|
'''''America’s Next Top Model''''' is a [[reality television]] show which pits [[contestant]]s against each other in a variety of competitions to determine who will win a [[model (person)|modeling]] [[contract]] with [[makeup]] manufacturer [[Covergirl]]. [[Supermodel]] [[Tyra Banks]] hosts and produces the show.
{{Villagepumppages|Policy discussion|The '''policy''' section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies.
The debut season of the show premiered on the [[UPN]] network in [[2003]]. On it, 10 female contestants were placed in a [[New York City]] apartment. Spanning a wide variety of women of various races, heights and body sizes, they had been whittled down from a pool of thousands to compete against one another in various contests designed to simulate the extreme demands placed on professional models. Each week one contestant was eliminated by a panel of judges: Banks herself, clothing designer [[Kimora Lee Simmons]], [[Beau Quillian]], and [[Janice Dickinson]], who bills herself as the world's first supermodel. By the next season, only Tyra and Janice remained judges, but the others are now ex-model/fashion photographer [[Nigel Barker]] and fashion editor/stylist [[Nolé Marin]]. After season four, Janice, amid rumors of personality conflicts with some other judges, and Marin were replaced by [[Twiggy]] and "Miss" [[Jay Alexander]] (Alexander had been involved with the runway and various photo shoots since the first season).
Please sign and date your post (by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).
The show has also produced a [[male model]] copy-cat show on the [[Bravo (television network)|Bravo]] network, called ''[[Manhunt (reality television series)|Manhunt]]''. It's hosted by [[Carmen Electra]].
Please add new topics at the '''bottom''' of the page.
}}
[[Category:Wikipedia community forums|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:To Village Pump (technical)]]
== Season 1 ==
== [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive|Policy archive]] ==
Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive|here]]. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this
period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the
discussion will be permanently removed.
The show takes on a reality show style of format in that we not only see these competitions but the effects they have on the participants, as well as the drama of their day to day lives while participating. This included several contestants who were devout [[Christian]]s and disapproved of [[homosexuality]], to the dismay of [[lesbian]] contestant [[Ebony Haith]]. [[Elyse Sewell]], who was in the top three, is probably the most memorable contestant. The extremely intelligent double major expressed her liberal views proudly, which gave her edginess, but her acerbic tongue that dripped with condescension towards others of differing views or who weren't as gifted mentally, brought a wary eye upon her by the show's judges. It also didn't help that she undercut the touted premise throughout the show that modeling was "hard" as she breezed through set up challenges and the rigors of modeling using sheer wit. Elyse did earn a huge following that has lasted well after the show for said views and attitude, but she proved on the show that innate intelligence can get you very far and is probably most responsible for her continued success as a model. In a dramatic 2 hour season finale, Elyse and the eventual winner [[Adrianne Curry]] were both selected as the bottom two, allowing fellow contestant Shannon to advance automatically to the finals. The former was later booted out of the competition due to her "know'all" attitude. The winner of the first season was [[Adrianne Curry]], an [[Illinois]] woman with a thick accent who had been pursuing modeling since her early teens, and till today, the judges felt that Adrianne was indeed the rightful winner that outshone's Shannon's superior All-American beauty.
== Problem users ==
== Season 2==
Does anyone have any idea how many "problem users" ever end up as useful contributors? I'm not talking about people who have a strong POV and get into battles on certain pages but manage to contribute meaningfully elsewhere. I'm not talking about people who end up leaving Wikipedia in the midst of major battles. I'm talking about people who get into conflict from the start. I know a lot of people start off with angry exchanges - for example when their first article gets VfD'd. Most of these people are reasonable once they understand the system. I mean the people who show up with an axe to grind or a POV to push, or just show up to be disruptive. Can anyone cite ''any'' examples? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 23:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:There are people, particularly younger people, who will be disruptive for a while and just screw with the system before they mature a bit and start actually taking an interest in contributing (sometimes as a result of stumbling across a topic they actually have interest in). You seem to have excluded most scenarios that I've seen from your definition of "problem users" though. If your goal is to encourage a stronger policy for punishing these people, I think you have to consider how difficult it is in practice to distinguish the various classes of problem users you describe, at least in the short term. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 23:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::I was just thinking about the amount of effort that people put into disruptive users, and whether this was something that ever paid off. I was wondering if there was some way to distinguish the ones with potential from the ones that won't be worth the trouble. I was just thinking about the way we allow troublemakers to drive off good editors, about the point where bureaucracy takes over and overwhelms the ''fun'' of this amazing project... I have lots of patience for the users who believe in the project but get caught up in edit wars or who misinterpret the comments, or who have serious differences in how they interpret "the truth". But I don't have patience with people who spend their time aruing about how their "right" to edit here is infringed by our rules. I don't know where I am going with this... [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 03:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::One thing Ive noticed was brought up when one user pretty told the "Request for Comment" page to go screw itself. I forget the exact case, but the user was causing ''all kinds'' of problems with reverts, edit wars, personal attacks, etc. It went from RFC and then to ArbComm. The user wrote something like "this isnt like its a real court or something" and blew off everything in the RFC and vandalized the ArbComm Page! When he was banned, he just started up a new account and now there are sockpuppet issues with this same person. Point being...'''there is no enforcement'''...nor can there really ever be. We dont have the Wikipedia Police who can come to your house, fines cannot be given, nor can legal action ever be taken (nor should it be, actually). Its actually part funny and part scary. Reminds me of [[SGA]] somewhat, we think we have the power but really don't. -[[User:Husnock|Husnock]] 4 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)
::::There is the [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy|ban]]. [[User:Apoc2400|Apoc2400]] 4 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
:::::Which, sadly, can be easily circumvented by started up another account. Roaming IP addresses are also a hindrence as someone can log on from several different locations and show up as different users. -[[User:Husnock|Husnock]] 5 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, but a banned user can be reverted on sight - rather than a POV pusher who needs to be reasonably argued with - arguments over if someone is a sockpuppet are ugly, but banning does make it easier to stop someone(by making it legitimate to revert them on sight.) (BTW, what did you mean by [[SGA]]? - the disambig page has '''11''' meanings...) [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 19:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Student government ? -- [[User:67.182.157.6|67.182.157.6]] 21:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
The second season of the show, in [[2004]], featured 12 contestants this time. Though the format was the same, the production took several different angles on how the show was presented. The judges were often much more harsh in their criticism of the contestants. In particular, one contestant, Catie Anderson, was repeatedly told that she looked or acted like a [[prostitute]]. The contests in this season were also more sexual: the first one required contestants to pose nude in body paint, something that plus-size contestant Anna Bradfield opted out of, causing her to be eliminated first. There was also a lesbian-erotic photo shoot towards the end of the show where the remaining four contestants posed nude in seductive positions in pairs of two.
There's similar case with [[User:202.7.190.130]]. He makes changes to monarch titles and these changes get invariably reverted (as they do not fit Wikipedia common style). He doesn't respond to questions on talk page. He may be well intentioned but at the end there's lot of lost time and no progress. There should be some way to deal with such borderline cases. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 19:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
The second season also spawned a clear-cut "hated" character in the form of Camille McDonald. While it is not uncommon for a "bad" character to emerge on a reality show, Camille's race came into play when it was pointed out by critics and the [[NAACP]] that many reality shows airing at this time seemed to peg the black female character as the one to dislike. Camille did make it into the final five, however, and in so doing ousting other more promising model hopefuls, including Catie and the Muslim-originated Sara. The second season also featured Mercedes Scelba-Shorte, a young woman whose struggle with [[lupus erythematosus|lupus]] was detailed on the show. She fought against it to become one of the last two finalists.
Please examine the case of [[User:DrZoidberg]]. He is not disruptive. However he spends a lot of time in the sandbox. His detractors say he wastes too much of wikipedias server resources for the sandbox. He was banned indefinitely for accidentaly breaking the sandbox. Young people need time to grow. Later they become responsible contributers.--[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] 02:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Another contestant of note was [[Shandi Sullivan]], a lithe, blonde cashier from [[Kansas City, Missouri]]. Shandi began the show as a very mousy and poorly dressed girl in glasses with absolutely no flare at all for the catwalk, but by the end she had transformed into an extremely skilled model and ravishing beauty. Shandi provided an infamous moment when in one episode she cheated on her boyfriend, Eric, while in [[Italy]]. The scene when she called her boyfriend to inform him of her infidelity was shown on various other programs. She made it into the top three.
The winner of the cycle was [[Yoanna House]], a fashionista who had lost 40 pounds (18 kg) in order to realise her dreams of being a model. Yoanna proved that one with physical disadvantages (she was overweight and had a slightly limp shoulder) need not bow down to outside contention should you believe in yourself.
We have a case on one of the talk pages where one guy keeps using the f word, in every comment ''This is the third time I'm writing that i don't fucking care about your beliefs, thoughts, worldviews or else'' Is this acceptable behavior?
--[[User:Frmaximos|fathermaximos]] 22:37, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
== Season 3 ==
The third season of the show debuted in fall 2004 and was criticized by some for focusing far more on "drama" than on modeling ability. Amanda Swafford, who was legally blind, broke ground by making it to the final three due to her stunning photos produced consistently week after week. However, the final two were Yaya Da Costa Johnson and [[Eva Pigford]], who went head-to-head in a very elegant Japanese fashion show. Both women were African-American, while no black woman had previously won (Mercedes, a mixed race competitor (half African-American) had been a finalist in Season 2). Eva was declared the winner.
Ever considered it is a problem system? The first thing most credible authors say about Wikipedia is "copyright problems". Somebody decided to make it their life's work to steal everything ever published, and hoped to get away with it by calling their massive hijacking of the publishing industry a charity. If it were really a charity, why is one man ruler for life? If this isn't wholesale theft, why not turn election of board of directors over to the community? Why not give the community the choice of electing a board president who will do something to stop the wholesale theft of copyrighted information. Maybe with true freedom, genuinely public-minded Wikipedia advocates would elect a president who would require that all Wikipedia articles attribute their sources, as Wikipedia attempts to require others to source material based on Wikipedia.
Season 3 of the popular reality TV series proved to shatter many ANTM records. Among them was for the inclusion of the first blind contestant (as mentioned above to be Amanda), the contestant who survived the most number of eliminations, that is, to be second to last most numerously (Ann, a total of 4 times) and the contestant who won the most number of reward challenges (Yaya, with a total of 5). It also featured the first openly acclaimed plus-sized model in Toccara, a 180 pound model hoping to break the industry. She made it to an impressive seventh place. Finally, it was the first African-American winner and runner-up pair in the show's history. Furthermore, Eva is the youngest winner of these reality TV shows series at the age of 18 (in fact she was still 17 when she first came for auditions).
When people arrive here and see that intellectual property is being hijacked on a wholesale basis, of course they have no respect for the so-called community committing the theft. When anyone challenges the people who are creating this vast opus of unattributed, unsourced, stolen literature in plain terms anyone can understand, they are mobbed, called vandals, trolls, problem users and worse. Of course many of those less able to articulate exactly what is happening will sense that this is not a place worthy of respect and will treat it with all the contempt worthy of the rich-man's payload of loot they know it to be. [[User:WizUp|WizUp]] 08:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:''When anyone challenges the people who are creating this vast opus of unattributed, unsourced, stolen literature in plain terms anyone can understand, they are mobbed, called vandals, trolls, problem users and worse'', you say. Please supply a good example. Thanks. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 09:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Many today still consider Yaya as the better competitor, attributed to her profound determination and her amazing consistency throughout the season. Eva was also notoriously noted for her frequent fighting within the loft that the girls stayed in, particularly with Amanda and her self-dubbed "friend" Ann, although Yaya and fellow contestant Norelle didn't really get along very well too.
Visit the RFA page and take your pick. [[User:WizUp|WizUp]] 10:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I did your homework for you then. Take the case of Keetoowah -- the first one I picked from the page at random. A Keetoowah reposting directly from the tribal web site, information that was deleted from Wikipedia by people who have admit no firsthand knowledge of the matters at all. Instead of responding to what Keetoowah writes, respondants complain that Keetoowah doesn't respect them. Debate ensues in talk pages related to the article about whether Keetoowah properly affords respect to the supposedly culturally specific idiom "my dear Keetoowah". Then on RFA, two "editors" somehow "certify" that Keetoowah is seen as a problem user worthy of administrative intervention. None of which has anything to do with the accuracy of content and which has everything to do with systematically determining who can participate and who cant. BTW, I have no specific interest in the topic of the articles Keetoowah edited, nor in the related cultural issues, beyond exposing a so-called encyclopedia that is little more than a plagiarized mass-production of the racist, ethnocentric views of people who can afford to spend their days in front of a networked computer. [[User:WizUp|WizUp]] 10:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:(1) ''exposing a so-called encyclopedia that is little more than a plagiarized mass-production of the racist, ethnocentric views of people who can afford to spend their days in front of a networked computer'': this is a most interesting activity/charge, but could it be pursued/discussed elsewhere? (2) ''Instead of responding to what Keetoowah writes, respondants complain that Keetoowah doesn't respect them.'' But what Keetoowah writes on the talk page I looked at (for the first time) just now is about (dis)respect. Meanwhile, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ward_Churchill&diff=19123184&oldid=19087900 here] is a diff in the article about [[Ward Churchill]] (of whom I'd never heard till ten minutes ago) that Keetowah summarizes "Reverted the lies and BS of SlimVirgin. Don't change it again. This is the statement of the tribe. Don't make excuses for the fake Indian again." It's very odd, as the single, long web page given as a reference for both texts (the one presented by Keetowah, and the one he dismisses as lies and BS) includes both texts. Arguably one is better than the other, but, rudeness aside, to describe the use of one rather than the other as "lies and BS" seems utterly bizarre. On the face of it, this edit does indeed suggest a problem user. (It may be anomalous: I don't here presume to judge Keetowah.) -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 10:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Mid season, they flew off to Tokyo Japan, where Nicole was first axed due to her inability to master basic Japanese. This was soon followed by Norelle, Ann and Amanda, leaving Yaya and Eva in a closely contested final that even Tyra Banks was tearing when she anounced the winner to be Eva.
Lets cut straight to the name calling. I'm a problem user. And what's more, I'm not fooled by your lilly white politeness -- you are a rude fuck. And when I followed my own suggestion to pick a random case from RFA, i found a paid advocate writing articles, apparently on his advocacy groups payroll, supporting a FAKE INDIAN. A FAKE INDIAN --- here that you rude fucker -- HE WAS PAID POLITICAL ADVOCATE WRITING ARTICLES SUPPORTING A FAKE INDIAN BUT YOU WOULD RATHER WHINE ABOUT MY MANNERS THAN FACE THE TRUTH. I don't hear any complaints from you about paid advocates being problem users. WHY? becuase they don't threaten the poor fragile ego that drove you into this new vanity journalism.
== Season 4 ==
And that was on my first pick. I followed the article to another thread and found more lies and misiinformation used to weave togther whatever accurate information had been plagiarized into the article. What does it matter how fucking rude I am to you asshole? Do you have a self esteem problem, worm? IS teh mission here to build an accurate, original encyclopedia or to teach the world your form of manners? Well, your manners don't cut the butter on the streets of Bahgdad. If your army can't act nice at other people's checkpoints, WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK ANYONE NEEDS TO ACT NICE TO YOU JUST TO WRITE A TRUE ACCURATE ENCYCLOPEDIA. HUH FUCK? I CAN'T HEAR YOU, WHINER. SPEAK UP. Can't you think logically while someone is ridiculing you or are you so self conscious you have to silence the ridicule before your mind can engage? Goody for you because sticks and stones can break your bones but my words can STOP YOUR HEART if you let me have this kind of power, and by god I'll take it if you're gonna give it up. Yeh, we're problem users and we'll use you up and spit you out if you can't focus on facts instead of on who said what and how they said it. Thieves don't deserve respect. [[User:WizUp|WizUp]]
For the next installment, which ran in spring [[2005]], the ___location was moved from [[New York City]] to [[Los Angeles]], but with the girls living on a set which resembled NYC. One of the most memorable contestants in season four was Tiffany Richardson, who initially had made it into the semifinals in cycle three but had gotten into a fight with a woman who poured beer on her weave in a bar. She was accepted as a finalist for cycle four with a calmer and more mature attitude, though her defeatist outlook caused her to be eliminated from the game. In what was generally considered a lackluster season, one of the most talked-about moments occurred after a double elimination ceremony which removed Tiffany and another contestant, Rebecca Epley. Tiffany laughed and joked on her way out, prompting Tyra to scream "BE QUIET!!!!" and have a meltdown over how they had given Tiffany a chance and she had let them down.
:And your point is? (You're a bit longwinded, and while your plentiful use of "fuck" suggests a tantrum, it doesn't makes you any more coherent.) -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 13:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Rebecca too gave the judges a scare a couple of episodes earlier. During evaluation, she collapsed and literally fainted right before the judges. It was due to a childhood medical relapse, and although not life threatening, it was inconvenient. The judges admired her courage to come back for evaluation after her discharge and she made it to the next round.
== Non-Latin characters in article names ==
The season also included Michelle Deighton, a [[bisexuality|bisexual]] wrestler who was considered by some to be awkward and masculine in person, but who nevertheless turned out to be one of the most versatile and photogenic contestants. During the show she contracted [[impetigo]], which at one point was mistaken to be a flesh-eating virus by several of the other girls (partly upon "confirmation" from fellow contestant Noelle's mom that it would cause certain death). She managed to make it into the sixth place before being eliminated.
Is there somewhere a discussion or a policy about the use of non-latin characters in article names? Since MediaWiki 1.5 enabled these characters, some users already started moving articles around, i.e. [[Wroclaw]] was moved to [[Wrocław]]. [[Tokyo]] could be moved to [[東京]] (now a redirect), and a whole lot of articles could be moved around quite a bit. Personally, I would prefer latin characters only. In any case, this should be decided quickly. Any comments or links? Thanks -- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] June 28, 2005 11:36 (UTC)
Another memorable character was janitor turn model Lluvy. In the fourth episode, where the final twelve remaining girls had to take a Zodiac calendar spread, Lluvy's Pisces shot was commented by Tyra as "the worst photo in the history of America's Next Top Model". Expectedly, Lluvy was very distressed by this, but she still managed to hang on as Brandy was eliminated due to her bad attitude. (In fact, Lluvy holds the record for the girl who appeared the most times consecutively in the bottom 2, a total of three times in a row!)
:As long as there is a version of the name in Latin characters redirecting, what harm is there in writing article names properly? --[[User:Ngb|Ngb]] 28 June 2005 12:00 (UTC)
Other interesting characters included Brittany, a tomboyish, sometimes overly alcoholic, model who was best friends with fellow contestant Keenyah for most of the whole show, until the former got fed up with the latter's "hypocritical" attitude in South Africa. This led to a complete argument explosion whereby Brittany yelled a loud and shocking "SHUT UP!" into Keenyah's face. The quarrel spread all the way back to the loft when Keenyah further provoked Naima. Brittany was eliminated the next day as the quarrel clearly took its toll in the pre-evaluation contest.
:This is the English Wikipedia, so if there is an English name, that should be used.--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] June 28, 2005 15:27 (UTC)
Christina, another contestant who made it to fifth place, was a very strong contender, whom the judges commented as the girl who took some of the best pictures in the season (this was said too for Kahlen and Michelle). However, Christina just couldn't get past her "cold" persona and was ousted as such.
