the 65th birthday party would be redundant and not needed, having one photo to show how he look at that point of his life would serve the encyclopedic image of illustrating the figure that was doing these notable things and show the readers how the people who interacted with him at that point saw him. Now, in contrast, what notable thing did Frick do after his death? In contrast to Mussolini, whose body hung on a meathook in a town square following his death and impressed an indelible image upon thousands, what kind iconic or encyclopedic image was Frick's corpse-which was taken by a few US army officers before his body was disposed? What impact did that "iconic" image have on anyone that has some lasting encyclopedic relevance? Now, suppose some credible sources say that one of the US army soldiers who saw Frick's corpse was so haunted and distraught by the image that he climbed a water tower and started shooting people, then you would have some encyclopedic relevance since that image meant something--it did something that is worth noting in history. But alas, Frick's corpse has none of these elements of encyclopedic worth or relevance. In the context of the Frick biography, it serves no purpose-provides no illustration of something encyclopedic and notable. (In contrast to the encyclopedic illustration it would serve in the Cadaver article). So, again, what is the point of having it? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Some Remarks:

I think I'm beginning to see your point of view... Some people above, however, do make pretty good arguments about the relevance and importance of this picture as well as the idea that it covers something notable - wheras your comments suggest that his dead body was not notable/relevant/important, but his execution was, and since the photo isn't of the execution it shouldn't be there.

Indeed if I had to go to a World War II museum or Aschwitz I think I would want to see this photo. The article does mention his execution and death, and no other photos are fighting for space. The only real reason I can see to remove the image is if it is highly offensive, but in it's current form (smalled down, black and white) I can't really agree that it is offensive, although that is a subjective thing - I think the supreme court had their legal test for something like this "We'll know it when we see it".

To the article cat's credit, all the images it does have of cats are in fact relevant (bar 1 or 2 of the 17-18 that could still be weeded out).

Rfwoolf (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't offend me personally so I am really not viewing it in that context. I'm sure it could offend some, but that is not really relevant since obviously Wikipedia is not censor. It is interesting that you bring up Auschwitz. I was thinking about the appropriateness of the photo in an article about the Nuremberg Trials or Israel's response to the Holocaust because it seems like you would see the that photo at a Holocaust Museum. With some Jewish family background, I think I would find seeing that photo in a Holocaust museum would be strangely therapeutic for me, as if justice was served and there is some sanity in the world after all. But yet I still question that appropriateness in the context of this article since, essentially, Wikipedia is not therapy either. :p Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm bothered by the photo a bit. That's why I've been trying to scrupulously check for bias each argument that I make. Actually, above when I was talking about Emmett Till's corpse, I do think that a photo of that should be in the article, since the article says that Till's mother encouraged people to take photos at the funeral. That makes it encyclopedic. I just still don't see the value of having a photo of Fritz's corpse in his article. In the Nuremberg article, yes, but unless there was something notable about his corpse, then no. superluser_tc 2008 February 24, 18:47 (UTC)

I'm drawn to the argument that puts the corpse as a record of completion of an infamous life. It seems truly relevant when that person's work was putting others to death. It doesn't strike me as gratuitous. What I don't understand is the argument that separates the corpse from the person-as-notable – is there a difference? My guess is the corpse would be right in there if there were no other pictures, so why not include it for the record? It's another fact of their biography. I'd feel more offended if the story itself, quite apart from pictures, was about the guy getting away scot-free (cf the policemen in the Jeffrey Dahmer article for instance) and succeeding. My feeling of offense there is no grounds for censorship. There's more to "offense" than pictures sometimes. FWIW, Julia Rossi (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC) PS, I don't know if it's acceptable in this discourse to link to this nice resolution between two minds but I'll put it in anyway [4]. Scratch it if it's not, JR

[edit] External links

I am wondering what the rational is for putting external links in their own section near the end is. [edit] would obviously be more helpful if it were a link within the list, but some editors more even inline citations to an "external links' section. Sparafucil (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems to me that that should not be a link but a reference. Citations should not go in External links. External links are links to related resources located in other places on the internet. ~MDD4696 03:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but why even split Further reading/ External links?Sparafucil (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serbia vs. Kosovo