:I think that we should use the English name if any commonly used such exist. Else we use the native name tranitterated to a latin alphabet. Wrocław could be allright if it has no English name – like how ''Göteborg'' is called [[Gothenburg]] while [[Malmö]] always should be called Malmö. The most commonly used name should be used (traiterated if from a non-latin aphabet). [[User:Jeltz|Jeltz]] [[user talk:Jeltz|<small>talk</small>]] 28 June 2005 22:38 (UTC)
In the season finale of Cycle 4, which was located in [[South Africa]], Keenyah, Kahlen, and Naima competed to win the top spot. Keenyah was the first to go because the judges felt Kahlen was a stronger model. Kahlen and Naima faced off in the final runway walk in which the runway was partially under water. The judges had a hard time choosing between the two potentials. They explained that Kahlen's pictures had been stronger during the competition, but Naima had a better and stronger finish in the final stretch. In the end of what was supposedly the longest deliberation ever, the judges chose Naima as America's Next Top Model.
::I don't know, but I am sure that "we should use the English name if any commonly used such exist" is not a good idea. [[Leghorn]] is the [specifically] English name for [[Livorno]]; I think it's now rather quaint but it's not freakishly rare. It's less common in English than [[Livorno]]. [[Leghorn]] redirects to [[Livorno]], which I think is the way it should be. (Today's amazing discovery: the very first sentence of the "Culture" section of [[Marseille]] is "The French rap band IAM is from Marseille." Doesn't Marseille have some rather less ephemeral culture? Oh, never mind.) -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] June 29, 2005 02:56 (UTC)
Especially the third and fourth seasons of the shows have been criticised for having contestants chosen more for their potential to be reality TV personalities than actual modelling abilities. The show has constantly featured contestants that would generally be too old to start out in the modeling business or not tall or thin enough to do [[runway]] work. The later seasons have also been criticised for deviating further from high fashion into a more [[commercial]] territory. Nevertheless, the show remains one of the highest rated shows on UPN and a fifth and a sixth season have been commissioned.
::::This is kind of a peripheral comment, but I specialize in place names, and I can back up the following statements. The preferred English names of some of these places, as shown in most reference works (British or American), are Göteborg, Livorno, and Marseille, and have been for a very long time. Around 50+ years ago, Gothenburg, Leghorn, and Marseilles were quite common in newspapers, books, etc. Nowadays they are quite rare. Redirects on Gothenburg, Leghorn, and Marseilles are fine, but there is no compelling reason to use them as the primary names. [[User:Gwil|Gwil]] 21:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
== America's Next Top Model Records ==
:::Ok, the name most commonly used in an English text should be used.--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] June 29, 2005 07:21 (UTC)
Cycle 1 Champion: Adrianne Curry
::::I think that I agree with that. We should try to apply the currently existing policy of using the most common name in English writing to special characters in article titles. [[User:Jeltz|Jeltz]] [[user talk:Jeltz|<small>talk</small>]] 29 June 2005 11:40 (UTC)
Cycle 2 Champion: Yoanna House
On place names, I agree with that. People's names, or names of works are trickier. For example, [[Nicolae Ceauşescu]] is commonly written in English as "Nicolae Ceausescu", and the poem ''[[Martín Fierro]] as "''Martin Fierro''". I'd sure be inclined to say "Nicolae Ceauşescu" and "Martín Fierro" are the right article titles. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] July 2, 2005 04:35 (UTC)
Cycle 3 Champion: Eva Pigford
: A related question is whether Wikipedia should stick to typewriter typography in article titles (or in the body text for that matter). '''Mother’s day''' or '''Mother's day''', for example. (On a Windows box, you typically cannot see the difference. Increase font size or print it out: the former uses an apostrophe, the latter a straight typewriter quote.) See [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Quotation marks and apostrophes)]]. [[User:Arbor|Arbor]] 2 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)
Cycle 4 Champion: Naima Mora
* There are always the templates {{tl|wrongtitle}} and {{tl|titlelacksdiacritics}} to deal with naming problems: some browsers have problems with non-latin characters. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] 4 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)
First White Winner: Adrianne (Cycle 1)
:: This might be useful for folks - the convention for English article titles has been around since 2002 - [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)]]. [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 08:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
First Black Winner: Eva (Cycle 3)
::I've sympathy with Patrick's first intervention, though these things are always a problem. Leghorn is indeed a bit quaint, but not unmanageably so. Then of course we get into the Mumbai/Bombay business (was it indeed just a bit of anticolonialist politics which led the city fathers to rename the city, whereupon the politically-correct western press followed like lemmings?). [[User:Mark O'Sullivan|Mark O'Sullivan]] 21:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
First Mixed-Parentage Winner: Naima (Cycle 4 - Black-Irish & Black-Mexican Indian)
:::Back in 1939 when [[Siam]] announced that it wished to be [[Thailand]] henceforth, one British commentator harrumphed, "Do we tell the Siamese what we want them to call our country?" It would be lovely if place names never changed. It costs unmeasured millions of dollars when, for example, [[Pretoria]] changes its name to [[Tshwane]], and a lot of that expense is incurred by people who don't have a say in the matter. For example, Procter & Gamble has to revise its customer files that contain addresses which may be in South Africa. National Geographic has to modify its atlas maps and the accompanying text. Letterheads and business cards have to be reprinted. On the other hand, the citizens of Pretoria have a right to get rid of a name that may be repugnant to some of them. But as for Wikipedia, I believe its charter is to be descriptive, not prescriptive, so we should simply try to change the article name as soon as we can determine that English usage has changed. (But are they going to change [[Bollywood]] to Mollywood?) [[User:Gwil|Gwil]] 21:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
First White Runner-Up: Shannon (Cycle 1)
== copyright problem procedure ==
First Black Runner-Up: Mercedes (Cycle 2)
If I find a page that is a copyvio does it ''have'' to be given the <nowiki>{{copyvio}}</nowiki> template and listed on WP:CP or can it just be rewritten? If it has already been listed on WP:CP does a rewrite have to go on a temp page and wait for the WP:CP listing to time out instead of replacing the old version? (If I already made the mistake of just replacing with a rewrite should I restore the copyvio template and move my rewrite to the temp page it points to?)[[User:RJFJR|RJFJR]] July 2, 2005 02:09 (UTC)
Furthest Advancing Asian: April (Cycle 2 - 4th Place)
:It's better to restore the copyvio template and do the rewrite on the temp page. If you find a copyvio page, it's better to tag it as copyvio and do the rewrite on the temp page. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 2 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)
Furthest Advancing Black-Black Pair: Eva & Yaya (Cycle 3 - 1st & 2nd Place)
::I don't really understand why we do this. The {{tl|copyvio}} template is supposed to be for ''possible'' copyright problems. The whole rigmarole is unnecessary for ''definite'' copyright problems. In those cases, we may as well re-write immediately. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 3 July 2005 09:42 (UTC)
Oldest Champion: Yoanna (Cycle 2 - 23 years)
::I might put it more strongly. If a breach of copyright is established, continuing to display the offending material without permission will constitute an additional act of infringement because it converts the display on the part of Wiki as publisher from an arguably unintentional to an intentional act. It should be removed from public display immediately, regardless of when it might (or might not) be rewritten. -[[User:David91|David91]] 3 July 2005 10:35 (UTC)
Youngest Champion: Eva (Cycle 3 - 19 years)
:::The offending material is not displayed in either case - if we go down the template route, the template completely replaces the text. If we go down the rewrite route, the rewrite replaces the text. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 3 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)
Shortest Champion: Eva (Cycle 3 - 5'7")
::::But it's still available in the page history. That's why the page needs deleting and any rewrites should go on the /temp page. [[User:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 3 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)
Tallest Champion: Yoanna (Cycle 2 - 5'11")
:::::You (or a neighbourly admin) should delete the offending material in either case. Per-revision deletion is available if necessary depending what order things are done. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 5 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)
Oldest Contestant: Robin (Cycle 1 - 28 years)
AFAIK, it is policy to only remove copyvios from history if the copyright owner objects or in spcific, very limited cirumstances. Also, AFAIK, WP:CP is only to be used if the problem can't be fixed immediately. Removing history is a generally Bad Idea, for copyvio or other reasons. [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 04:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Youngest Contestants: Heather(Cycle 2) and Ebony (Cycle 5) (both were right out of highschool during their seasons
:According to [[Wikipedia:Copyrights#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement]] this is not correct. if the '''entire page'' consists of noting but a copyvio, the page is deleted and recreated to remove the copyvio from the history, or specific versions are deleted to revert to a pre-copy-vio version. If only aprt of the article is a copyvio the situation is more complex, and the history is not always altered. where do you find the above as policy? [[User:DESiegel|DES]] 16:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
::Er, as of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyrights&oldid=18563951#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement the current version] the text is: "If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, then '''it'''<nowiki>[the page]</nowiki> '''may''' be deleted following the procedures on the votes page." (bold added by me). This says nothing about removing history versions, either in favor or against. It says that the page(i.e. the whole history) '''may''' be deleted after a week on WP:CP. Where did you find the suggestion that history revisions should be deleted? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=20077431 Currently] WP:CP has a large notice that states the opposite: "Pages where the most recent edit is a copyright violation, but the previous article was not, should not be deleted. They should be reverted. The violating text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it." [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 23:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Two relevent pages are [[Wikipedia:Page history]] for policy, and [[Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages]] for archived discusssion. [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 23:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
First Disabled Contestant: Amanda (Cycle 3 - Legally Blind (Retinitis Pigmentosa)/Night Blindness)
==Proposal for inclusion to Lists of (insert ethnicity)-Americans==
Most Asian-Originated Contestants: April(Japan), Jenascia(Philippines) & Sarah(Iran) (all from Cycle 2)
There have been some disagreements on what constitutes being an Ethnic-American. It seems to me that it's something that having a policy on might be helpful for. I've put out the following proposal:
Most African-American Contestants: Eva, Yaya, Toccara and Kelle (all from Cycle 3)
# The individuals page must make note of their ethnic ancestry '''OR'''
# The individual must have documented evidence of being 1/8th ethnic (ie one of their great grandparents being born in ethnicity).
This rises out of the discussions I've seen primarily at [[Talk:List_of_Irish-Americans]], although when looking around I see the same discussion at [[Talk:List_of_Chinese_Americans]]. At least at the Irish one it has led to what can only be described as Edit wars, which I'm not a big fan of.
[[User:Wikibofh|Wikibofh]] 9 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)
I don't think it makes any sense to have a numerical rule. By the 1/8 rule, someone could be considered as a member of 8 different groups, or be considered a member of a group with which he or she has no real connection. It seems to me that ethnicity is primarily a matter of affiliation, not of biological ancestry. So I would propose a rule based on public identification with a group: the individual identifies him or herself as an X, or is commonly identified as an X by others (it may be worth noting this even if the identification is incorrect!). Even in cases where you might presume identity based on, e.g., a personal or family name (Yannis, Watanabe) or place of birth, these are not reliable. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] 9 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)
The 1/8th rule was somewhat arbitrary, but I based it on the criteria that the Native-American Indians use for determining whether or not someone is eligible for benefits. My fear is we end up dealing with the controversies similar to what happened with [[Ward_Churchill]]. However, the most important thing for me in this debate is that we reach a consensus and then move on. Otherwise we seem to burn too much time and angst arguing it in each ethnic list. I think your concern is valid. As a sporadic genealogist, the biological method seem like a good idea to me. :) I'd also welcome any comments from people on where they think this debate belongs to get the widest audience. [[User:Wikibofh|Wikibofh]] 9 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)
As I mentioned on the Talk page for Irish-Americans, I think an amendment to the first criterion is important:
# The individual's Wikipedia page must ''have made note'' of his/her ethnic ancestry ''prior to his/her addition to the list page, or if this is not possible (due to new information coming to light), a reliable source must be cited''
I certainly see your side, too, Macrakis, as it seems silly to lump someone into an ethnic group they intentionally do not claim. I think what we've got here so far is a pretty good start, though I don't anticipate it will solve the problems we're having at List of Irish-Americans.—'''[[{{ns:2}}:Clawson|chris.lawson]]''' ([[User_talk:Clawson|talk]]) 19:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
As I've already stated on [[Talk: List of Irish-Americans]], my main concern is that ''only'' people with obvious African ancestry are currently being blanked. Not one other person has been challenged, despite the fact that there are many others on the list with mixed ancestry. I don't mind saying I find that disturbing, to say the least. An Englishman was on the list for a day or two, nobody batted an eyelid. Macrakis, I see your point, but it would entail a lot of sourcing. It's a long list.
[[User:Lapsed Pacifist|Lapsed Pacifist]] 20:54, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
Lapsed, you are complaining about African-Americans who have no Irish ancestry at all. Rosario Dawson, Mariah Carey, Muhammad Ali are on the list, they are part African-American, but also part Irish. The issue is not about African-Americans mixed with Irish. The issue is you are listing people that are African-Americans but have no Irish ancestry. You are also lying about them being the only ones questioned. I had to remove all those white people you listed in Politics who had no Irish ancestry.
64.109.253.204
Lapsed Pacifist, I think I understand your point: just because someone has some obvious African ancestry doesn't mean he or she doesn't also have European ancestry, and to presume that the African ancestry somehow 'trumps' the European ancestry is deeply racist (one-drop rule). But saying that Muhammad Ali is Irish-American because he has an Irish great-grandfather doesn't make sense, either, since he doesn't apparently consider himself Irish-American, other people apparently don't consider him Irish-American, and he may not even be aware of his Irish ancestry: "I am not sure whether Ali knows about this"[http://www.boxing-memorabilia.com/aliirish.htm]. Ethnicity is not about biological ancestry! --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] 22:33, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
That is the essence of the debate. It would be very easy to provide sources that show that some entries have acknowledged and even celebrated their Irish heritage. But for many Irish-Americans it is not something that they feel defines them, as they see no reason to define themselves by their ethnicity. Being simply American is good enough for them. Should these people be included? If not, I believe the list would become a much shorter one. I think you're right about the "one-drop rule" being applied, though for some reason (perhaps his pale skin) there is'nt much of a fuss about Ali. By the way, check out the links on the [[Talk: List of Irish-Americans|talk page]]; Ali already knew about his Irish ancestry.
[[User:Lapsed Pacifist|Lapsed Pacifist]] 00:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
:The reason there hasn't been any fuss about Ali is because ''people have cited sources''. What part of this do you not understand?—'''[[{{ns:2}}:Clawson|chris.lawson]]''' ([[User_talk:Clawson|talk]]) 01:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Ali never would have been a world heavy weight boxing champion if it wasn't for his Irish blood.
Trouble will never stop until Lapsed Pacifist is banned, and if he is not banned, I will no longer contribute to the list on wikipedia, I will work on the list myself so Lapsed Pacifist will not have the power to edit. I will put it up on another webiste when I finish it.
I don't believe we're getting as many fresh opinions here as we expected. Why not inform both the [[Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board]] and the [[Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board]] of our debate? [[User:Lapsed Pacifist|Lapsed Pacifist]] 02:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I just want to interject that going by blood is somewhat silly. Would an English child raised in China by Chinese foster parents be Chinese? I think it would be fair to call him/her a Chinese in that case, despite the lack of any Chinese blood. I think a better way would be to let the person decide if there is confusion. If one can cite evidence on this, then include that person. Perhaps the person doesn't want to be or do not think of themselves as belonging to any group. [[Tiger Woods]] is a good example of this. Trying to pigeon-hole someone into a group, unless he himself decides to, is unfair and does not recognize the increasingly multi-racial nature of the population.
In regards to banning someone, I think that's silly as well. At least he's here debating with this and asking the community for feedback instead of just trolling. It would go against the spirit, or my perception of it at least, to ban someone disagreeing and editing an article. As long as he's not being destructive, there's no point to banning him.
[[User:Comatose51|Comatose51]] 02:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
*Actually, going by blood isn't silly, but it may not be exhaustively inclusive. The question is whether or not someone of no genetic relation, and little cultural relation, could claim to be in that list. If you think this is simply a philosphical exercise, I'd recomment [[Ward Churchill|this article]]. Regrettably, the blade cuts both ways. You'll also notice that I think I've tried to be the voice of moderation, and I've never recommended banning. I also recommend that this get the widest audience possible. If someone has a place they'd like to advertise this discussion, please do. I've already put the notice on every American-ethnic list I could find. I'm just disappointed that, as an Asshole-American, my list is under-represented. :) [[User:Wikibofh|Wikibofh]] 05:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
===The second half===
I am not overly concerned about the ''ethnic'' part of Ethnic-American lists, but the ''American'' part. I'm basing this on the [[list of Korean-Americans]] which includes some people with tenuous connections to the US, such as the Korean-Canadian actress [[Sandra Oh]]. If the person does not identify himself/herself as American, then it seems it makes no sense to identify that person as an ethnic-American. The only thing is it's not always easy to find out what someone's national self-identification is; should we have a US-citizen-only policy? --[[User:Iceager|Iceager]] 01:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
:Took the liberty of creating a second section here, in hopes this wouldn't get lost. What if we applied a two-point criterior here as well?
::1. The individual must be or have been a Country-Y citizen, '''OR'''
::2. The individual must self-identify or be routinely identified in other sources as (Country-X) (Country-Y), e.g. "Korean-Canadian." -- [[User:Visviva|Visviva]] 03:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I am disappointed to see that there is not yet a list of Chineese-Somalians or Greek-Mongolians. How can Wikipedia claim to be NPOV if neither of these lists exist? --[[User:Munchkinguy|Munchkinguy]] 03:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
*I'll treat your comment as serious even though it appears sarcastic. NPOV is irrelevant to the issue that you have raised. It's never POV that a subject simply doesn't have an article yet. NPOV enters only into affirmative editing decisions, to create or to delete articles or to add or remove content from articles. However, it would not be POV to list for deletion such a hypothetical article, were it to be created, if it's not an encyclopedic topic simply because no significant number of notable Chinese-Somalians exist or no notable people publicly identify themselves as such. "Hybrid" ethnicities in the U.S. are furthermore notable because they represent substantial populations and prominent self-identifications in a country that has paid significant attention to such ethnic backgrounds. Prove the same is true of Somalia and that there are enough notable, self-identifying Chinese-Somalians and we'll have such a list article. It's not POV to refuse coverage to extremely trivial or unverifiable subjects, and we're not going to have lists of people who don't merit articles. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 04:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, if a "significant number" is needed, then why is there no list of Anglo-Americans? (I'm serious this time :) ) --[[User:Munchkinguy|Munchkinguy]] 04:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
== Resolution compromise ==
What is the policy on tailoring aritcles for certain monitor resolutions. I use 800x600 and often find tables that need to have their column width fixed to make them look good for me. --[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 12:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:The policy? We just don't. If info fits, that's fine, if it doesn't, that's not the reader's problem. We try to keep images to a reasonable size (~250px), but even so most of our content completely bogs down anything below 1024x768.
:It is NOT advisable to design for "inferior" sizes if it means reducing existing content or limiting potential content in any way. [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Garrett]]<sup>[[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]]</sup> 12:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:But it IS a good idea if it can be fixed for low resolution screens without giving up to much on other systems. Wikipedia should be accessible to as many people as possible. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 12:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
* Recent stats indicate that about 30% of computer users are still using 800x600 [http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/July/res.php]. I work in web development, and designing for 800x600 is essentially an industry standard: you generally don't want to seriously inconvenience a third of your visitors (having to scroll horizontally to read a webpage is a huge pain in the butt -- there's a reason the vast majority of commercial sites are designed to be usable at 800x600). Of course if it's the only way to present the information, you use a greater width, but when there IS a way to make it work at the lower resolution (which, with a bit of thought, ends up being 90% of the time), it's definitely worth it. -- [[User:Avocado|Avocado]] 03:30, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
== Wikipedia disclaimer ==
I was very surprised to learn recently that wikipedia was NOT an encyclopedia like those we are all used to using. Most people will not check for your disclaimers before looking for information, and they presume that what they find are well-researched facts. I only discovered this myself when I came across some information listed for a topic that was clearly opinion and was, in fact, gossip. You are therefore responsible for contributing to the spread of gossip and false data. Despite your disclaimer, you ARE presenting yourself as an ecyclopedia website, knowing that people will be deceived.
The very least that you can do is to have a heading on EACH page that appears, which says, "Wikipedia Makes No Guarantee of Validity." It would also be more correct of you, and certainly more ethical, if you called yourself, "Wikipedia, the user-created encyclopedia."
Linda Estabrook
RESPONSE: Linda, would you cite the article that contains opinion and needs clean-up? We are collecting examples to support a proposal to make a disclaimer more evident at [[Wikipedia:Proposed_update_of_MediaWiki:Tagline]] Thank you for your help! -- [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]]<small> | </small>[[User talk:Sitearm|Talk]] 13:22, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
:"Real" encyclopedias disclaim accuracy, too. The three leading competing online encyclopedias have disclaimers and provide no warranty as to their accuracy - [http://corporate.britannica.com/termsofuse.html Britannica], [http://privacy.msn.com/tou/ Encarta] and [http://www.bartleby.com/sv/terms.html Bartleby]. Sometimes the staff of those encyclopedias [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30326-2004Sep17.html forget about the disclaimers]. - [[Wikipedia:Replies to common objections]]
:We really should make it a teeny bit more obvious, though, for newcomers. Add a "written by users like you!" at the top of the page or something. I am all about [[m:Eventualism|Eventualism]] and the convergence of the wiki towards Absolute Truth, but we aren't at Eventually yet, and vandalism and hearsay mean newcomers should check references and article history before believing everything. We are, most of the time, a much better source than half the crap floating around the internet, but some of our articles are far below the quality of a "real" encyclopedia (that wouldn't have any information on that subject at all).
:That said, you should ''always'' check references for important things, even for stuff that's in paper encyclopedias, as they have errors, too. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 17:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
:: You'd be surprised how many errors are present in the common text books too. [[User:Daycd|David D.]] 21:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
A newcomer's response. While objecting to the escalation from, "I found one item of gossip" to "you are deceiving the world", I have been surprised by the ubiquity of wiki hits on Google. Since so many more people will now be accessing wiki material, perhaps Estabrook is correct in advocating a little navel gazing. Megatron's defence that wiki is a better class of crap than that served up by other internet sources is hardly reassuring and we should all recognise that most users will never trouble themselves to check the references against the possibility of vandalism. So perhaps the answer is that there should be a roving commission to survey material and, when it finds articles that are sound, it should lock them. If a future editor believes any of the locked articles to require revision, let that be argued before editorial access is allowed. In this way, there is a slow accretion of core material that can justify the label of encyclopedia. Peripheral and evanescent material can be allowed to come and go as fashions change, with or without warning notices. -[[User:David91|David91]] 18:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Good luck. People come up with proposals like this all the time, and probably a lot of people like them, but it will take a lot of work to get any kind of consensus to change something so fundamental to the idea of wiki. Much more realistic is to at least acknowledge in an obvious place that the pedia is user-written, and that only some of those users are experts. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 21:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
:I came across many incorrect statements in the biology related pages. This was brought to my attention by students using it as source material. I agree there needs to be a stronger disclaimer on these pages. Some of the mistakes are subtle but some 'facts' are just wrong. Given how many online reference sources are harvesting wikipedia information it is scary to think how much misinformation may be out there on the internet. I do not think this means wikipedia is bad. It has huge potential and corrections will eventually get the quality up to scratch. But given the fact that there is wheat and chaff on these pages a disclaimer is warranted. [[User:Daycd|David D.]] 18:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:: Please, when you come across these, either correct them or at least make a note on the relevant talk page. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 05:55, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
:::See? When we read the Wikipedia we don't assume that everything is correct. We are both reading to learn and reading to edit, constantly on the lookout for things that might be wrong or vandalism or need cleanup. We approach all content with healthy skepticism. If ''we'' don't approach the Wikipedia as a completely authoritative source of information, we need to make sure newcomers don't approach it that way and then blame us for deceiving them and never come back.
:::See [[MediaWiki_talk:Tagline#From_Wikipedia.2C_the_free.2C_user-written_encyclopedia.]] - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 17:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
But, on two occasions, when I attempted to change pages (in my opinion for the better) I was met with hostility and abuse. I rapidly withdrew. Those pages remain unacceptable (in my opinion). So, please, let us not assume that placing warning messages as headers will resolve inherent behavioural and content problems. -[[User:David91|David91]] 07:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
:Then there would seem to be controversy regarding the article. Could you specifically tell us which pages these were (perhaps also linking to your edits in the history). I'll look into this. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">[[User:Ambush Commander|Ambush Commander]]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">([[User talk:Ambush Commander|Talk]])</sup> 19:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I am not touting for a campaign of "Be nice to the old guy." Everywhere, I see reports of edit wars, sometimes over really meaningful issues such as what to call English counties or disputes over puncutation which get blown out of proportion by those with a non-consensual approach to life. "Looking into my editing history" is not going to add significantly to a pattern of behaviour that is well-documented and clearly inhibiting the growth of encyclopedic standards. The reason why I have not become involved in comparable disputes is that, at the first sign of abuse, I walk away. A plague on the causes of all those who will not iterate through reasonable debate towards some generally accepted point of view. -[[User:David91|David91]] 05:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I believe that Wikipedia should include some type of disclaimer on every article page. I really like Wikipedia and try to contribute when I can. However, as a person involved in research, I would not advocate using Wikipedia ''per se'' as a reference; but, I would certainly recommend '''''starting''''' with Wikipedia in performing research. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource with many advantages over traditional reference works. Wikipedia is also very up-front about how it is created and its limitations. Unfortunately, most people will not realize the difference between Wikipedia and a traditional encyclopedia. Of course, no matter what you do, there will always be a few people who don't read the disclaimer. That said, I think it would be good to include a disclaimer anyway so that the majority of readers will get the idea. --[[User:Wyatts|Wyatts]] 18:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Besides Wikipedia having an (existing) overall disclaimer, each contributer (including me) should have a disclaimer on her contribution to an article, and each article should have a disclaimer acknowledging where information may have other interpretations (e.g., scientific principles, evaluations of an artist's work quality and "themes", etc.). My son reads Wikipedia a LOT to study science and math and this led me to get an account. Fortunately he knows you can't believe everything you read on the internet. Fortunately many of the articles list references so that information can be checked. I have discovered inaccuracies (e.g., ranking of largest ports in the world out of date). To be rigorous you have to look stuff up and compare, which process Wikipedia helps. But Wikipedia certainly is not a definitive authority on any of its articles. Nor is any other encyclopedia or online references.
So it's ''caveat lector''!
[[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]] 03:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
No encyclopedia is perfectly accurate, of course. I am not suggesting that Wikipedia needs a disclaimer because it is somehow not as good as other encyclopedias. (I believe Wikipedia is superior is many ways.) Instead, I am suggesting that Wikipedia needs a disclaimer because it is different from traditional encyclopedias. I think the disclaimer should inform people of the ''difference'', not be an apology for any inaccuracies (since all encyclopedias have inaccuracies.) Articles published in traditional encyclopedias represent the "official" output of the organization, and have gone through some kind of formal review for accuracy and style. This does not guarantee perfection, but readers know that the publisher has made some attempt to utilize knowledgeable experts, carefully reviews any changes/updates, and stands behind its work. People quickly learn which publishers do this well (or not) and hence establish the reputation of the publisher. People can then confidently reference such traditional encyclopedias in their research. Wikipedia is different. Articles can be written by anyone, editors are not selected according to their credentials, articles can be changed often, and there is no formal approval process. On the other hand, Wikipedia relies on collaboration to improve the accuracy of articles (which is generally very good), content is more relevant and up-to-date, there is tremendous breadth, and it's free. I might not reference Wikipedia directly, but I would certainly start there for research. So, with all that said, if there is ever going to be a disclaimer, then we need to start throwing out suggestions. It should be fairly short and emphasize the difference in Wikipedia, not an out for any inaccuracies. Here is something to chew on:
:*"''All Wikipedia articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort and not subject to formal approval for content or accuracy.''"
I'm sure this could be improved (in a collaborative manner.) --[[User:Wyatts|Wyatts]] 22:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I found the '''[[Wikipedia:General disclaimer]]''', and it is blunt and comprehensive. No doubt here: '''"Wikipedia Makes No Guarantee Of Validity."''' So that leaves saying something about why Wikipedia is special and why it's a good encyclopedia to use ('''[[Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great]]''') or saying nothing at all and letting the work and its use speak for themselves. I'm sure this disclaimer issue will come up in the near future, say, when someone blames something on an article read here. The short disclaimer suggested by Wyatts is a good size to put on every page (is that what we're aiming for?), but its gist is covered in the existing full-size disclaimer page. How about ''"caveat lector et scriptor"'' (''"let the reader and writer be cautious"'') to keep it short and add class? Hey, it might just work. [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]] 06:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
: May I politely disagree with your suggestion to use Latin? Many elementary and high-school students who use the Wikipedia do not speak Latin. The same would be true for some nonnative speakers of English. --[[User:Mamawrites|Mamawrites]] 11:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:The [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer]] certainly seems to cover everything, but, as noted by Sitearm, I am suggesting something short that could go on every page. After looking hard, I did in fact see that the general disclaimer link is at the bottom of every page, but few will actually notice this and fewer still check it out. The line at the top of every article that says, "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", might be a good place. Maybe something like:
::*''"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopdia. All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort and not subject to formal approval for content or accuracy. See [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer |disclaimer details]]."''
: --[[User:Wyatts|Wyatts]] 16:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Mamawrites, I am OK with not using the Latin. It's a play on "caveat emptor" ("buyer beware"), but yes, it would just confuse things. Main point is, I agree with Wyatts to put something at the top of every page in addition to the tiny disclaimer link at the bottom. I feel uneasy at the statement about "not subject to formal approval..." and it's covered in the full page anyway. How about:
:*''"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort. See [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer |disclaimer details]]."''
[[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]] 06:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC) P.S. How do we submit what we agree on as a proposal to be added?
Although I wanted something about "not subject to formal approval", I must admit that it sounds too negative, and I could not find a good way to word it. I agree with the version from Mamawrites:
:*''"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort. See [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer |disclaimer details]]."''
It has the following points in its favor: It is short enough to include at the top of every page; it emphasizes the difference between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias; it is a positive statement; it provides enough information to inform the user that the articles are not formally vetted; and it puts the link to the full disclaimer in a prominent place where people are more likely to check it out.
As to how to submit, I looked at [[Wikipedia:How to create policy]]. The more I look, the more it seems that this discussion should be transferred to [[Wikipedia: Village Pump (proposals)]]. A policy is more like what to do in certain situations. This is a specific proposal to modify the general article template (but not a bug). But, even if it is moved, I'm not sure how to get it out of the proposal stage to be implemented. Perhaps we can set up a separate page like [[Wikipedia:Disclaimer proposal]]? I think we will need to recruit one or more administrators to eventually set up a vote and then get it to those who can actually implement the change. --[[User:Wyatts|Wyatts]] 14:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
::oops, I didn't coin that suggestion; [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]] did. I support it, though! [[User:Mamawrites|Mamawrites]] 22:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
: '''Yes, let's add that disclaimer proposal page and link to it in the village pump proposals section.''' Your last paragraph is an excellent summary of the proposal and benefits. Would you be willing to start the page with your material? That would cover summarizing the proposal and the "for" reasons / benefits for doing it, for others to comment further. Things I can think of to add to the proposal page about why NOT to do this are: it takes extra space at the top of a page (probably a 2nd line); it takes some programmer time to edit a template to change this. This will give an "against" section for others to comment further. (P.S. It was me with the revised version of your version. Sorry for the confusion about addressing Mamawrites at the start of the paragraph.) [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]] 16:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
::I changed the tagline to:
::* ''From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.''
::the other day, and it was reverted pretty quickly (of course). Go talk on [[MediaWiki_talk:Tagline#From_Wikipedia.2C_the_free.2C_user-written_encyclopedia.|Mediawiki talk:tagline]] if you think it should be changed. I think it should be changed. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 19:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I made a '''new proposal page''' at '''[[Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline]]''' and posted notices [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Proposed_update_of_MediaWiki:Tagline|here]] and [[MediaWiki_talk:Tagline#From_Wikipedia.2C_the_free.2C_user-written_encyclopedia.|here]]. -- [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]]<small> | </small>[[User talk:Sitearm|Talk]] 04:29, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
That looks like a good way to go. I'll start posting discussion at [[Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline]]. --[[User:Wyatts|Wyatts]] 17:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
==What to do with an editor refusing to follow Wikipedia style norms?==
Many of you probably met ''Louis Epstein'', who contributes from [[User:12.144.5.2]]. Luis seems to be a rather good editor, however, there are certain things which he refuses to do. First, he does not want to make an account, which is not bad in itself. But Lous also refuses to put space after period and comma, and calls this, together with the practice of using <nowiki>–</nowiki> (ndash) instead of the short dash -, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:12.144.5.2&diff=18964532&oldid=18964448 stupid conventions]. There are other pecularities which other people might comment on.
Now,you may think that,not putting space after period and comma is no big deal,but this screws up the format on a lot of pages,making this look very unprofessional,as you see from this sentence.Sometimes I think Wikipedia is too tolerant,and I'd argue that this is the case with this editor.What to do?[[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] 17:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:I refer the gentleman to the quote from the Wikipedia Manual of Style that I offered in response to the numerous others who have had this same disagreement with me on my talk page.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/[[User:12.144.5.2|12.144.5.2]] 18:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
As the saying goes, "tough noogies". All the rest of the world says "put a space after a punctuation mark", mr. Epstein says "don't put a space after a punctuation mark". Polite requests have been stacked a foot high, all denied. Compromise is impossible. So either he stays and we continue to clean up after him, or we ban him. Since he makes good edits (content-wise) and we have a huge reservoir of editors, I'd say pick the first option. ''Provided'', of course, that mr. Epstein doesn't insist on having his singular convention imposed on Wikipedia—if he insists on reverting those people who alter his edits to conform to the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]], he would be disrupting Wikipedia, and that's bannable. So if you can gather evidence of that, start an [[WP:RFC|RFC]] (which this practically is) and then an [[WP:RFAr|RFAr]]. Otherwise, accept that this is a free wiki, and people are free to act in ways most of us don't like, as long as they do not actively obstruct the encyclopedia. I doubt many want to accuse mr. Epstein of that. [[User:JRM|JRM]] · [[User talk:JRM|Talk]] 19:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:What about adding the required spaces with some bot? That would take out the manual work. For one-time effort of writing a bot, the editor's worthy work would be preserved, the other editors would be spared of menial cleaning jobs, and everybody should be happy. (Though beware of adding spaces to numbers like 1,234.56!) --[[User:Shaddack|Shaddack]] 19:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
:: I have a bot, see [[User:mathbot|mathbot]], and wrote a program to do clean up after Luis. I use it from time to time. However, one cannot let the bot do its job fully automatically, there are many more issues than just the IP address thing. What concerns me is however that the community lets somebody get away with not following the style rules. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] 23:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
::: Don't worry much about that concern. Personally I'll trade style for substance any day if I can't have both. You may like to make the bot watch the editor's page with submissions, and run it only on those, then manually review the changes from the bot's logs. Could it work? --[[User:Shaddack|Shaddack]] 00:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
First Latin-American Originated Contestant: Giselle (Cycle 1)
:What to do,what to do...*flips coin* ah,RFC it is then.Yes this is disruptive,yes it is bannable(if there is no alternative),and yes, I'd better go back to using spaces before I throw up at this bastardisation of established typography. Do tell us when you make this RFC, should be an interesting read. :) His refusal to get an account is both a problem (due to lack of constant identity) and downright ridiculous. And it's not like he's doing it for his privacy. Certainly I think this is an event without precedent, I highly doubt an "anon" has ever been taken to RFC. But there's always a first time. [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Garrett]]<sup>[[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]]</sup> 02:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
:: Not having an account is not a big problem, as it seems his IP address is always the same.
:: Yes, not following the typographic rules is disrupting. There are at least 31 people urging him to do so on his talk page. Would a RFC help matters with this? [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] 03:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
:::I don't make a point of removing the spaces slaves to popular bad habits put after my punctuation remarks;where I do reverts it's where people have reformatted articles and they need to be put back in more sensible form.Spaces after punctuation marks are bad because they're informationally redundant (words should be separated by spaces '''''OR''''' punctuation marks) but if I were spreading wisdom to the conformists on this issue I'd never get anything else done.--Louis E./le@put.com/[[User:12.144.5.2|12.144.5.2]] 03:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
::::Spaces after punctuation may be redundant information-wise, however they make the resulting text significantly easier to read. Also, there are cases where the marks should NOT have spaces behind, eg. in formatting the numbers or IP addresses or so. Also, the browsers break the lines on space, not after a punctuation mark (which would cause other issues on its own, eg. formatting of the numbers), which may lead to difficult-to-read outcome on the screen. --[[User:Shaddack|Shaddack]] 19:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
::::"Conformists" is a strange word to throw out as a pejorative to encyclopedia writers, because we're supposed to be conformists. We're a secondary (or even tertiary?) source. We're not out there to establish new standards or revolutionize the language. The whole point of an encyclopedia is that it conforms to what is already known and established. I'm sure there is some online forum out there that will be receptive to your personal preference and will help you change the world, one punctuation mark at a time, but this isn't it. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 20:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
:If this person consistently reverts corrective edits, he is a disruption. Otherwise, just think of him as acting out of ignorance instead of radicalism, and fix his stuff. If he were a bad speller no one would be complaining. I hate to take sides, but really we should be glad he's willing to contribute material for free that we can easily repair. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 01:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
::See the history[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&action=edit§ion=39] of [[Supercentenarian]]. [[User:Susvolans|Susvolans]] [[User talk:Susvolans|(pigs can fly)]] 11:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
:::While I see a slow-simmering edit war on [[Supercentenarian]], it seems to revolve around the question of which supercentenarians belong on the list. The Manual of Style conventions seem to be incidental to the conflict there. If that is the case, [[WP:RFC]]–rather than the Pump–would seem to be the most appropriate venue.
:::On the issue of punctuation, we have any number of editors whose spelling, grammar, or writing style fall below perfection. A silent army of copyeditors cleans up after them, and brings their work into line with both the Manual of Style and the general conventions of English usage. If Mr. Epstein would like to tilt at windmills on his crusade against en dashes and spaces after punctuation, he may do so—though deliberately creating work for copyeditors when he ''knows'' that the standard style here is different from his preferred conventions is rather rude. As long as his content contributions are good, then a bit of cleanup might be worth the effort. (Then again, he's walking a fine line with respect to [[WP:POINT]].)