I have been patrolling recent changes for quite some time, and I have noticed that articles about cities, towns, counties, etc. that are located in Kosovo are being changed from Country: Serbia to Country: Kosovo to Country: Serbia to Country: Kosovo ad infinitum.
I think we should write at least a temporary guideline regarding this since I (and I assume many others) are unsure of whether to revert these changes. Most English-speaking countries, indeed most Western powers, including the US, the UK, France and Australia have formally recognized Kosovo's independence. Because as far as I can tell, based on Image:Kosovo relations.svg, no English-speaking country has outright refused to recognize Kosovo, I would like to propose that all places/buildings/whatever that are located in Kosovo be identified as Country: Kosovo in the English Wikipedia. What do other people think? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. The more important thing is that we stop the edit warring. Perhaps a footnote somewhere noting the justification for one over the other. ~MDD4696 03:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So, should I make sure that articles say the country is Kosovo, not Serbia? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is just my suggestion on how to handle this. I'm not sure whether this is productive or not, but I think the key is to set up one central place for discussion of this issue. Perhaps here? (or not -- perhaps long threads are not wanted here.) Perhaps on the talk page of a new temporary guideline page, as you suggest? Perhaps on the talk page of a larger, more prominent city in Kosovo? And then you can place notices on the talk pages of the various articles where the reverts are happening, asking people not to revert except according to a clear consensus established at the central place for discussion, and providing a link to it. And at the central place for discussion, you can present arguments such as the above. At least, this is the usual procedure I think, but I wonder if it would create more conflict in a case like this. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of [quasi-]states that are not universally accepted as nations. IIRC, PR China doesn't recognize Tibet or Taiwan. Turkey doesn't recognize Kurdistan. Palestine doesn't recognize Israel. In order to avoid edit wars ad nauseum on arbitrary POV, may I suggest that a general policy on disputed nationhood and boundaries should be constructed and applied. My preference for nationhood would be to adopt whatever position the UN General Assembly takes. When they're voting members in the UNGA, they're in WP as a nation (or the converse). Then note the existence of the dispute and leave it at that. (A template needed, perhaps?)LeadSongDog (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a good criterion. Switzerland only joined the UN in 2002, but no-one denied that they are a recognized state (and have been for a long time). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the United Nations General Assembly should be the standard. Taiwan is considered a country (except by China), yet the it was thrown out of the General Assembly. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a single ironclad standard is going to work. For example, Kosovo is not likely to become a UN member for a long time, because Russia will veto any attempt to join. I think J.delanoy's rough standard of whether or not most English-speaking countries have recognized a state is a good one. Darkspots (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on Taiwan, they were removed from China's seat at the UN which resulted in them being removed from the general assembly. So the UN has not said that Taiwan is not a country but that they do not represent China. Taiwan has recently tried (unsuccessfully) to get their own seat though... --Shniken1 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative standards? Acknowledgment by all bordering states? Half of all UNGA members? (big job to keep track of all the positions) Half the global population? (too easy, with just China and India you're almost there) Half the global GNP? (like it or not money talks) Certainly an English-language criteria won't cut it. You could wind up with the decision hanging on the Liberian or Caymanian position while ignoring the Russians, Chinese or French positions. Any old regional power block? (what if the African Union disagrees with the European Union over a middle east territory's statehood?) There is an informative discussion at Country#Nation, country and state: a comparison but no clear answer.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need to make this harder than it has to be. A rough, common-sense standard, settled on a case-to-case basis, is all that's needed, because that's the way the world itself makes these determinations. We should care more about what English-speaking countries say and do because a) we're the English wikipedia and b) America is the most important country in the world, Britain is one of the most important countries, and Australia is a very important country in Asia, where a lot of who-is-a-state flux is happening, and all three countries are generally considered to be sensible on these sorts of issues. Nobody needs to rush about worrying about what the Cayman Islands think about East Timor or Kurdistan. Obviously whether or not America has recognized a country is something the whole world wants to know, and a lot fewer people care about Canada and Liberia's positions. Everyone knows very well why Spain and Russia haven't recognized Kosovo, and those countries' concerns about breakaway provinces means that the fact that they have not recognized this new country gets discounted. Common sense should be our chief guide. Darkspots (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. "Common-sense" (ad-hoc) decision making is a guaranteed recipe for edit warring between editors who are partisans of either side: on WP decisions are only taken if you can arrive at consensus (unless you wish to force every new country through an ARBCOM process). If we want to claim a neutral point of view our only interest in language should be accessibility to the reader. Yes we prefer to have English language references to cite, but the foreign policy position of a country is in no way made more or less important based on the languages spoken in it. Every large, diverse federation I can think of has multiple languages (official or not) but we're not going to start applying weighting factors on the position of India or Pakistan based on the percentage of their English speakers. No ruleset agreed on is going to separately consider the foreign policy of present-day Wales, Hong Kong or Hawaii - states or not, they are represented globally by larger federal actors. It may not even be possible to determine if they have a foreign policy on the independence of Pirate Bay.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Delegable proxy

[edit] Put your comments AT THE BOTTOM.

This is extremely annoying and when people do it, it makes it very difficult to read and apparently misleading. If you, for instance, rebut a certain point made by a person, some people will apparently respond to you "above" your comment for the sake of saving face. In order to read the conversation clearly and order, your eyes have to jump around, up and then down, and carefully looking at each timestamp. That's as disruptive as people not signing their comments, although in some cases (obviously) it's necessary.

This doesn't appear to be a guideline at Wikipedia:Talk. Would anyone here be willing to make it a guideline?

Another thing, too, is that there is no standard for whether stuff should go to the "bottom" or the "top." In various procedural pages, some of them work from the top down, others work from the bottom up. This likely confuses the heck out of newbies who don't know whether their comments should go at the bottom or the top, hence the reason why we're in this mess to begin with. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I write a response to a comment from an editor, then there is an edit conflict. Has happened with almost every edit in the Delegable Proxy section today. Do I put it at the bottom, or where it was originally written to go. There are formatting methods of keeping it all clear, and I do use them. Indents. Editing someone else's comment is offensive, but formating it to make it clear isn't. Sometimes it's okay to rearrange sequence .... but, usually, using indents to show sequence within some exchange is better. There are already guidelines, actually.... --Abd (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
  • Why is top-posting such a bad thing? superluser_tc 2008 February 24, 18:22 (UTC)
    • There are multiple arguments for and against chronological and reverse-chronological order - some say that by doing the last thing at the bottom means that the order of comments is preserved; my eyes don't have to move up and down to go to a reply; and that it's like reading an article. For the opposite, it gives priority to new comments and that it makes things slightly easier for threads that are fast to fix (i.e. on WP:NCP). For me, I prefer it at the bottom and proper indentation for threading, but if there is a use for the opposite and it outweighs the use of going from top-to-bottom, then use it. But I don't understand "some people will apparently respond to you "above" your comment for the sake of saving face" - I've never seen that happen - do you have anything to show for that? x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Top posting is a bad thing when the defacto consensus is to bottom post. It creates confusion, makes manual archiving more difficult, and creates the risk useful comments will be ignored because no one sees them Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is set up for bottom-posting, anyway.

• But then what's the point of having both styles when you can't use one with top-posting?

• • • • • Or by editing the original post

• I can change this by using colons instead

• • • I get two bullets beside the reply instead of one.
  • and I want to reply,
• If I write a bulleted comment superluser_tc 2008 February 26, 06:33 (UTC)

This is briefly mentioned at Wikipedia:Talk#Technical and format standards (under layout): "Thread your post: Use indentation to clearly indicate who you are replying to, as with usual threaded discussions. Normally colons are used, not bullet points (although the latter are commonly used at AfD, CfD, etc.)." A bit more emphasis might not hurt, but I think it's there. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars

Wikipedia is now at least 5 years old. The encyclopedia has clearly achieved its objectives in becoming a functioning and high-quality wiki-encyclopedia. Early on, it probably needed to have "fun" things to "award" users to keep interest. However, now, Wikipedia should generate enough interest in and of itself. That is why the time has come to delete all the superfluous foolishness that has worn out its usefulness.