:::I suggest that it would ''clearly'' cross the line to disruption if he were to start 'correcting' articles or revert warring over his personal, peculiar stylistic conventions. While the Wikipedia 'house style' is decidedly more flexible than most, it is not appropriate to revert to one's own style when there is such a clearly expressed preference for the 'standard' usage. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 15:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
::Bed spellers don't inherently [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point]]. Louis Epstein does, and this is nothing short of vandalism. —[[User:Lifeisunfair|Lifeisunfair]] (hoping that Mr. Epstein doesn't replace my em dash with a hyphen) 12:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
:::I don't edit what people put on discussion pages,however much I may disagree with how they format it.The [[Supercentenarian]] and [[National longevity recordholders]] revert wars do concern format,but not punctuation;when I originated each of these articles,I organized them in a certain way,and others (often with no other interest in the article's content) have reorganized them and introduced insufficiently documented content in inconsistent ways.When I have new information to add,I always integrate it into the branch of updates that I prefer (minimizing formatted tables on the first article,and ordering all articles by age down to a cutoff age in the second),removing those entries that I consider to have been inappropriately added.--Louis E./le@put.com/[[User:12.144.5.2|12.144.5.2]] 18:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
::::I'm going to post a note about this on RFC to settle the matter. Mr. Epstein should note that maintaining a preferred "branch of updates" is not an acceptable practice, and that the community should decide on a ''single'' format for the article in question. Within reason, making the article easier to ''read'' for the majority of users takes precedence over making it easy to ''edit''. Whether the best way to achieve that is through tables, lists, or a combination thereof I leave to the RFC. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 15:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
::::Here are links to [[Talk:Supercentenarian]] and [[Talk:National longevity recordholders]] for your convenience. This is really an RFC matter, rather than a Village Pump issue. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 15:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
*Wikipedia isn't paper so doing it to save space isn't neccesary. Not using spaces after punctuation won't gain us anything. Spaces will help make a text more readable and is common across the majority of written sources. We shouldn't reinvent the wheel. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 10:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
#Spaces after punctuation are mandatory in English, and not to use them is simply, on any conventiuon, according to any manual of style, wrong. I don't believe that he doesn't know that (no-one who's barely literate can have failed to notice it), so he's being deliberately disruptive.
#This sort of thing is genuinely infuriating, and is part of what drives good editors away. I have a similar problems with {{user|Ultimate Star Wars Freak}} and {{user|OmegaWikipedia}}, occasionally abetted by {{user|DrippingInk}} and {{user|Everyking}}. They insist on reverting wholesale my attempts to correct articles to Wikipedia (and normal English) style (inluding capitalisation in headers and article titles, numbers, quotation marks, etc.). --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 13:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
"informationally redundant" is simply a laughable argument. Why, plaintext is informationally redundant. So I wonder why Mr. Epstein's submissions are not in gzipped format. Talk about [[eccentricity]]. Unless he is a really outstanding editor, this is simply not worth the bother. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 14:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
*Incidentally, there is a Louis Epstein who's a locally infamous crank on rec.arts.books.tolkien ([[Usenet]]). I suspect this might be the same guy --[[User:Pyroclastic|Pyroclastic]] 06:16, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
::Does it matter? --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 07:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
== Are future years classed under Crystal Ball? ==
I've [[Special:Random|just found]] pages like [[2038]] and [[33rd century]]. Are these classed as Crystal Ball or what?
Certainly I can see the astronomical events being true due to calculations, but do we ''need'' pages going that far into the future?
From [[34th century]] onwards, everything redirects to [[Future]]. So should the same be done for these other years? [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Garrett]]<sup>[[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]]</sup> 02:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
:Nah; leave them alone. The astronomical stuff is interesting—I just found out that there will be ''three'' solar eclipses (two annular, one total) in 2038. (Bonus question for the astronomy buffs: when was the last time that happened on a single year?) The 33rd century cutoff seems to be a reasonable compromise between the end of most pop culture references and a need for crystal ball restrictions. For the individual more recent years there are a lot of events that have been scheduled well in advance, and it doesn't hurt to record them. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 02:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
:(after an edit conflict)
:The page [[2038]] refers to the known computer related problem, which is of sufficient importance and public awareness to justify appearing in a year article. The date of Easter is a once-in-a-century occurence, so is worth mentioning. The astronomical event will happen in the lifetime of many people here, so are worthwhile. I think a very strong case can be made for this article.
:The [[33rd century]] article has IMHO a weaker rationale for existence, since the events portrayed are either in fiction, or real astronomical events far enough in the future that few people are waiting with bated breath for them. I still think it's worthwhile to have this article; after all, we have a lot of popular fiction-related articles on Wikipedia.
:You could always try putting up one or both for VfD and see what the response is. I suggest you wait until tomorrow as some people might object vigorously to that.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 03:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
::vfd isn't the way to go, it would become a '''redirect''' somewhere. Anyway, I see nothing wrong with the articles -- don't fix them. As long as we don't get articles like [[17364]], I don't see the problem. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 21:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Non of these are as way out as the [[10th millennium]]. But clicking through a few of the other years in [[:Category:Years_in_the_future]], I was disappointed not to stumble across the date that [[hell freezes over]] (there is [[Hell Freezes Over|an album]] on that topic though, which is a bit like the redirect at [[2112]].) -- [[User:Solipsist|Solipsist]] 16:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
== Self-Promotion as a Disincentive ==
Here is a problem I encountered. I posted an entry and then cited a book that I have written. Later, my post was removed under the “no self-promotion” policy.
This is the philosophic issue: The self-promotion provision, as administered in my instance, is a disincentive to quality entries.
The issue is twofold. First, anyone competent enough to write and publish a book is exactly the type of person needed to write entries in Wikipedia. Secondly, if the writer cannot cite his books as a ''bona fide'' of his competence, under the “no self-promotion” policy, then we are inadvertently excluding the type of people who can make Wikipedia a quality resource.
The crux is citing one’s own published book. First of all, a book serves as a benchmark of competence, and second, it is an objective and verifiable touchstone that what is written is accurate. This is how people are selected to write entries in traditional “dead tree” encyclopedias, and Wikipedia should adopt this industry standard.
Remember that a book is essentially an intellectual endeavor, rather than a financial endeavor. Citing a book is different than advocating a product, such as pantyhose, diet pills, a financial CD, or some other widget. Furthermore, any house-published book is already going to be available at least twenty other websites, so putting it on Wikipedia will not make any difference in advertising.
For instance, physicist [[Michio Kaku]] has published several popular volumes on physics. Should we bar him from contributing to Wikipedia, if he were to reference his own books in an entry?
The action grid breaks down as follows:
* If he were allowed to violate the self-promotion rule, Wikipedia gets a high-quality entry, and a double standard.
* If he was allowed, and then his entry was be deleted due to self promotion, then this would also inadvertently lower the quality of Wikipedia entries.
* If he wasn’t allowed to write, then Wikipedia looses a competent author, and we as uses are worse off.
* If we leave it up to a surrogate to write for him, then let’s stop horsing around and get it from the horse’s mouth.
* If we leave it up to a random fan, then we are not sure of the quality of the entry, then we are making Wikipedia worse off, and we are getting a diluted Michio Kaku. Once again, it would be best to eliminate the middle man.
The whole problem is one of [[genetic fallacy]], attacking he origin of the information—someone competent enough that a publishing house would make a financial risk on the author—and not the content. It involves deleting the content solely because he or she is an expert.
In such an entry, it is important to remember that self-promotion is not the ''primary intent'', but it is a ''secondary consequence'' of the entry. As I said, anyone with a book already has it on about two or three dozen WebPages already, and eliminating it from Wikipedia is not going to hurt sales one iota.
Wikipedia’s policy should be to allow authors cite their own books, recognizing that the intellect competent to write a book is competent enough to make Wikipedia the information nexus it should be.
--[[User:Señor Cardgage|Señor Cardgage]] 18:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
: Surely the self-promotion rule only applies where the editor wrote an article about himself. I am not aware that it has ever been Wikipedia's policy to bar expert editors from citing their own publications. Any moves to make it so should be resisted, for it can only damage Wikipedia's academic credibility, at a time when we are in great need of more expert editors. So many editors are pseudonymous, it will only be those who use their real names that can ever caught by such a rule. [[User:Apwoolrich|Apwoolrich]] 18:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
::There is no 'self-promotion rule', though often people seem to think there is. See [[WP:AUTO]], for the case about whole articles being 'self-promotion' and, usually, allowable. It is deeply frowned upon however, because in general, if you or something you have done is notable enough for an encyclopedia, then someone else will know about it and add it. It helps keep things objective. Promotional material is often removed, but, imho, should only really be so if it serves no encyclopedic purpose to the article it appears in. This is a policy-free area in the most part however, so discussion on talk pages would be the way to go. There is a [[WP:CSD|criterion for speedy deletion]] relating to the most blatant case of an article consisting of a single external link (or, sometimes a list of them). In general, if your mention of your book added something of encyclopedic note to the article, I'd be inclined to let it stay but to expect you to have to defend it on the talk page. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 18:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Forgive a naive thought but the authorship of each page is only identifiable by scrolling through the history. Hence, only an exceptional reader would ever connect the text to the reference(s). Unless, of course, the author is promoting the sales of his or her books by a direct sales pitch, e.g. "you can find a fuller explanation in my student-friendly works. . ." which would seem, at the very least, unethical. --[[User:David91|David91]] 19:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
[[User:Señor Cardgage|Señor Cardgage]] is apparently claiming to be "Kendal Brian Hunter", the author of a book on [[Job (Biblical figure)|Job]] from the [[Mormon]] perspective (Amazon sales rank #2,202,513). He appears to have contributed approximately the same paragraph to both [[Book of Job]] and [[Job (Biblical figure)]], explaining the special significance of Job to Mormons, citing his own book as a reference. These were reverted by [[User:Koavf|Koavf]] and [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]] respectively with fairly blunt edit summaries. In neither case can I see any sign that the reverting editors discussed the matter on the article talk page or on the talk page of the contributing user.
The paragraph in question is not 100% in line with Wikipedia style, but it does make it very clear that the point of view described is specific to the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints]], and it does cite a book as source, which is doing pretty well so far as [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] and [[WP:NOR|NOR]] usually goes. I am not qualified to say whether the content is true. I don't know whether the LDS generally hold those views about Job and, if so, to what extent they are unique to that organization. The LDS is a significant organization, so perhaps something about this perspective belongs in one or both of these articles. Alternatively, perhaps there is a place for a separate article about the Mormon take on Job, linked appropriately from other articles.
Regarding the general point raised, whether being a published author should disqualify one from being a respected Wikipedian, the answer is a resounding "No". On the other hand, Wikipedia does not accord as much respect to "experts" as, say, more traditional encyclopedias. In addition, I don't mean to pick on Mr. Hunter, but I'm afraid that in this day and age, being the author of a published book does not actually prove expertise. I hope that everyone would agree with that sentiment, even if they have different counter-examples in mind.
In particular, experience has made us suspicious of those who appear to be trying to promote their own interests rather than those of Wikipedia. I don't mean to pass judgement on Señor Cardgage here, but instead try to explain why there may be a certain resistence to apparent self-promotion. See [[Wikipedia:Spam]], [[Wikipedia:Using Wikipedia to gain legitimacy]], and [[Wikipedia talk:Spam#how not to be a spammer]]. [[User:Bovlb|Bovlb]] 05:44:47, 2005-07-24 (UTC)
:My own personal thoughts are that self-promotional additions should not be allowed in most cases. Simple for the fact that wikipedia is not a place for original research. If you published a book that nobody reads and then use it as a source on wikipedia, there has been no peer-review process whatsoever. Instead, write your book, let the ideas flow through the public concious (or not) and then let someone else bring them into wikipedia after they have been through the marketplace of ideas. OR, alternativley, quote the sources that <i>you used</i> when writing the book, without mention of your own book.
:Another reason this should be limited is due to spam. As wikipedia grows in traffic, more and more authors of obscure books may want to reference their non-notable works as much as possible, which could become very tiresome. Just my thoughts. --[[User:Quasipalm|Quasipalm]] 14:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
== How to avoid uninformative articles that consist mainly of opposing POVs? ==
I am a bit worried about some articles that have become largely uninformative because they are only used to push opposing POVs, see e.g. [[New_religious_movement#NRMs_and_their_critics]] and [[Apostasy#In_purported_cults_and_new_religious_movements_.28NRMs.29|apostasy in cults]]. (I have to admit that I have been a POV pusher on the latter subject because I am an ex-cult member and I hate to be called a liar with regards to a very difficult experience of my life that I tried to tell in an accurate, factual way to others.) I do not think that either of these article break NPOV guidelines, but they are quite lousy anyway. Does anyone know how to prevent this? [[User:Andries|Andries]] 15:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
:Being one of the contributors to both these articles, I respectfully disagree. Presenting well referenced and attributed POVs and providing a descriptions of controversial topics is at the core of [[WP:NPOV]]. These articles, like may other, are work in progress and need good copyediting. Hopefully some other editors with better copyediting abilities will find an interest to improve upon these articles. --[[User:Zappaz|ZappaZ]] [[Image:Yin_yang.png|12px]] 17:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
::Citing as many scholars with opposing POVs as possible is, I have to admit, not breaking NPOV policy, but it will lead to uninformative and hence unencyclopedic articles. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
:::You speak of '''encyclopedic'''. How do you define encyclopedic? Princeton's WordNet defines it as : ''broad in scope or content''. [http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=encyclopedic]. Then search for '''broad''' at WordNet and what do you get?: ''across-the-board, all-embracing, all-encompassing, all-inclusive''[http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=broad]. So to be encyclopedic, one is to include all POVs. If there is controversy, most naturally you will have less consensus and more POVs to incorporate. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 05:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Some humorous (in an ''it'd be funny if it weren't so sad'' sense) examples I've seen of this are:
* [[Global warming]] at one time lacked any mention of the [[greenhouse effect]] whatsoever. (This is like [[hot air balloon]] without any mention of hot [[air]])
* [[Evolution]] currently hardly mentions variation and selection. And no decent articles on either of the latter. (This is like a hypothetical article on [[bacon and eggs]] lacking a discussion on what [[bacon]] or [[eggs]] have to do with it! )
* [[Empiricism]] and [[Epistemology]] being so snowed under, that... Did You Know that [[Science]] was applied Empiricism, and thus a philosophical sub-subschool of Epistemology? Good luck finding that out from reading wikipedia! :-P
It's a flaw in NPOV policy, generally occurs only in the tiny percentage of controversial articles we have. Maybe 1000 out of 600000? That's not much! But those ''are'' the articles people find most interesting!
[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 19:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing inherently unencyclopedic in entries that consider controversial topics so long as the nature of the controversy is fairly stated at the outset so that a following exposition of the opposing POVs can be understood. In the NRM there is no attempt to define the terms. What is "new" for these purposes? What is a "religion" and when does it become a "movement" rather than a mere group meeting in someone's house? Hence, when the discussion begins with a focus on "hate groups", there is no context because this topic is not connected to any previously stated information being, presumably, connected to the behaviour of a group/movement rather than its novelty, beliefs or size. As an aside, I noticed that agnosticism and atheism are both listed as religions without explanation in a linked page which does rather bring us back to the definitional issue. Similarly, I would be interested to know what some of the cited Japanese "movements" believe and the extent to which the Western interpretations remain true to the original spirit of Hinduism but none of these issues seem to be considered worthy of discussion. So perhaps the name of the page should be changed to reflect the fact that the authors seem to want to discuss the supposedly anti-social behaviour of some belief systems rather than what might constitute a new belief system sufficiently systematised and with an adequate number of acolytes performing religious ceremonies to constitute a movement. -[[User:David91|David91]] 20:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
== Non-english in en:Wikipedia ==
:''See also: [[Wikipedia_talk:Spanish_Translation_of_the_Week#Glacier:_whats_going_on.3F]]''
Is it acceptable for the [[Wikipedia:Spanish_Translation_of_the_Week|Spanish Translation of the Week]] to splatter spanish text within en:Wikipedia articles? The [[Glacier]] article had a lot of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glacier&diff=19524337&oldid=18667755 spanish text added]], which does not improve the article. Although the translated material is likely to improve the article, messing up a live article does not seem like a good technique. ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 14:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC))
:Ouch. Yes, that is a bit of a mess, isn't it? Perhaps they should be encouraged to create a temporary subpage from which they can merge content as they go along? [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 15:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:I have been so bold as to remove all the spanish text from the article. It was unacceptable as it was (and did not even have a <nowiki>{{translation}}</nowiki> tag!). I am surprised that anyone would just put it in there. And by the way, the Spanish Translation COTW tag should be on the talk page! It is for editors, not readers. [[User:Gkhan|gkhan]] 16:32, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
::Actually, it appears that yes, COTW tags do belong on the main page (looking at [[Head]] for instance), so I wont press that point. I don't agree with it, but it seems to be standard procedure. [[User:Gkhan|gkhan]] 16:42, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
:: I tried to compromise by moving the Spanish text into a subpage as they really ought to be doing it. gkhan, I think it was a little rash of you not to paste the text anywhere else - you appeared to be saying "I do not like your project". [[User:R3m0t|r3m0t]] <sup>[[User talk:R3m0t|talk]]</sup> 17:02, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
::::You are ofcourse right. I apologise, I honestly think it is a great project. I just figured that it shouldn't be in the article, and if they want to find it, it was in the history. I did not want to put it in a "/Temp"-page because that is in the main article space. I figured that active members would take care of it. Perhaps it could be put in the Talk: space, ie. [[Talk:Glacier/Temp]] or something. [[User:Gkhan|gkhan]] 21:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
::: Article subpages are allowed again? Where are such things announced? ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 17:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC))
:::: It's just a temporary thing. Like the "/Temp" created for copyvios. [[User:R3m0t|r3m0t]] <sup>[[User talk:R3m0t|talk]]</sup> 17:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
::::: But you shouldn't do that either! Each article should only have one article in the main namespace and any attempted rewrites ought to go in the talk: namespace and be left out of the categorisation. [[User:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 17:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::: [[Template:Copyvio]] disagrees. I think it's acceptable to have temporary subpages. (Clearly the subpage should not be in any category!) [[User:R3m0t|r3m0t]] <sup>[[User talk:R3m0t|talk]]</sup> 17:39, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
:::::: No it doesn't. Copyvios get [[template:copyvio]] slapped on them, and the article is rewritten at /Temp, and should be put in the appropriate categories. There remains only 1 article on the subject, which hopefully(!) is in the correct language, and which should be moved in due course. Contrast that to what we have here, a foreign language fork cluttering up the main namespace for no apparent reason. [[User:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 18:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::::The other problem, of course, is the GFDL. Whatever solution we choose here, we have to make sure that the history of edits remains logged somewhere (on a page that ''isn't'' ultimately deleted) so that the history isn't lost. Quite a pickle this is. The Talk page ''might'' be the best ___location; it just goes in a Talk archive (which incidentally is a–gasp!–subpage) after the revisions are hashed out. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 17:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I have proposed a solution [[Wikipedia_talk:Spanish_Translation_of_the_Week#Proposal|here]]. Please leave your comments so that we may reach a consensus. — [[User:J3ff|J3ff]] 01:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
==Anon style sheets==
Whilst following up on a [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#My_Eyes.21.21.21.21.21.21|question on the Pump]], I was looking for a particular user's monobook.css but was surprised to find that there are a few Anon accounts that have got style sheet overrides:
*[[User:172.197.154.158/Monobook.css]]
*[[User:85.130.133.164/Monobook.css]]
*[[User:69.115.251.52/monobook.css]]
Is this allowed? I imagine it could confuse a later anon using the same IP. -- [[User:Solipsist|Solipsist]] 14:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
: I have deleted the second one, because it is designed to hide the entire page (the third puts a big red border around the page, and the first is various style changes, none harmful). You have a fair point in suggesting that stylesheets (and javascript) should be disabled for anonymous users. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 15:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
::I agree, although I think this belongs on the policy section of the VP. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 17:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
:::<small>Discussion moved to Village pump (policy), from [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] -- [[User:Solipsist|Solipsist]] 17:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)</small>
: This is a means for vandalism of all of Wikipedia for later users of the IP address. ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 17:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC))
This should not be allowed. No one can keep track of all the anon addresses to make sure they aren't using the stylesheets for vandalism. If you want stylesheets, get an account. If you want anonymity and stylesheets, get a sockpuppet account. There's no reason anons, especially shared IPs, should have stylesheets. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 21:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
This feature should be switched off immediately! I'm amazed it hasn't been abused yet. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 22:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree, it's only slightly less ominous then having everyone being able to edit everyone else's stylesheets. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="FF9900">Jtkiefer<font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jtkiefer|<font color=#00A86B>T</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="FF0033">@</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="0000FF">C</font>]]</small> ----- 07:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
:Err... one of those is mine. I was trying to get some sort of warning when I wasn't logged in (I have a static IP). It doesn't work. I've tried. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">[[User:Ambush Commander|Ambush Commander]]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">([[User talk:Ambush Commander|Talk]])</sup> 19:20, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
::You could just modify your logged-in css instead. My user css has rounded corners (among other things) so I can tell when I've been logged out by the square corners. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 16:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
''I agree, it's only slightly less ominous then having everyone being able to edit everyone else's stylesheets.''