I propose eliminating "barnstars." Deleting them from our database. They just waste time, space, and give editors a false sense of accomplishment that impedes their future efforts. I am testing out reaction here first before presenting this as a formal proposal. Any feedback would be appreciated. Discharging P (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you feel a false sense of accomplishment impedes further efforts? -Freekee (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It causes editors to "rest on their laurels" so to speak. They won't be as eager to strive for better if they are rewarded for the mediocre. Discharging P (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's really strange you think that. -Freekee (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I TOTALLY disagree. If I got a barnstar today, it'd make me feel like I was getting something done and probably work on it harder. Also, I don't think any non-vandal editor should be classified as "mediocre." Sure, everyone may not have the grasp of the English language required to write brilliant prose nor the patience to go new page or recent change patrolling but every little bit helps. --Evan ¤ Seeds 03:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars just seem to be a way to thank an editor for faithful service to Wikipedia. I see no downside to them. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. He's just trying to have some fun. -Freekee (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Just what do you mean by that sir? I am only trying to help. Discharging P (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Early on, it probably needed to have "fun" things to "award" users to keep interest. However, now, Wikipedia should generate enough interest in and of itself. - How has Wikipedia changed so much that people no longer need any awards or incentives? You say it happened but present no evidence of it or reason why it would be true. If anything, since we're about out of core encyclopedic topics to write about, its harder to keep interest. Yes, the users who have been around since 2003/2004 are so hopelessly addicted that they probably don't need awards, but it certainly helps everyone, especially users who have only been here for a couple months. The benefit of the barnstars is whatever effect they have on morale and whatever positive effects that might result from that morale boost (a user stays with the project for another few days, but they might get hopelessly addicted in those few days and stay for a year). The cost is a few hundred megabytes of text and images in the servers. A drop in the ocean compared to the whole thing (about 3 Terabytes uncompressed just for text and revision histories). It looks to me like the benefits still outweigh the costs, not even taking into consideration the cost (in time spent arguing and deleting) of a ban. Mr.Z-man 04:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The simple act of saying "Thank you" and "Good work" never go out of style. You should not underestimate the value of barnstars. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 13:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's hard to take this post seriously considering the user who initiated it has a user page like this... anyway, poor idea. If you don't like barnstars, don't give them out, and remove them if people give them to you. There's no worry about disk space. Majorly (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What, you have a problem with slugs? [5] Darkspots (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted to make a POINT you could make a list of all the editors/admins who say "WP NOT socialnetwork" and with many barnstars and raise an RFC about double standards. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars are very different from being a social network. Barnstars are to help editors (new and old alike) feel good about the work they've done towards improving WP, though I'm sure there are some handed out frivolously, and those, we should discourage, but from what I've seen, most that are given seem to be for very valid reasons. --MASEM 16:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for removing a lot of non-collaboration-oriented stuff like autograph pages and useless Wikipedian fan categories, but barnstars are a harmless and indeed often helpful thing. Granted, barnstars are often awarded only because of an a priori agreement by one editor with what another editor did. But so what? Dorftrottel (ask) 17:07, February 25, 2008

I agree with several other editors above: Barnstars are a great thank you and encouragement to give to people. There should be no question of deleting them. • Anakin ^(talk) 00:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Barnstars and other awards, while they could use some cleanup (as I've proposed long time ago) are very useful as tools to motivate editors to continue contributing. I believe telling people that they did good motivates them to do better; ignoring them has an opposite effect.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say barnstars are much less of a distraction than frivolous userboxes. As long as barnstars don't turn into a joke or become excessively prominent, they are harmless at worst and useful at best. (in my opinion userboxes have crossed these threshholds) ike9898 (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is serious business. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, original poster of this section has been blocked as a sock. This was possibly a bit of trolling. CredoFromStart ^talk 20:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change. -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, accidentally copied over the template from another guideline when setting up the page. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP sock

Is it okay to list a potential IP address as an IPsock, even if the IP address was not being used deceptively at the time? In particularly, I added the template to User:128.227.51.157. The evidence that it is Haizum is on the page and seems fairly clear cut to me. However User:Haizum wasn't blocked and wasn't really using the IP as a sockpuppet at the time (i.e. I don't see any evidence he? was trying to do anything illegitimate with the IP). I guess either he forgot to log on or he didn't want to log on because he was using a university computer. Is it still okay to list it in this case? I listed it because it may be useful to be aware it's an IP or IP range he may have access to, if he continues to carry out his threat to edit via sockpuppets Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the history, here, but if we're categorizing/tracking accounts a given blocked or banned user has used, previously, it seems to make sense that we'd do the same with IPs. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking Policy