:Which I noticed was possible the other day and panicked and wrote a bug report about.
:Then I remembered that I'm an admin, and can do things that most users can't... :-) - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 19:24, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
::Then again, it's not really cool that disgruntled admins can edit each other's javascript to do arbitrary things. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 19:29, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
:::I'm personally not that worried about that happening since administrators don't become administrators unless the community trusts them and if anyone ever tried anything like that it'd be taken care of pretty quickly, one of the great things about having thousand of users always watching your back. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="FF9900">Jtkiefer<font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jtkiefer|<font color=#00A86B>T</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="FF0033">@</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="0000FF">C</font>]]</small> </sup> ----- 02:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
::Even though I am using firefox which handles these things rather well, in theory a person with malicious intent could lock up my computer if they really wanted to, that concerns me. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="FF9900">Jtkiefer<font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jtkiefer|<font color=#00A86B>T</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="FF0033">@</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="0000FF">C</font>]]</small> </sup> ----- 02:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
:::I'm more worried about someone writing a script that turns my "Edit" link into a "delete hundreds of images" link. And don't the developers and stewards have even more privileges than admins? Like deleting pages forever or checking people's IPs? Is that done through the same interface? - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 05:17, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
== Academic boosterism and [[User:Dpbsmith/Boosterdampers|a proposal]] ==
If you see [[Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism|academic boosterism]] as a perennial problem in our articles on colleges and universities, help me fumble toward a proposal for some kind of mechanism to tone it down. Proposal at [[User:Dpbsmith/Boosterdampers|Boosterdampers]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 23:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
== "Wikipedia" is English-centric? ==
Isn't calling all of the different language versions of Wikipedia "Wikipedia" pretty English-centric? While "wiki" is derived from a [[Hawaiian language|non-English language]], it was appropriated and combined with an English word to make it into what is widely recognized as an English word. Since the inception of the English Wikipedia, others have been created in its image, and been branded with a title in a language not their own. Is it possible that the Wikipedia project's own name has done much to harm the NPOV policy across the spectrum of languages, to the tune of giving the impression that, no matter what language it's in, Wikipedia is English-speaking at heart? Just a thought. [[User:Cigarette|Cigarette]] 18:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
:Thew suffix "pedia" is a straight borrowing from [[Latin]], if I am not mistaken, as was once the common scholarly practice in English, and the cognates of the word in various european languages are highly similar. Besides, "Wikipedia" is a neologism, and such terms are frequently borrowed ratehr than traslated. Check what the word for "Radar" is in various non-english languages, for example. Such projects must be called something, and there is some value in using the same word for each. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] 18:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
:They ''aren't''. The [[:ca:Portada|Catalan version]], for instance, is called Viquipèdia. --[[User:Ngb|Ngb]] 19:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
:the Latin suffix would be ''-paedia'', from Greek ''-paidia''. German ''-pädie'', French ''-pédie''. But I do think that the marriage of a Hawaiian and an anglicized Greek morpheme makes for a promising combinatino in terms of npov and encyclopedicity -- In keeping with the term's Greek origin, I have been tempted to use ''wikipederast'' instead of ''wikiholic'' for some time :) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 19:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
::It may be worth noting that the Latin Wikipedia ''is'' titled [http://la.wikipedia.org ''Vikipaedia'']. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 19:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
::: Yes, but there is no W in the Latin alphabet and in classic Latin atleast V is believed to have been pronounced like "w" is today. [[User:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 14:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
::::I took a look at the [[:haw:|Hawaiian language Wikipedia]], but they haven't customised the name.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 04:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Hm. Apparently the selection of Wikipedias I was looking at was not representative of the naming conventions of most of the others. All the ones I went to (Japanese and Polish are the ones I remember off the top of my head) said "Wikipedia" (in addition to whatever say said in their own languages) in their title bar. Just seemed a little incongruous to me. That'll teach me to increase my sample sizes, I guess. :) [[User:Cigarette|Cigarette]] 21:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
What's wrong with being English-centric on an English encyclopedia?? All the other language versions are centric to their language, too. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 20:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
:Gotta admit, this one's more creative than the "there's a US bias!" whiners. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 21:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Tangential to this, my GF has come up with a useful new term, I think: "Are preople who build encyclopaedias and dictionaries online referred to as Web-sters?" [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 13:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
*Also, it's practical to have all pedias in one internet ___domain don't you think... Having the same name helps in this regard and it also makes it easier for word of mouth to spread about wikipedia when there's no language barriers to pass in naming it. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 10:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
== Is it time to restrict editing to registered users? ==
I don't know about you but I'mn getting tired of continually reverting either clueless or vandalizing edits by anonymous IP users. These people don't check their talk pages and even if you do post warnings, etc. odds are you're probably hitting an innocent party since there are many who use the same IP numbers; I don't even know if unregistered users see the "You have new messgaes" notification. Has anyone seriously proposed a policy requiring registration and a username in order to edit pages? It would be so simple to do this, and while it would not eliminate vandalism of cource, at least it makes it easier to identify the culprits and block/ban accordingly. Case in point, the recent continued vandalism of [[Internet Movie Database]] by someone using a rotating IP. I'm sure there is some rationale behind allowing anons to edit, and it was probably a good one back in the day, but there have simply been too many violators for such an ideal to be maintained, not if Wikipedia is to remain viable as an accurate information source. I am thinking of proposing such a policy but I'm sure I'm not the first to do so, therefore I wanted to ask the question and get response before taking the next step. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 04:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Abolish anonymous users]]. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 04:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
:: I thought as much - much obliged! [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 11:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
*Actually, having them edit anonymous makes them easier to track as it makes their IP visible to the common vandal hunters who can't otherwise check the IP of a user (even admins can't do that). - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 10:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
::I think this is a very bad idea inimicable to the growth of the project. A high proportion of good edits are made by people who are not signed in. I have made thousands of edits. I made the first few hundred before I had an account and I'm not signed in now. [[User:82.35.34.11|82.35.34.11]] 05:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
== Can dicdefs be speedy deleted? ==
There are a staggering number of articles that are straightfoward dictionary definitions of common words. Can they be speedy deleted or must we go through the usual VFD process?--[[User:Pyroclastic|Pyroclastic]] 06:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
:They have to go through VfD, the full list of criteria for speedy deletion is at [[WP:CSD]]. --[[User:fvw|fvw]][[User talk:Fvw|<SMALL><FONT COLOR="green">*</FONT></SMALL>]]
:Depending on the "dicdef" in question, a soft redirect might be more appropriate than deletion. See [[Wikipedia:Soft redirect]] [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 12:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
:Most dicdefs can be expanded into full articles. You have to go through the VfD process to determine which ones don't warrant full articles. [[User:Jamesmusik|James]] 14:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I concur with James to NOT delete these short articles but rather build on them OR move them to Wiktionary as is. Maybe ask the original contributors to take it on. On a practical note, the Wiktionary doesn't seem to be very well populated or contributed to. I cannot find "disclaimer" in the Wiktionary but I CAN find it in Wikipedia. A newcomer [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]] 07:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Good dicdefs are hard to write. The person who's sufficiently careful to write one is unlikely not to have noticed that this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Ergo, a well written dicdef is likely to have been plagiarized. Well-written dicdefs are short enough to be plagiarized via typing as well as copy-and-paste. Thus the energetic and conscientious Wikipedian who suspects plagiarism and wants to zap it must be prepared to google for the suspect dicdef and then to look through numerous dictionaries. I agree that dicdefs are not candidates for speedy deletion. I wish they were. But because there are neither 30 hours in the day nor 9 days in the week, I am not going to propose this in any formal way.
Many dicdefs that are not well written are about the human naughty bits and their interaction, or other body functions. (When I was about 11 I was tremendously interested in such words myself.) Some of these are taken up and become considerably elaborated; for example, [[shit]] is now a labor (or anyway an evacuation) of love, rambling on as might an article by the "language maven" of a middlebrow US newspaper, and discussing the ''word'', not the product (for which see [[feces]]). That it has been so elaborated would I suppose be held by some as proof of its "encyclopedic" nature; I'd dispute this. Moreover, I'd dispute James' claim above that ''Most dicdefs can be expanded into full articles''. Or anyway I'd dispute the claim that most can be expanded into good, encyclopedic articles about the referents of the particular words, rather than discursive articles about the words themselves.
Some dicdefs can indeed be expanded. But I don't think this implies that they must be kept. See this sequence:
*[[Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Dehiscence|VfD/dehiscence]]: I see a dicdef that smells of copyvio, [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] locates the source; it's deleted.
*[[Dehiscence]]: What appears to be an excellent article, created after the deletion of, and independently of, its dicdef predecessor.
*[[User_talk:Hoary#dehiscence|amicable discussion of this on my user talk page]]
-- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 07:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
:good dicdefs are hardly superfluous, they are the first step towards a good article (aka stub). They don't necessarily need to be 'plagiarized' either, Webster's is in the PD, and it makes good sense to start a quick stub with a Webster's definition, and have it bloom into a full article later. Your point about shit etc. is about encyclopedicity and style, and hasn't really a connection to the 'dicdef' question at all. Vfd is about deleting ''titles'' that should never be articles. ''Content'' can always be blanked if inappropriate. There was no reason to delete dehiscence because there was a copyvio, just blank it and make it a short substub. Even if a discussion of the word ''shit'' was necessarily unencyclopedic (which I do not think), you wouldn't put [[shit]] on VfD, you would redirect it to [[feces]].
:'''''VfD is only about titles'''''
[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 08:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
::''good dicdefs ... are the first step towards a good article'': I agree that some are and that others can be, I still claim that most aren't. If you think that something is worth an article, have a bash at writing an article about it -- even a short article, but not a substub that provides info on syllabification (yes, such "articles" are merrily introduced via plagiarism). ''They don't necessarily need to be 'plagiarized' either, Webster's is in the PD, and it makes good sense to start a quick stub with a Webster's definition, and have it bloom into a full article later.'' Right, they don't have to be plagiarized, but I suggest that this way of creating an article only works with a small percentage of the articles in that old Webster. (Again: want to prove the article's worth? Then simply take the effort to transform and even minimally augment what that old Webster says.) And yes, I'd be happy to have "shit" directed to "feces", but the fans of "shit" would either be against this or would insist that the etymological and other baggage of "shit" should be carried over in a merge. I think that [[Meanie]] said something like "A mean person"; was I wrong to have [[Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Meanie|put it up for VfD]]? (Where might I have directed it?) -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 09:43, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
:::well, we have encyclopedic material on [[idiot]] and [[moron]], but it is arguable to delete meanie, of course. I'm not saying we should encourage carrying over dicdefs from Webster's, but adding these to vfd, when the article ''could'' be augmented, or redirected, needlessly clutters vfd. I would be happy to merge shit and feces, carrying over etymological information on shit to feces, I suppose that's a possibility, but it has nothing to do with vfd: either shit remains an independent article, or it becomes a redirect, vfd doesn't enter into the debate here. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 13:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
::::VfD does enter the debate: I bring it here. To carry on with the malodorous example of "shit", the etymological and other pop-linguistics stuff is, I believe, expendable. If I redirected it to "feces", I think I'd be under an obligation to merge the "information" of the former article within the latter: not doing so (simply deleting it all) could get me accused of vandalism. I could announce my intention to delete it all within the talk page of "shit", but the people thereby alerted would be disproportionately fans of that kind of article. VfD seems a reasonable option. (NB I'm not going to nominate it for VfD, because I'm sure doing so would infuriate many people and I can't be bothered to argue with them.) -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 02:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
== Using words such as "murder", "terror" or " "fascism" ==
I think we should avoid using those words on Wikipedia. Something I consider as a murder someone else could consider as a self defence, something I consider as a fascism you will consider as a nationalism and etc. I would like to read your opinion. --[[User:Haham hanuka|Haham hanuka]] 10:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
:While I do see your point, I cannot really say I agree 100%. When it comes to ''terrorism'', the definition is vague at best, but with one of the globally most used catchphrases contains this term, we could not easily dismiss it from this encyclopedia of ours. At best, we could try to limit the abuse of it; a war we've been losing from the beginning. As for ''murder'' and ''fascism'', again, it is not the use, but rather the misuse and abuse of these words that make me ''almost'' support you. However, despite the ramblings of anti-abortionists and whatever else, the word "murder" is easily and clearly defined, and should not be used outside its definition. This is also the case for the word "fascism". If people would stick to the defined meanings, rather than ''terrorizing'' everyone and screaming ''bloody murder'' whenever some ''damned fascist'' disagrees with them; we'd be much better off, and in no need to pull off suggestions like these. What about a new rule of thumb? "When in doubt, Google for definitions." Even better; "When in doubt; Wiktionary." --[[User:TVPR|TVPR]] 11:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Any word can have many potential meanings and represent many possible values. For example, "man" may be an equal to or an oppressor of women. Whether the neutral or pejorative implication comes to the foreground depends on the context. If any usage in its context fails the NPOV test, it should be removed. To identify any group of words as being more prone to pejorative connotations is not constructive. It is not the words that are at fault, it is the people who abuse them. -[[User:David91|David91]] 11:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
''[Edit conflicted, so some duplication]'' I think this depends upon context. [[John Lennon]] was murdered. [[Benito Mussolini]] promoted fascism. Where the subject argues against the label, however, NPOV requires that we acknowledge the existence of that other point of view. So the [[Mau-Mau]] were both terrorists and freedom fighters. —[[User:TheoClarke|Theo ]] [[User_talk:TheoClarke|(Talk)]] 11:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I also think that it depends on the particular word in question. If someone has been convicted in court of murder, then they are a murderer, their crime was murder and their victim was murdered. In this particular case, NPOV would not require we also present the opposing claim that, actually, it wasn't really murder, save for a documenting of any appeal etc. or a statement that they continue to claim their innocence. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 16:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
:The issue of legal proceedings is interesting. Suppose that the courts of a de jure state are condemned by the UNHCR for failing to apply consistent judicial standards. A foreign citizen is arrested, tried and convicted of an offence by a court in this country. Are there circumstances in which it would be proper to place a caveat against a report of the conviction, e.g. if the offence was of a drug-related/sexual/political nature? One view would be that regardless of the offence, a straight factual report of the conviciton is all that is allowed. That there may be generalised criticism of the judicial system at large does not imply that the particular decision is improper. But suppose that the courts of that country maintain a deterrent system relying on corporal punishment involving, say, amputation, whipping or caning in substitution for or in addition to imprisonment. Would it be appropriate to refer to reports from organisations such as Amnesty International critiquing their penal policies? In other words, the questions of neutrality are not related to the words used to describe the offence or its consequences but to the values the author(s) or reader(s) may wish to address. So, you might get very different aswers if the foreign citizen had smuggled heroin into that country and now faced the death sentence, had raped local children and faced castration, or was a newspaper reporter who had angered the local authorities by investigating a corruption scandal and faced long-term imprisonment. -[[User:David91|David91]] 19:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
::In either of these scenarios, I doubt that either anyone here or any of the authorities would be calling the entity in question "murderer". I see your points, but that's all for a completely different topic :)
::However, I think we can all pretty much agree that the words are not the problem, as already stated several times by different editors; hence, we quickly and quietly dismiss the motion to ban fascists, murderers and terrorists from mention.--[[User:TVPR|TVPR]] 22:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
*I would love to see a clearer policy on these at [[Wikipedia:Words to avoid]]. The narrative voice of the article can clearly say "Murder" when someone has been legally convicted; "fascism" clearly for the 1920s–1940s (and in a few cases, later) parties that explicitly embraced fascism, probably for the very similar parties like the Nazis, but even for Franco I think it's pushing it a bit; I think we should almost never use "terror" or "terrorism" in the narrative voice of an article (other than [[Reign of Terror]] and the like, where it is time-sanctioned, and even its advocates used the term "terror"). Understand, I have no problem with these being used with attribution—a magazine calling a government fascist, a politician condemning a head of state as a murderer, the U.S. State Department, or the European Union, or the Cuban government making a list of organizations they classify as terrorists—these are all citable and appropriate to mention. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 06:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
TVPR says, "I see your points, but that's all for a completely different topic". Well, we can agree to disagree. The principle is the same no matter what the offence. If you want to talk about murder. . . The standard definition would be intentionally causing the death of another living person whether by act or omission. In some states, it is perfectly legal to assist the death of a person who is terminally ill. In some states, it is perfectly legal to end the life of a baby when doctors deem that the quality of life will be too poor. In some states, causing the death of someone as a soldier in a war zone is murder. There are many examples of different laws defining homicide that are perfectly valid in their respective states. The issue raised is whether any conviction of murder or a dismissal of a murder charge by a court of competent jurisdiction should be commented on to preserve neutrality. For example, if an author reports that the International Criminal Court finds a British soldier guilty of a war crime because he killed someone while on active service in Iraq, would it be relevant or appropriate to refer to the fact that the USA has refused to accept this court's jurisdiction? The decision is nothing to do with the words describing the killing, but with the politics of the commentary. For the record, as of February, 2005, nearly fifty British soldiers face prosecution before the British courts for murder, assault and other offences committed in Iraq. But, if one country is too quick to applaud or criticise the policies, the laws and the court system in other countries, this may give "offence" (pun intended). The connotation of descriptive words is graded to reflect degrees of social approval or condemnation for different versions of the relevant behaviour in each culture, but cultures differ. What may be considered a horrific crime worthy of the word "murder" in one culture, may be perfectly innocent in another culture and ''vici versa''. One man's fascist is another man's progressive leader. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It is all a question of POV. If the narrative as written breaches the normal rules of NPOV, the text should be amended or removed no matter what the words used. To demonise particular words is simply to invite authors to co-opt other words to fill their place and so ''ad infinitum''. -[[User:David91|David91]] 18:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
:In response to the original point:
:#It is unnecessary to say murderer. However, it is necessary to say "convicted of murder". That is neutral, and undeniably accurate.
:#Terrorist is undeniably POV. As with all terms, we substantiate why someone is called thus, and present any significant points of view.
:#Fascist is completely neutral. The fact that it is politically loaded is none of our business. It is no different from calling someone a liberal or a conservative. It is a defined political term.
:There are no words to avoid. All that is necessary is careful consideration and wording to remain neutral. [[User:smoddy|<nowiki>[[smoddy]]</nowiki>]] 18:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I always assumed that "terrorist" is pretty well defined. Someone who engages in violence for a political goal, which is targeted at the civilian population, as opposed to military or industrial targets, with a view to break moral and pressure the government into submission. "Terrorist" and "Freedom Fighter" are not mutually exclusive, the latter refers to the goals, the former to the method. Of course in today's climate emotions on the topic run high and people are not always aware of, or respect this definition. The question is, whether we fight against the tide of people who wrongly claim that "x is a terrorist" or "x is not a terrorist" and point out that there's a (reasonably) objective definition, or whether we bow down and let opposing armies of POV-pushers wage war on every page concerning the Middle East and many others, as to who is and who isn't a terrorist. --[[User:BadSeed|BadSeed]] 08:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
== Wiktionary ==
I've never subscribed to the newsletter, but isnt there something like a daily wiki email inculding wikiquote's quote of the day, and pedia's Article of the day. Is there a Wiktionary contribution to the newsletter? If not, I've been working on [[Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Interesting new entries]], and maybe some of these can be put into the newsletter. What do you reckon? --[[User:Wonderfool|Wonderfool]] [[User talk:Wonderfool|t]][[Special:Contributions/Wonderfool|(c)]] 14:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
: I think that's a great idea. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 03:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
:: See [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article by email]] -- it appears that this might not be functional at the moment, but I also think it would be a great idea to post there. — [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine]]\<sup>[[User_talk:CatherineMunro|talk]]</sup> 04:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
== Censoring Official Policy? ==
Is it policy to censor out offensive words when they are used to make a point? An anonymous user keeps replacing expletives in the [[Bizarre (rapper)]] article with "(bleep)". What's the policy on this? -[[User:Newkai|newkai]] | [[User_talk:Newkai|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Newkai|contribs]] 16:07, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
:I usually take the view that [[WP:NOT]] censored, even for minors' benefit. You've only got to look around some of the articles where'd you expect to find e.g. potentially offensive comments to see that. Personally, I think the anon's well-meaning cleaning up should probably be reverted with an explanation on their talk page and, since they're an anon, on the article's talk too. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 16:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
::That's what I was thinking too, wanted to make sure it was right, thanks. -[[User:Newkai|newkai]] | [[User_talk:Newkai|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Newkai|contribs]] 16:38, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
:See [[Wikipedia:Profanity]]. Briefly, the words should be written in full if they are relevant. [[User:Susvolans|Susvolans]] [[User talk:Susvolans|(pigs can fly)]] 16:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
::Thanks, I was looking for that page. -[[User:Newkai|newkai]] | [[User_talk:Newkai|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Newkai|contribs]] 16:38, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
== Apply the rules of the Sandbox to '''all''' the Sanbox pages ==
Specifically, as someone pointed out in the recently concluded [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sandbox/Poetry]] debate, the various subpages of the sandbox do have a clear notice that they will be blanked every 12 hours. I propose that we simply start enforcing this. AllyUnion, when you get your bots working again, will you include the Sandbox subpages? Until then, will various Wikipedians promise to clear the pages every twelve hours. And will everybody agree not to revert the blankings (as is generally understood on the Sandbox pages that '''content there is not permanent''')? If this is enforced, I think the risks (laid out in [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/025454.html Eloquence's mailing list post]) will be significantly minimized. Comments, thoughts, etc? [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 00:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
:Actually, poetry is the only subpage that currently carries such a notice. With all due respect JesseW, I find this posting to be rather disingenuous. What you really want is a discussion of whether or not it is okay to use the sandbox (or more precisely subpages, thereof) to play [[Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess|Chess]] and [[Wikipedia:Sandbox/Game of Go|Go]] and other games. Everytime these issues come up, it seems that the people who enjoy Chess and Go and apparently poetry (which was kept as no consensus) end up winning the day. If you disagree with that then you need to build consensus around your position. But merely trying to disrupt the lives of the people using these pages by blanking them every 12 hours is a fairly inappropriate solution. Unlike the sandbox itself, which is rarely if ever managed by people that care about it, these subpages are kept in good working order by the people who use them and so there is no need to reset them on the basis of some arbitrary passage of time. The content there is still temporary, but it is removed when the people using it are done with it. Your proposal is a fairly obvious attempt to assert your POV that these uses of the sandbox are bad. And maybe they are bad, but please do make your real argument, rather than trying to stretch the rules in a way that covertly accomplishes your goals. Oh, and for the record, I think [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/025468.html Uncle Ed's solution] for creating a WikiGames wiki and killing all the games on Wikipedia is far more reasonable direction to go in. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 01:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
:: That's what I get for writing something just after the Vfd closed. ;-) Yes, that argument was behind the proposal. I hadn't checked (should have, but, see first sentence) that the other pages ''didn't'' have the Sandbox banner on them.
:: To address the real issue (which as Dragons flight correctly pointed out, is the acceptability of using Sandbox subpages for various projects not directly related to writing the encyclopedia): I think the basic question which users of these pages ought to be asked is the following: Why are these pages subpages of the Sandbox?
:: One proposed reason (given by YOu in the Poetry VfD) was that the pages were ''really'' extra Sandboxes, used for the same purposes as the main sandbox. This view leads directly to what I wrote above, i.e. that they should be blanked every 12 hours. If, as Dragons flight pointed out, this obviously doesn't make sense for most of them, that reason cannot be correct. So, what other reasons are there?
:: Looking over the reasons given in the Poetry VfD, these included: "Harmless fun", "too hard to find. [at Wikicities]", "Quit being a bunch of boring pansies. "This is an encyclopedia, blah blah blah," who cares. Quit taking life so seriously and go outside for a while, nerds. Just keep it.", "great page", "If really necessary, ... If you guys can't be bothered to keep it here". And in the [[Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Sandbox/Chess|Chess VfD]], "foster the community spirit that is the very reason why Wikipedia exists", "precedent - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chess championship", "harmless, wiki-stress relieving, community-building activities. (besides, I'm in the middle of a game right now)", "the slippery slope argument is a weak one and if/when it gets out of hand we can stop it then. Let people have their harmless fun", "Wikipedia gets too serious sometimes. There needs to be a place to have fun", "We are here for fun - one way or another - and this helps integrate the community just as real life meetings, noticeboards, mailing lists, etc.", "Probably would have voted to delete had this been entirely new (like I have done with the checkers counterpart), but this has established itself in the sandbox, is good for community building and should not be removed"
:: These reasons can be organized into a few groups: ("good or neutral", i.e. "harmless", "lots of fun", "community spirit"), "too hard to find elsewhere", "I don't want to write an encyclopedia", "established itself in the Sandbox"
:: Which of these reasons relate to the ___location of the pages in the Sandbox, which, I quote from [Wikipedia:About the Sandbox]], "is a page designed for testing and experimentation with the Wiki syntax."? Two - "too hard to find elsewhere" and "established itself in the Sandbox". The idea that a subpage of a testing page is a obvious place to find something seems like a generally terrible reason. If we want to make these pages findable, making them Sandbox subpages is a really bad way to do it. "established itself in the Sandbox" is more interesting - it seems to assume that the Sandbox is not a place "for testing and experimentation with the Wiki syntax" but a place for testing some types of new projects. I say ''some'' because most new projects (i.e. [[WikiProjects]], etc.) are simply started in-place, and are abandoned, archived or deleted if they turn out to be a bad idea. So, what sort of projects is the place "for testing and experimentation with the Wiki syntax" a test place for? And why? I did not see any answers to this in my reading over the various VfD discussions, if I missed something, please comment. Otherwise, I look forward to your comments, thoughts and discussion. This is an important issue. (And thanks, dragons flight, for catching me) [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 11:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
:::I completely agree, JesseW. The sandbox exists for one purpose, and one purpose only. Testing. Anything beyond that is quite clearly beyond the bounds of Wikipedia. I have no problems with people playing games on wikis. What I do have is a serious ethical problem with people's donations for server costs intended to building an encyclopedia going to a poetry-writing, chess-playing project. It is by no means sandbox content, and by no means good use of donors' money. This is a completely unacceptable state of affairs, and needs to be curtailed, quickly. If people cannot be persuaded to stop using sanbox subpages in this way, I suggest writing a policy for adoption by the entire community, stopping abuse of this function. [[User:smoddy|<nowiki>[[smoddy]]</nowiki>]] 11:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
::::Can't we stop biting eachothers head of over this soon? There have been several VfDs, long discussion on the mailing list and many arguments elsewhere. The consensus seems to be that as long as it doesn't escalate and it remains something that wikipedians do with eachother we should quietly alow it. Are your feelings so strong about this that either of you cannot imagine abiding by the wishes of the community? Can we please stop discussing this for now? And, to repeat an argument that has been repeated many places, "It's just some games, what harm do they do. Why don't we talk about this over a friendly game of Chess" :P [[User:Gkhan|gkhan]] 11:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
:::::Excuse me. I have never participated in such a discussion (to my knowledge), and I don't believe I am biting anyone's head off. You say ''Are your feelings so strong about this that either of you cannot imagine abiding by the wishes of the community?'' Of course not. I was not aware of any consensus. In fact, all I can see is repeated '''no consensus'''. I hereby stop talking about this. [[User:smoddy|<nowiki>[[smoddy]]</nowiki>]] 12:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::Take no offence, I certainly meant none. I wasn't aware that you hadn't been in any of the discussions, trust me that there have been quite a few. And you are correct, there is certainly no consensus, what I meant was to say that there are strong community support (I guess "consensus" has become sor tof a fnord here, hasn't it :P. Well, at least for me). And I meant the thing about abiding by the community as, well, a question :P There are several users who feel very strongly about this issue (which they have every right to do) and I was inquiring about your view. It is just that this discussion is getting ''very'' tired since it has been had so many times, with the result that most people feel that it is fine if it doesn't escalate. That is all. Now I'll shut up. Ohh, wait, one more thing, I fe...''gkhan suddenly get stricken by an unknown curse rendering him unable to write a single word more'' [[User:Gkhan|gkhan]] 14:39, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Yay! My vote at the VfD was quoted above... Anyways, (I believe) all of the Sandbox games have gone through and survived VfDs (correct me if I'm wrong...). I am highly in favor of keeping the games; view my argument [[User:Flcelloguy/Chess|here]]. However, I am also in favor of moving them to their respective Wikipedia: pages. For example, IMHO, Chess should be moved to [[Wikipedia:Chess]], Checkers to [[Wikipedia:Checkers]], etc. Any thoughts? [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>| [[User:Flcelloguy/Desk|Desk </small>]] 21:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Somewhere, somehow, we must draw a line, beneath which we do not dig. This is one of the most ancient of all human customs, perhaps the very first that distinguishes us from animals: the custom of burying the dead and ''not'' digging them up later on to see what they look like, or to find out if they are now tasty. Similarly, we bury our shit and do not reingest it or pass it around for comment.
It is not humanly possible to construct a perfect, sterile world in which people can live and work. Humans are dirty animals; we shit, we sweat, our skin falls off. There will always be dirty jokes, dirty pranks, time wasted, paperclips stolen, nudie calendars on locker doors, bigoted cartoons taped up next to the coffeepot. Perhaps these things are undesirable; perhaps it is wise to make efforts to reduce and contain them; but it is both foolish and impossible to eliminate them entirely. Thus, the Sandbox.
[[Image:Noatlas.png|right]]
I say, let the bot periodically blank all public Sandboxes -- those that are provided as a public resource. Put an end to Atlas awards -- nobody should be wasting time poking in the Sandbox looking for something he doesn't like; he will surely find it. As for any other pages with "sandbox" in its name or within that branch of the tree: nobody can possibly be there who does not wish it, so the content is of no importance to the rest of us.
Concerns that playing chess on some obscure page will load the server are flatly ridiculous and anyone expressing such should go play in the Sandbox for a week. — [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|<font color="#997749">熊</font>]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]][[Wikipedia:Deletion reform|<font color="#009900">*</font>]] 18:57, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
==Cease-fire on eras==
For those that don't know, the use of "BC" and "AD" vs. "BCE" and "CE" has become very controversial in some areas of WP. Regardless of any possible merits any which way in this, I see the level as being very unhealthy.
There is some discussion about adding this to user preferences. Whether that has actually been brought up to someone who can do something about it, or how interested a capable person would be in doing it, I don't know. Nor do I know why the people who feel most strongly about this didn't try that before.
But until and unless such a change is accomplished, I suggest a cease-fire. '''Just stop it.'''
If you add information to an article, use whatever system you please. Be courteous enough to let other people do the same. Be mature enough to let whatever is, just be.
Whatever your reasons are against the other system, it's just not that grave.
And harmony in relations among us is more important than consistency in the text, etc.
If this cease-fire draws enough support, I further suggest changing the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Eras style guide] in line with the above.
Thank you. That's the end of my soapbox for now. After giving your boos or blessings, you may return to your regularly scheduled programming. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] [[User_talk:Maurreen|(talk)]] 08:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
:I certainly would welcome an end to the dispute. The best way seems to persuade a developer to allow user preferences - and perhaps there's a friendly one out there willing to help if we ask nice enough. I'm quite happy to help note down what needs to be done to allow user preferences to work fully, but as I do not know the programming language, I'm unable to do the actual development myself (but my guess is that it wouldn't take too long if someone else had already worked out what needs doing). Just one thing though, where do we find a friendly developer that might be willing to help? [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 09:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
::In the meantime, are you willing to stop changing the style? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] [[User_talk:Maurreen|(talk)]] 10:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
::'''Yes''' I support such an armistice. "Consistency" arguments should not be brought up, ''unless'' the article in question is in the final polishing phase for FA status. Having a half-finished article feature both systems hurts no-one, and the respite we would gain would do wonders for atmosphere around here. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 10:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
::I'm not involved with this dispute(AFAIK), but I do want to put my small voice forward in support for the suggested cease-fire. [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 11:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
:::A short cooling off period would be welcome, however, I see it as quite natural that editors who have been working on a page may agree to change the page they have been working on. What we need is some kind of brake to avoid the wholesale changes by people not working on pages that we've been seeing. I doubt that there is a software fix because what is at issue is what non registered readers will see who will not have expressed a preference. [[User:Dejvid|Dejvid]] 15:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Simple solution:
*Years the sum of whose digits is odd should be expressed using BC or CE.
*Years the sum of whose digits is even should be expressed using BCE or AD.
[[User:Dpbsmith/sockpuppet|I would have to be nuts to sign this]] 15:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
:Makes more sense than the silly fighting. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 16:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I haven't particularly been involved in any controversy over this, but it does seem to be that in articles specifically related to non-Christian religions, BCE and CE should be favored on the simple basis of non-offensiveness. Outside of that, I don't really care. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 20:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
:I'm afraid that whoever agrees to that would have to agree to CE/BCE altogether, since it would follow that BC/AD implies a Christian pov, which is denied by BC/AD advocates (or at least, they will say that CE/BCE is just as pov, just in a more sneaky way, since the years are still counted from the birth-of-Jesus-as-calculated-in-the-6th-century-AD :) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 19:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
:I think the ceasefire is a good idea: after all, the recent controversy was started by a single editor applying their personal preference across a wide range of pages. Two guiding factors might be:
:*Consistency of use within an article (I've noted the difficulty when templates are involved, like [[template:alphabet]]).
:*Wholesale changes are checked on the talk page of the article: the editors of an article should have a better idea to the appropriateness of a certain style than any MoS hack.
:With this in mind there are four fuzzy categories into which articles might fall:
:#Articles to do with Christianity or loosly connected with Christian culture (for example, [[Jesus]]) → use BC/AD.
:#Articles to do with non-Christian religions or loosly connected with their culture (for example, [[Zoroaster]]) → use BCE/CE.
:#Articles to do with Christianity and one or more non-Christian religion (for example, [[Moses]]) → use BCE/CE.
:#Articles that are not sufficiently connected with any religion or its culture (for example, [[Roman Empire]]) → general preference for BC/AD due to popularity, but BCE/CE is acceptable particularly if the article is more academic in its subject matter.
: --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 21:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
::Adding my comments to a few common themes above:
#A possible software change -- No default would need to be designated. Anyone who has not chosen a preference would see what was originally typed in.
#Designating certain articles to favor one style or another -- A few similar attempts and various compromise attempts have been made, and they appear to have failed to various degrees.
#Distaste for mass reversions -- Should we develop a limit of x number of reversions per day (not counting reversions of vandalism)?
#Giving more weight to editors performing more substantial work on an article, in contrast to single-issue campaigns -- Should we develop a guideline or policy on this?
#Consistency within in an article seen as being less important than stopping or slowing the conflict.
::The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Eras style guide] now says, "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. ..."
::Should we remove or refine "but be consistent within an article"? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] [[User_talk:Maurreen|(talk)]] 22:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
The only lasting solution would be if we found a friendly developer who was willing to allow user preferences to be set so that those who want to see BCE/CE can, and those who don't select that option see BC/AD. It strikes me that it would be better to see what actually would need doing before approaching developers, and to that end I have started [[Wikipedia:User preferences for BCE/CE notation]]. Hopefully we can all work together for a solution - and then all vote for it to be added in Bugzilla (or whatever) and genuine resolution at last, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 18:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
all dates that should be configurable should link to a template, such as <nowiki>{{bce|666}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{ce|1337}}</nowiki>. I am not sure if it will be sufficient to hack the stylesheet to have these rendered according to user preference, or if it will require modification of mediawiki. issues will include:
*AD dates are usually given as pure numbers. only in cases where a period of time crosses the era boundary is it necessary to say "AD" ("CE") explicitly. This may necessitate a special <nowiki>{{ce_explicit|1337}}</nowiki>
*if the mechanism is used for other eras (e.g. render <nowiki>{{ce|622}}</nowiki> as "1/2 AH", the purpose of <nowiki>{{ce_explicit|1337}}</nowiki> will be defeated. If may be sensible to render as AH only post-622 dates, and pre-622 as CE/BCE.
*only the first occasion of a given year should be linked. This may necessitate two templates, one for linked dates, and another for unlinked ones, e.g. <nowiki>{{bce_l|666}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{ce_l|1337}}</nowiki> <nowiki>{{bce|666}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{ce|1337}}</nowiki>.
*the debate will naturally arise what format should be seen by first-time non-logged-in readers.