Isn't the attitude of Administrators in the application of Blocking Policy a bit biased? I am saying this after having experience of this. --SMS ^Talk 16:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You clearly broke 3RR, you got blocked, it's over. It happens to a lot of people, it's basically the least egregious thing you can get blocked for. WP:3RR is a good policy, and it seems to have been fairly applied in your case. If you want some free advice, let it drop, remove the 3RR note to vandals from your userpage, and this whole thing is forgotten in a month. Darkspots (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You are true i broke it and admitted it! I would have forgotten it if I haven't seen this User:BebackKeys violating WP:3RR at Scientology, and still unblocked. My intention is not to attack this editor by mentioning his case here, I just want to show that some Admins show Leniency, in blocking, while some don't. So is this "leniency" a policy or just a common practice. --SMS ^Talk 18:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Users should be warned about 3RR before being blocked for violating it. This user didn't make any reversions after being warned about 3RR. (and they were indefinitely blocked over 10 hours before this section was started, so I'm not sure where you're seeing the leniency) --Onorem♠Dil 19:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! but i couldn't find him blocked! --SMS ^Talk 19:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

go to his contributions, and hit the very small button called "block log". Darkspots (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! i missed that log! --SMS ^Talk 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This is human psychology and Wikipedia policy totally ignores it, so this place is anarchy.

In this case, the admins' actions seemed justified but this isn't really the place to discuss such things.

It's best not to worry about Wikipedia quality or have any expectation of achieving anything on Wikipedia, or else you're going to eventually go crazy. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! for making an issue, which wasn't an issue at all! --SMS ^Talk 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] street addresses

What is the policy on street addresses. I was under the impression that addresses were generally NOT encyclopedic. Kingturtle (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Example article? I doubt that you are thinking about 10 Downing Street. But basically, buildings can be notable if they meet our general notability guidelines, and buildings have addresses. But most notable buildings have names that are better as article titles--1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is a disambiguation page. Darkspots (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Those are obviously encyclopedic. But I am not sure why school addresses (see Template:Infobox Secondary school) are encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory. Kingturtle (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the address of a place is an important piece of information about it. It's not that different from including the longitude and latitude of every city. It doesn't necessarily help you understand the topic, but we're a reference work for facts as well as a source for learning. That said, I wouldn't go enumerating the addresses of every building on a university campus. Dcoetzee 20:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Kingturtle, at least in the provided example. City and State is sufficient; there are online directories for street addresses. If the address itself lends to notability, perhaps, but in a template situation I'm inclined to say forget it. CredoFromStart ^talk 20:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line on addresses? and keep in mind the issue of privacy. We wouldn't necessarily put the address of Britney Spear's agent or Ellen Degeneres would we? Where do we draw the line on addresses? Should we now check all the company articles (Microsoft, Google, etc) to ensure they have addresses listed? What about their global branches? Rfwoolf (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What about this Sargodha article which also lists cell phone numbers. Is this considered encyclopedic? --SMS ^Talk 16:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Phone numbers removed. Do you know of others Smsarmad? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Others??Sorry! Keeper i couldn't get you. Besides that I don't think that there is any need for street addresses, as mentioned by User:Kingturtle, and this article Sargodha also lists street addresses, so does it seem encyclopedic to anyone? --SMS ^Talk 16:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We have an active geocoding project Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. I don't see why street addresses are all that different. We certainly shouldn't include street addresses for living persons (WP:BLP says so explicitly), but for public buildings, corporations, schools and the like, it should be up to the editors working on that page or in a project. I don't see a need for instruction creep here.--agr (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden categories discussion

There is a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Hidden categories concerning what kinds of categories should be hidden (using the new HIDDENCAT magic word). For the moment it is proposed that hiding be applied to all categories which classify the article rather than the article subject (i.e. maintenance cats, stub cats, "Spoken articles" etc.) Please weigh in. --Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] are graphs of equations OR?

I'm seeing some graphs in an article (to remain nameless) of a heavily political subject that just don't agree with my reading of the equations. The graphs are generated by someone on one side of the issue, and thus not entirely without bias, anyway.

I would like to generate some new graphs de novo, but I suspect that the people who have created the article will not appreciate them. Before I generate the graphs, I would like to make sure that I'm not doing Original Research by making graphs based off of publicly available algorithms. Opinions? superluser_tc 2008 February 27, 17:00 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Or#Original_images is the policy you're looking for. To paraphrase, yes editor-created images are generally an exception to original research. From the information you've given, I suggest you go ahead an make the new graph, then post it on the article's talk page with a list of reasons you think it's an improvement.

Regarding equations given in an article, I'm don't know of specific policy page that excludes them from OR, so believe they should always be cited.--jwanders^Talk 18:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)