We can do the templates now, and restrict the revert warring to the template itself, rather than spread it out over so many articles :p
peace, [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 18:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
:As it happens, someone already ''did'' those templates. They're at [[Template:ADCE]] and [[Template:BCEBC]] and are currently on [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:ADCE and Template:BCEBC|TFD]]. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 19:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
::why on earth would they be there? they are our only hope! Although "ADCE" is taking it a bit far. I could easily live with an ''internal'' name "CE" for better manageability :) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 19:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
== Print version of Wikimedia Articles/Content ==
I'm trying to post here on Wikipedia, mainly to get some wider comment from the Wikimedia community in gereral. I could post this on the mailing lists, but I feel that I would like to get regulars who visit the Village Pump to get some comment at well.
I made a comment [[Wikipedia talk:Copyrights|on the Copyrights discussion page]], but I havn't had any response so far. This was made in reference to an even earlier discussion I had [[wikibooks:Wikibooks:Staff lounge#Disclaimer, copyright notice, and info for Print editions of Wikibooks|at the Staff Lounge on Wikibooks]]. In addition, I added a [http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2993 bug report to MediaWiki software] to help deal with some of the issues related to all of this.
The point to all of this is that I would like to give proper credit to people participating on Wikimedia projects when I do a dead-tree version of content from a Wikimedia project. This is way more than simply using the "Printable version" on the navigation section, but actual publication of material. I've come across several legal issues that havn't been dealt with so far and would like to get some more community input. Thanks in advance for any suggestions/advise that can be given. --[[User:Robert Horning|Robert Horning]] 13:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
:Um, I'd say including the history list (of usernames) might be the way to go, as that vaguely says who edited and when and how much. Of course in the case of an article with a big history that's several pages, but I assume that's the absolute safest route if you can spare the paper. IANAL of course, so it could be you could just pick the names of the chief contributors and list them... somewhere... oh and of course you need to include the full text of the [[GFDL]] (you knew that, right?) so this might turn out to be quite a tome you're printing. :) I'm not sure the application you have in mind, but I'd be tempted to throw in an introductory summary blurb thing on the inside "cover" about what Wikipedia is and how it's editable and all that sort of fun stuff. Anyway, hope that helps. :) [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Garrett]]<sup>[[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]]</sup> 14:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
::There is a script for finding the writers of an article. A German Wikipedian has the script [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32]. That might help. [[User:smoddy|<nowiki>[[smoddy]]</nowiki>]] 14:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
* The specific application I want to do is to actually publish a Wikibook (hence the reason for originally posting on Wikibooks instead of Wikipedia). I am posting here instead to try and collect some general "experience" from Wikipedians, and because there simply are more folks reading this page. The information found on the User page is totally insufficient to file a "Form TX" with the United States Copyright Office, as I need complete full legal names of each author (even anonymous and psuedonyms in the work). I'm going to try and clarify that directly with the USCO (I'm going to call them up), but before I start involving government bureaucrats I want to get our "ducks in a row" first. The actual Wikibook I want to publish is here: [[b:Wikijunior Solar System|Wikijunior Solar System]]
: I actually made an initial stab at trying to collect the content and put it together in the form of a PDF file that included all of the content of this Wikibook, added a title page, and even put in a copyright disclaimer with a list of all "authors" as determined from the history pages that I manually gathered. BTW, that kinda bites in terms of collecting the names, and trying to make sure you don't have duplicates...especially since the history only covers one book module and I have to search multiple book modules in this case. We do, BTW, also have a quick introductary blurb about Wikimedia projects and Wikijunior in particular. This comes, with the GFDL, to about 70 pages. You can download the PDF right now if you want.
: To do something similar here on Wikipedia, you might want to gather all of the articles for a similar topic (like the objects in the Solar System or classical composers, etc.) and put them together into one large book on the topic. Doing this you can even pick and choose some of the "best of..." and put them together. Another one would be a collection of the Articles of the Week for this past year. That would be something fun to hand over to a librarian in print form.
: In short, there is a serious policy discrepancy between what is required for formal copyright registration and what is typically given as contact information for Wikimedia users. I am trying to make people aware of these issues, and to try and make some limited changes to gather some of that additional information. I'm not even sure if a lone individual like myself can or should file for formal registration or if this is an activity that should be done or at least coordinated by the Wikimedia Foundation board itself. Who gets the registration certificate? If I throw the money on the line, I'm going to have it sent to my house, but it seems as though it really needs to go to Jimbo or at least the Foundation offices (such as they are). This is a legal document like a business registration and represents part the "Intellectual Property" portfolio of an organization, like a patent certificate. If the Wikimedia Foundation got into a copyright fight, these certificates would have to be presented in court. Right now there is nothing about what is required or should be done. --[[User:Robert Horning|Robert Horning]] 17:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
::A print version would, i should think, be a derivitive work which you are permitted under the GFDL to create, and thus any copyright would be yours, as would the regisration cert. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] 17:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Yes, a print version is a derivative work. You hold the copyright in the page format, for example. I was under the impression that you are no longer required to register copyright in the US, so this might help you with the bureaucrats! Your copyright only extends to those parts of the work which you yourself create: the original contributors retain the copyright to their contributions (be they text or images), but have licensend them under the GFDL. I would carefully download the histories and put them on a CD next to the copyright certificate to keep you free of any worries. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] 18:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
::::Formal registration, while not currently a part of U.S. Law (I have my personal reservations on the issue, and was required in the USA in the past for some good reasons), still gives you some certain protections in the event of copyright violations in the form of illegal mirrors and in the case of GFDL violations you have a statutory damage fine of $150,000 which you as a copyright holder can collect from the infringing party, in addition to an actual damage award. Without the filing you can only sue for actual damages and court costs. It also "certifies" that on such and such date it was guarenteed to be original material, and somebody who wants to challenge the copyright in terms of copyright violations would have to demonstrate that they published the material earlier than the formal registration. It does in this sense offer considerable protection and only for a modest fee if it is a large amount of stuff you want to copyright at the same time (like all of Wikipedia, for instance). I am obligated, however, to include all potential copyright claimants on any materials that are formally registered. That is my issue. --[[User:Robert Horning|Robert Horning]] 00:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Robert, I partially agree with your reading of the issue. Mediawiki projects in their current formulation make it difficult if not impossible to file a formal certification for the work in a way that incorporates and acknowledges all authors. In particular, you appear to be correct that under the [[Berne Convention]] on copyrights, it is necessary to identify the author's nationality (to establish which national laws apply). As you note, this information is generally unavailable for most wikimedia users. Of course, the good news is that copyright does not require registration and in fact many countries have no formal process of registration. So in the worse case you can still carefully prepare a book for publication and not go through with the registration process.
However, if you do wish to pursue registration I can offer some comments. First, it is my understanding that the Wikimedia foundation does not claim or wish to claim any copyright interest over the works submitted by users. This is a limitation of liability issue. By foreswearing any controlling interest in user products they also avoid liability should one of those products be found to be a copyright violation. Given this, I doubt they have any interest in filing a registration form. (Though you should discuss it with them.)
Secondly, as others have stated, you have every right under the GFDL to claim such a publication as a derived work. Provided your work satisfies the terms of the GFDL, I believe it is entirely legal for you to file the a copyright notice solely in your own name as author and then complete section 6 related to derivative works. This seems somewhat backward, I know, as it omits from the registration form a multitude of information regarding other contributing authors. However, it is the GFDL (and accompanying sections in the book) that will protect their interests, not the formal US registration form. Essentially this is taking the position that all of those people were authors on a previously published work from which your work is based. Under US law, the authors of that version could still file a seperate registration form, though as previously noted it is grossly impractical to do so. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 18:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
: Can you point to an "official policy statment" that covers this idea that the Foundation doesn't want to involve itself with copyright of the content itself? As far as making a "derivitive work", that may have to be the legal approach to go. I am one of the authors of the Wikibook in question, so I do have a right to claim at least my material under copyright. I do think that the statement on Wikibooks in regards to print copyrights is illegal in terms of just limiting the list of authors to just 5 people, and that is one of the policy statements that does need to change. I need to get semi-official rulings on these issues to confirm that fact, however. --[[User:Robert Horning|Robert Horning]] 00:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
== POV Conspiracy Theorists' Wikiprojects ==
I'm concerned over a few new Wikiprojects. Specifically:
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild|Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild]]
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The World Conspiracy Guild|Conspiracy: The World Conspiracy Guild]]
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The Septeber 11 2001 Conspiracy Guild|Conspiracy: The Septeber 11 2001 Conspiracy Guild]]
My concern is that these pages appear to be created with the sole intent of organizing a group of like-minded wikipedians so that they may organize and better represent their POV on Wikipedia articles. I much prefer people use talk pages to discuss articles, because on a talk page both sides of an argument can be present. However, to group people with a specific POV into a "guild," removes the debate from the public view and can lead to [[group think]].
Anyone else have thoughts on these projects?
--[[User:Quasipalm|Quasipalm]] 14:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
:I don't think you need to worry. It's one crank against the thousands of the army of Wikipedia. It won't be supported. Ignore him, and he'll go away. Don't feed the troll! Cheers, [[User:smoddy|<nowiki>[[smoddy]]</nowiki>]] 14:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
::Is it really a Guild if there is just one guy? Isn't that more of a, well, i don't know, just a dude? Like [[Wikipedi:WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy dude]] or something? Then again, maybe not..........[[User:Gkhan|gkhan]] 14:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
He is calling it a guild, but actually the user who created it is a nutbag who is the only member of his so called guild. So, as smoddy says, there is no need to worry about it. [[User:Banes|Banes]] 13:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
== Policy on use of Arabic and its transliteration ==
I've seen a few lines here and there in the [[wikipedia:manual of style|manual of style]] regarding how to use Arabic properly for personal and place names, but I haven't seen much more than is. Have I missed something, or would it be a better idea to formulate a policy on conventions for using Arabic in articles? I think it might be good to have two standards for transliteration of Arabic words (one strict, for scientific transliteration, and one conventional, for casual transliteration) alongside a policy to use customary names where they exist (that is, do not rename [[Cairo]]). Use of the Arabic definite article and i`rab would be useful to have some policy. Alongside this could be placed a more full description on how to handle Arabic names, epithets and titles, and how to use Arabic placenames (including the issue when a province and city have the same name). [[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 16:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
:a suggestion of mine is buried in talkpages, see [[Talk:Islam/Archive_4#transliteration.2C_capitalisation.2C_diacritics]]. I agree some guidelines are needed, but they will be difficult to enforce. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 16:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
:I can see that Arabic titles is a specific issue, but for the rest of it, is there a reason for singling out Arabic as opposed to writing guidelines for foriegn langauges more generally? [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 16:32, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Non-English languages in non-Latin writing systems is the issue. There is usually a scientific transliteration standard (or several, as is the case for Arabic), and then there are a number of ways in which words from that language have been introduced into English. There is already a little policy in the MoS, but it doesn't cover much and is fragmented. For example, I do like the beginning of the article [[jihad]]:
<blockquote>'''''Jihad''''' (''ǧihād'' جهاد) is an [[List of Islamic terms in Arabic|Islamic term]], from the [[Arabic language|Arabic]] root ''ǧhd'' ("to exert utmost effort, to strive, struggle"),</blockquote>
Here a customary version of the word is used alongside the scientific transliteration and the Arabic itself. Personal and place names would really benefit from standard treatment. [[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 16:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
The [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic)]] is still under construction if you'd like to help. [[User:Cedar-Guardian|CG]] 09:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
:Ah, that looks like the place I should be. Thank you. --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 10:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
== Anon User Power ==
We can probably cut vandalism 90% by curtailing anon power. I am not suggesting an all out ban on activity by those without a user account but I am tempted to sometimes. Check the [[Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress]] the overwhelming majority of serious vandals come from anon ips many who regularly use other computers when banned. Some use so many IP addresses, they are impossible to monitor. And its not about blanking pages or write cuss words in articles. The guys who have me worried are those who subtly alter a fact here or there, changing a name or date on a history page or screw around with the values on scientific or technical articles. These sort of things can rapidly destroy reputation. They're also difficult to catch. How many people are out there making these changes that we still haven't caught? I think its a lot more than most would like to admit...
[[User:Jarwulf|Jarwulf]] 19:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
This has been discussed at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Abolish anonymous users]]. [[User:Joy Stovall|Joyous ]] [[User_talk:Joy Stovall|(talk)]] 20:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
== Encyclopedia of Fictional Characters? ==
I have just begun to notice how many articles there are for contemporary fictional characters, some "famous" (e.g., [[Horatio Hornblower]]) and some less famous (e.g., [[Hanzo the Razor]]).
Is there a any policy about articles for fictional characters? Somehow these seem less objective than articles about physics or math or even fiction writers.
Is the plan to let the collection evolve and let people write about whatever they want to write about?
A newcomer [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]] 07:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
:I'm not sure that there has ever been any other policy. It's clear that fictional characters (even obviously minor characters in fiction that by most criteria is minor) are of at least as much interest to many contributors here as are real people. I occasionally get the impression that writers can't distinguish between (overt) fiction and (what is not yet refuted and can be taken as) fact; but this may just be a matter of [[Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Check_your_fiction|poor writing]]. Anyway, a sure way to raise hackles hereabouts is to suggest that this or that character in "Star Wars" or whatever doesn't need such a detailed or solemn article, or perhaps an article at all. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 07:59, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
:See [[Wikipedia:Fiction]]. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] <sup>[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</sup> 10:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
:Regarding "the plan", there are a few user-driven projects aimed at increasing Wikipedia's coverage of traditional "encyclopedic" articles, note in particular [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]]. The "collection" does evolve, people do write about whatever they want to write about, but since it is an encyclopedia projects like these develop. I don't know whether anyone's done an analysis of wikipedia's content that might answer how many articles are about fictional people and things vs. about real people and things. This might be an interesting bit of trivia, but I'm not sure it ultimately matters. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 14:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
I am ready to close this section. I like the fictional character articles and have added some myself. I am going to add something to the article [[Fictional character]]. Thanks for the helpful comments! An encouraged newcomer -- [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]]<small> | </small>[[User talk:Sitearm|Talk]] 21:58, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
== Place names in different languages ==
How extensively should the names of places in different languages be put into articles? Of course, when a place has an official name in more than one language, then all should be included, but how about unofficial names? I'm particularly thinking about place names in [[Finland]], which is a bilingual country, with both [[Finnish language|Finnish]] and [[Swedish language|Swedish]] as its official languages. Thus, there is both a Finnish and Swedish version of many place names. Usually these places are located in a bilingual [[municipalities of Finland|municipality]], in which case it is obvious that both names should be given, but how about places with 'semi-official' names in a municipality where the language is not an official one? These do exist, and most of them are widely used. I couldn't find any advice on policy pages about this. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<small>(talk)</small>]] 18:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
:I see no problem with including all the official local names, but only once, in the first sentence, and on the infobox. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 18:56, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
:: Yes, me neither, but how about the unofficial names I asked about above? - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<small>(talk)</small>]] 18:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Oh, hm. I didn't read much past "Finnish and Swedish are official languages". Eh, I see no problem with it, if someone else does they're welcome to speak up. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 19:11, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
:Per Golbez, it's definitely a good idea to include all the local names in the introductory paragraph—even where those names aren't "official", terms in common use deserve mention. Usage within the remainder of the article is might be decided on a case-by-case basis. In general, I would say use whatever name appears on the map or local highway signs, or stick with whatever form was used in the first non-stub version of the article. I'm hoping that there is sufficient common sense and good faith available out there to avoid a Gdansk/Danzig-style conflict. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 19:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
::However, I don't think this should apply to ''country'' articles. A single country can have 50 sizable (or more) languages used within it; for those, we should stick to the official. This should only be used where specifically relevant. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 22:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
:::I'm hoping it doesn't come up too much, and that common sense will prevail. I'm living in [[Toronto]] right now, and I imagine there are probably fifty languages in daily use within walking distance of my flat. Still, we have shown remarkable restraint in not adding '(also known as 多伦多)' to its article. Incidentally, we're also partly covered for multilingual issues if we include appropriate interlanguage links wherever they're available. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 01:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
== Neutral Point Of View ==
Interested to know your Zionism and Anti-Zionism pages fit in with the above policy. Interesting and knowledgeable discussion on both sides, but there is no way the articles can be considered neutral...
== Money on Wikipedia ==
I have one concern with images of banknotes on Wikipedia: that they are often far too large and present the possibility of them being used to make counterfeits -possibly attracting the attention of law enforcement agencies whether or not the currency design is copyrighted. This is similar to overly large CD covers that can be used to make bootlegs. As an example, you should see [[:Image:50 CHF.jpg]], which -I think -is far too large.
I don't think this is a major issue at this time, but I'd like to see what everyone else thinks.
[[User:AlbertR|AlbertR]] 00:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:Hm--you're right that the image certainly seems to be quite a bit larger than what we need for an encyclopedia article. I can't speak to the legality of this particular image (are there any Interpol Wikipedians reading?), but we'd probably be better off if someone slapped the word 'SPECIMEN' across it, just to cover ourselves. (See, for example, [[:Image:Switzerland1000francs1996.jpg]].) If someone ''does'' do that, it would be dandy if they could also rotate the image. 90 degrees clockwise would bring the denomination and portrait upright; 180 degrees would correctly orient the text. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 01:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
::I created a [[Template:Money-Switzerland|template]] for Swiss money based on the guidelines developed by the SNB. I think it could be useful in future policy discussions, perticularly with regard to image sizes. [[User:AlbertR|AlbertR]] 01:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
::I agree that slapping specimen on it wouldn't hurt, but I think it is silly to think that counter-feiters would come here for images of money. They can just scan the money themselves, it's not like it is a hard thing to do or anything. [[User:Gkhan|gkhan]] 06:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
:::I agree with Gkhan. But I don't see why we need to deface the images with "specimen" unless wikipedia is actually working against the law. Most currency nowdays is filled with anti-copying protections, so providing a highly detailed image is in my view fine. Plus, think of wikipedia in a 10, 20, 50, 100 year time frame... having hi-res images of current currency could be invaluable for wikipedians down the road. --[[User:Quasipalm|Quasipalm]] 13:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Forgive a technical observation but each and every design for any currency will be protected under the intellectual property and other laws of the relevant states. In many cases, reproducing a copy without consent (which might be implied if formal guidelines for reproduction are issued by the state and followed by the person posting the image) could be a criminal offence, particularly if the resolution of the scan would enable another user to make passable counterfeit copies. [[User:David91|David91]] 05:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:What is your point? Should Wikipedia not reproduce images of money for this reason? Just because of some arbitrary silly law? — [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 06:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
::Wikipedia cannot pick and choose which laws it obeys. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 13:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:::I doubt it's against the law to make an image of currency. I expect it's widely done. Further, anything by the U.S. government is generally public ___domain. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] [[User_talk:Maurreen|(talk)]] 15:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
::::Usually the paper currency should not be printed in high resolution (but high variability according the nation). Anyway it is not a copyright law problem. If a state rules in this topic, this rules have higher priority that copyright law. (i.e. you cannot copy passports of tou and other people, not because copyright law). [[User:Cate|Cate]] 15:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:As others have noted, works by the U.S. government are automatically in the public ___domain. Many governments do something similar, or place the currency design under something like [[Crown copyright]] which usually also permits non-profit or informational reproduction. Finally, I would suggest that there is a strong 'fair use' argument under U.S. law that Wikipedia should be able to display images of currency regardless of its copyright status. The big question is whether we run into non-copyright related legal issues; anti-counterfeiting statutes and the like. That question is almost certainly resolved if the currency images are either a) low resolution; or b) defaced with the word 'specimen' or 'sample'. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 15:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:May I recommend using images from the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing for all US currency. That way we know there's no possibility of there being counterfeiting issues. They have images of all of the older-style bills, the newer monochrome ones, and the color ones that have started coming out [http://moneyfactory.com/section.cfm/4 here]. [[User:Jamesmusik|James]] 16:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
European banknotes most definitely are copyright. Criminal penalties for copyright infringement in France are a fine of up to 300000 EUR and a prison sentence of up to three years (see [[French copyright law]]). Our images of euro notes are currently "fair use", which is probably no defense in France but that's another arguement. I would support a 96dpi resolution limit on banknotes (and other fair use images that might be copied for illicit purposes, such as CD covers and book covers): this is standard screen resolution, but lousy for printing. Alternatively, we could always ask the [[European Central Bank]] very nicely to release authorized GFDL images of their notes, they might say yes. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] 18:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
If someone plans on forging money then they can certainly afford to get their own $100 bill without getting a scan of wikipedia. No print from a computer is going to be close enough to actually pass it as a real note. So the "forgery argument", in my mind, holds no water. The copyright argument is correct. Really large images are right out. In my mind the scan in question is of a reasonable to size to give the reader an imression of the bill. I doubt that the European central bank will allow us to have a copy of the bill GFDL (they can't give it only to us, they would have to let everyone else have it GFDL too). I think putting specimen on the bills is silly especially since the old version will still be there (unless we delete the old version, which may have some copyright implications of its own). [[User:BrokenSegue|This link is]] [[User talk:BrokenSegue|'''B'''roken]] 03:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
:Just passing by. Intellectual Property law isn't really the point here. Please take a quick read of [http://www.wxpnews.com/index.cfm?id=145 this] article. Or click through their link to [http://www.rulesforuse.org/pub/index.php here]. then select the country you are curious about and it will tell you some relevant information. for example, if you select United States, it will inform you
::The Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, permits color illustrations of U.S. currency, provided that:
:::the illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated;
:::the illustration is one-sided; and
:::all negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use.
:Most new photocopiers have money detectors and will not let you photocopy currency. It isn't required by law yet, but there are restrictions and laws involved that have nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with making it hard for counterfeiters. I would suggest following what [http://www.moneyfactory.com/section.cfm/4 this] site does in its images of currency, and display them at 50% reduction with a low enough resolution that counterfeiting is not possible. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 13:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
== [[Monopoly strategy]] nonencyclopedic? ==
This article is more about playing the game well rather than the methodology and mathematical calculations behind the game. Therefore it's not really encyclopedic, so by rights shouldn't it be transwikied to Wikibooks? [[Official rules of Monopoly]] and [[House rules of Monopoly]] are also candidates for nonencyclopedic status (the latter moreso than the former).
For several months now I've been toying with the idea of writing a Monopoly Wikibook, but I still haven't built up the courage to write the core of the book to hold together the specialised info I've already written. But this could be just the jump-start I need.
Anyway, I came here for ''your'' opinions, not mine, so tell me what you think. :) --[[User:Master Thief Garrett|Garrett]]<sup>[[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]]</sup> 02:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, I don't think it'd survive VfD (if it's still around in 5 days) for at least three reasons. First, it reads like copyvio, has that been checked? Second, it's almost certainly original research. And third, if all else fails, it's a how-to. Not encyclopedic, IMHO. --[[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 02:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
::I'm not sure if it is a copyvio... I hope not. The text seemingly spawned on the [[Monopoly (game)]] page, but I'll have to check if it was entirely authored there to begin with or just pasted in. Extensive editing before the split could explain why its "first" revision is so good. [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Garrett]]<sup>[[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]]</sup> 03:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
::Er, it appears that [[Monopoly strategy]] was copied to Wikibooks a month ago. ''That'' version ([http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Monopoly] has been nominated for deletion on Wikibooks ([http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Votes_for_deletion#Monopoly_.28and_redirect_Monopoly_strategy_guide.29]), because it was a copy-paste insertion from (apparently) a Wikipedia mirror. If you'd like to start a Monopoly wikibook–and do it right this time–I think that would be a great project, MTG. Regardless, the strategy guide really doesn't belong here on Wikipedia. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 03:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Oh, right... :) Somehow my memory told me that was a fork of [[Monopoly (game)]]... which it isn't. [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Garrett]]<sup>[[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]]</sup> 04:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Now that's sorted, what about [[Official rules of Monopoly]] and [[House rules of Monopoly]]? I would be covering those, although in much, much greater detail, meaning it wouldn't be a meaningless fork of the content... but are they encyclopedic?
Certainly the official rules page is virtually another how-to, but the house rules may just fall within the ideal as many of these rules are very notable, and informing about common house rules is in itself potentially encyclopedic, as long as it doesn't slip over into becoming a gameplay guide for said rules. The other option is to transwiki it in its entirety and only leave a line or two in the core article. Thoughts? [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Garrett]]<sup>[[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]]</sup> 04:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:Not to keep harping on it, but if those official rules are copied right from the game's instructions, or the company's website, and I can't imagine any other way they'd get there, then I'd be worried about the copyright. Surely Parker Bros. (that's it right?) copyrights the rules. In any case, I don't see any of them as particularly encyclopedic here. What we would want is one article where both would be merged to about the [[rules of Monopoly]] (that's ''about'' the rules, not just the text of them) including merely summaries of the lists of rules on both pages. At Wikibooks, however, I think both would belong, if copyrightably possible that is. --[[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 04:55, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
::LOL! Remember to [[meta:Avoid Copyright Paranoia|Avoid Copyright Paranoia]]! :) The rules have been summarised and rewritten as far as I can tell--or, at least, differently worded to the rules I have in my own set.
::As for the ''concepts'' therein being copyrighted, in this odd case they're not. Due to complicated circumstances, the core rules of Monopoly (except the trademark) are now as-such public ___domain. That's the gist of it anyway. :)
::Anyway what I think I'll do is simply transwiki all three for now and then at some later date write a united rules article like what you've suggested. For now some cross-links to the Wikibooks versions will suffice, and will function exactly the same as the current content. [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Garrett]]<sup>[[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]]</sup> 05:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I do not understand how [[Monopoly]] game rules are "not encyclopedic"? The articles for [[Poker]] and [[Backgammon]] contain equally detailed game rules. [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]] 06:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:Um, well those rule sets are in the same article, therefore are part of it. Much as the separated Harry Potter synopsis was thought by many to be unencyclopedic largely ''because it was separate'', this too once separated from its parent seems less fitting. Regardless, you can now find the pages at [[b:Monopoly]]. I haven't deleted the official rules from here yet as I'm thinking they could still be saved by being more ''about'' what the rules do (and don't!) cover, and less of a "print this off as replacement instructions" sort of feel. See what you think. [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Garrett]]<sup>[[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]]</sup> 09:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I thought initially you were saying game rules shouldn't be posted at all. Are you saying game rules are ok in Wikipedia if they're in a larger context article, but they're not ok in standalone article and should be put somewhere else, e.g., Wikibooks? I'm just a little confused reading over some of these policy discussions about what does and doesn't go into Wikipedia articles because I've found so many unusual things that DO go in (e.g., elaborate histories of fictional characters in literature and web comics). A confused but still intrigued newcomer who appreciates your patience [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]] 07:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
:Well, basically yes, that they should be together if possible, and if not they should be reduced and/or deleted/transwikied. The idea of an encyclopedia article is to be all-encompassing on that topic, unless the topic is noteworthy and wordy enough to be multiple, but even then there are only as many separate pages made as necessary. As for the fictional characters, there are some users here who would gladly throw themselves in front of dumptrucks if it would save fictional characters from the chopping block. Their encyclopedic value is often questionable, but there's nothing you can do about fictional characters. Oh, and schools... don't ''ever'' try to Vfd a single-line 12-Googles school article or they'll jump all over you, heheheh... Anyway, hope that explains things. :) [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Garrett]]<sup>[[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]]</sup> 09:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style#Template:TOCright]] ==
A proposed change to the Manual of Style to standarize the use of floating Tables of Contents was proposed after a vote to keep <nowiki>{{TOCright}}</nowiki> in [[WP:TFD|TFD]], and has been up for voting for a while now. However, few votes have been casted, and more are required to check if there really is a consensus. Please look at the discussion on that page and vote. --[[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]] 02:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
== Order of links to other Wikipedia languages ==
Hi,
Is there some sort of policy regarding the order of the links to other Wikipedia langauges? I noticed someone had moved the link I added to fit alphabeticlly among the other links.. [[User:Yonidebest|Yonidebest]] 21:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:Off the top of my head I can't think of a specific policy regarding the interlanguage wikilinks, but putting them in alphabetical order would seem to make sense—it allows other editors to readily find the links to a particular language wiki. (If an editor wants to verify that a link points to the correct article, or change its target, or just verify that a link exists.) I would ''recommend'' inserting new links in alphabetical order, but if you don't then someone else will probably get around to it eventually. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 21:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:I believe the various interwiki bots order the links alphabetically by prefix. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 22:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:There is no ''policy''. However, standard practice is alphabetically by language code. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 22:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
::Usual practice ''on English wikipedia'' is alphabetically by language name ''in that language''! It's not easy for a newcomer, especially with non-latin scripts, check with an article with lots of interwiki links to find the order. Other wikis have other practices: ''e.g.'' [[:hu:|Hungarian wikipedia]] insists on English first, then alphabetically by code. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] 23:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:I should clarify my comment—alphabetically ''by language code'' would seem to be the easiest to work with. Trying to sort by the English language word for the language strikes me as potentially very confusing for non-native English speakers. Heck, I wouldn't know off the top of my head that ca: was for Catalan. (What? There's no Canadian-language wiki?) Maybe we ''should'' have a policy. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 23:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
::I do often find that the order of these link are by the name of the language. If fact, it seems that most of the links I encountered were ordered this way. i.e. in my case - ''he'' (Hebrew) would be right after ''it'' (Italian), since ''he'' is pronounced ''Ivrit'' in English. I do think you need some kind of policy. Perhaps it would be best to decide on the easiest order (''by language code'') and to write a bot that will change the orderes as decided. [[User:Yonidebest|Yonidebest]] 07:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
== Neutral Wikipedia? ==
Dear all
I am writting about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Wikipedia calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia.
I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Wikipedia is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.
From the text in Wikipedia most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Wikipedia says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction.
My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Wikipedia is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Wikipedia.
I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts.
Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Wikipedia, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia.
This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Wikipedia?
Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Wikipedia says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs.
Fact 3. Wikipedia says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia?
If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!!
Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess.
But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it?
Fact 5. Wikipedia says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians.
Fact 6. Wikipedia ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family.
How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there?
Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito.
Fact 8. Wikipedia claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.
All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Wikipedia wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.
Many things in Wikipedia are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Wikipedia simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.
I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country.
Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians).
Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled).
Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Wikipedia says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors).
Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)
And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians.
If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed.
Wikipedia claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims.
Neurtal Wikipedia? I do not think so.
At the end I have to ask for Wikipedia NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web.
There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia.
The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Wikipedia takes a part in all that.
With all the respect,
Igor Šterbinski
Skopje, Macedonia
is@on.net.mk
Good criticism like this is hard to come by! Can we sort this out? [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 03:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:I concur. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 03:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, and I wonder if maybe someone with some experience in this could take a look at this? — [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="color:gray;">Ilγαηερ</span>]] [[User talk:Ilyanep|<span style="color: #333333;">(Tαlκ)</span>'']] 04:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
----
ALL the Macedonian history (the one that the Macedonians, the one that Wikipedia calls Macedonian Slavs) before the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Greek history. I am talking mostly about the Antient Macedonia. I do not claim that Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs in Wikipedia) have the exclusive right to this history. But, Greece can not have that right eighter. It is a history that this region shares and both, we (Macedonians) and Greeks have a part of our origin from those people.
In the same time ALL the Macedonian history after the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Bulgarian history. I am talking about the Wikipedia claims that in the 9th century the Macedonian Slavs got Bulgarized or assimilated by Greece, that in the 10th century Macedonia become a center of Bulgaria (which is not truth, because there are 1000s of hard proves and writtings found in Ohrid denying the Bulgarian claims), the tzar Samoil kingdom (which was everything than Bulgarian, because he had several fights with them and won in all and you can find again 1000s of proves in his fortress in Ohrod), then the Macedonian Ohrid Archbishopry which was clearly Macedonian and everything else than Bulgarian, with dressings and crowns with a completely different stile than the Bulgarian ones. Later Wikipedia claims that after 1018th Byzantine Empire makes Macedonia a Bulgarian province, but it doesn't say the reason for it (the Bulgarians were fighting at his side, so this was his reward towards them, something that will happen in the WW2, when the biggest part of Macedonia will be given to Bulgaria by the Germans. 3 of 4 sons of Samoil were actually latter killed by pro-Bulgarians Another reason is the wish of Vasili II to make a revenge towars Samoil and his people, with denying them, something that Wikipedia does NOW). Then, Wikipedia claims that the Ottoman Empire was seeing us as Bulgarians, which is completely not truth. You have incredible written archives in Turkish museums for this, so you can make a search by your own. All the Macedonian uprisings were characterised as Macedonians. Even the after-capture execution of the leaders was taking place in Skopje, the biggest town in the teritory of Macedonia and not in Sofija, which was the Bulgarian biggest town.
Wikipedia says that the following Macedonian history is Bulgarian: IMRO, Ilinden Uprising in Krusevo (where the only newspapers that write about it as Bulgarian uprising are the ones who didn't have their Journalists in the region and were using the Bulgarian sources, which in that time was already liberated, who wanted to show the uprising as their own. Why you don't read some Russian sources which have their journalists in Krusevo and Bitola at the time? Some of the grand sons and grand daughters of the revolutioners are still alive, so you might ask them what their grand-fathers were fighting for. The Krusevo Manifesto says that their goal is FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia. Why would their form their own Republic, if they wanted to be part of Bulgaria? All Wikipedia claims simply have no sence), Goce Delchev and the other revolutioners (NOTE: Goce Delchevs nephews which are still alive all spent half of their life proving Goce Delchev's belongding to the Macedonian nation. NOTE 2: Why would he fight for Macedonia's independence if he was Bulgarian? If he was Bulgarian, wouldn't he fight for unification of Macedonia and Bulgaria? Why was he betrayed by a Bulgarian, which resultet in his death in Banica 1903rd? You are corupting our biggest revolutioner, something that we keep as a saint). Wikipedia says that the "St Cyril and Methodius" high school in Solun, where Delchev studied was Bulgarian. How come, when no Bulgarians were living in Solun?...
A prove for the Bulgarian, Serb and Greek ambitions to assimilate the Macedonians and take their teritory is the deals and fights they had in the both Balcan wars. They were all exterminating the Macedonians, burning their houses and grabbing their lands, but Wikipedia completely ignores all that. I (and many more) have a living family members who were witnesses of that time.
Then, the WW2, when 2/3 of Macedonia was given to Bulgaria by the Germans. Why the hell 100000 Macedonians were fighting against the Bugarians? 25000 died in that war, again many members of my family. And Wikipedia says that we have Bulgarian origin. Why they didn't fight at the Bulgarian side if that was the case?
Wikipedia later claims that our country (Republic of Macedonia) was given to us by Tito. What a lie!!! As I said 100000 Macedonians were fighting for freedom. If Tito made us be under the Serbs again, that wouldn't be freedom and 100000 heavily armed Macedonians would continue fighting for it. Even my 94 year old grand-father, who took a part in the WW2 fighting for the partizans, and who was looking at Tito as a saint agrees with this, that he wouldn't rest till he saw Macedonia free.
Wikipedia even denies the exodus of 250 000 Macedonians from Greece, saying they were running away by their own. Who the hell will leave his house and land if he was not forced to? My other grand father's house was burned and he was shoot at in order to make him leave his hometown.
On some places Wikipedia says that this 'Bulgarian part' of the history might be Macedonian, but that is very well hidden so it even can hardly be noticed.
On the other hand, Wikipedia says that 'In 2000 several teenagers threw smoke bombs at the conference of pro-Bulgarian organisation 'Radko' in Skopje causing panic and confusion among the delegates'. Yes, that is completely truth. But in 1000s of years, you find one incident that we caused against the Bulgarians and you wrote it. What about centuries of incidents, murders, wars, assimilation made by the Bulgarians towards the Macedonians? What about the fact that Bulgaria and Greece do not allow the Macedonian parties in those countries to register and take a part in the ellections? This is something that was taken even to the European court. HOW CAN WIKIPEDIA IGNORE THIS???
BTW, Radko had just about 50 delegates and members. Most of them born in Bulgaria and moved latter in their life in Macedonia.
In this case, Wikipedia is only a tool in the Bulgarian and Greek propaganda of denying and stealing the Macedonian history, culture and existance. Just search the internet and you will see that this kind of 'history' can ONLY be found on pro-Bulgarian and pro-Greek web sites.
I am a living prove of the existance of the Macedonian nation. And that is not because I was told so by Tito. Macedonians were Macedonians far far before Tito. That is a fact that NOONE can change.
How dare you deny everything what I am? How dare you to deny 1000s of killed people, who gave their lives for FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia?
Senceirly,
Igor Šterbinski
Skopje, Macedonia
----
----
JUST SEARCH THE WEB, YOU CAN SEE HOW WRONG WIKIPEDIA IS!!! ONLY THE PRO-BULGARIAN AND PRO-GREEK SITES HAVE THE SAME CLAIMS AS WIKIPEDIA. MOST OF THEM ARE ONLY CLAIMS THAT ARE CONFIRMED BY FALSIFICATED LETTERS. The TURKISH WERE SUPERIOR AT THAT TIME AND ARE A NEUTRAL SIDE. AND FAR BIGGER PART OF THEM IDENTIFY THE MACEDONIANS AS SEPARATE NATION, MACEDONIANS.
WIKIPEDIA IS NEUTRAL??? I DO NOT THINK SO!!!
----
----
:Igor, I think you have many valid points, however, people will not listen if you get angry, at least your post above sounds angry to me. A lot of your problem is that many people are unaware of the issues on these pages. I don't follow politics that closely and I'm not aware of the issues and have never seen those pages. It seems there are a lot of issues. May be we should tackle them one at a time. You peeked my interest in the Y chromosome analysis. Do you have a sources that would bring people up to speed?
:Your complaint of the 'at least 20' seems harsh. While the number is low the author clearly wrote the 'at least' because they were not clear about the exact number. Again if you have source material then your arguments will not be disputed by any rational person. You are fighting our (mine at least) ignorance of the politics in your home country. You have started to educate us, please be patient. [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 15:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
::You are completely right. I was mad, I still am. I would just like to ask you if you can put yourself in my possition and possition of the other Macedonians.
::I just visited the Bulgarian Wikipedia. I have to be honest that I didn't understand well, but I could notice many places where the word Macedonian is simply changed with Bulgarian.
::Yes, there are some actual researches about the HLA genes of the Macedonians and Greeks. Just, I didn't gave you any link, because that research include Spanish, Portugeese... and between them Macedonian scientists. It is officially publicated and accepted research, but it is the first one in the field.
::This technique is possible only in the last couple of years. It is expected many researches like this still to come, and the techniques are getting more and more advanced.
::So, to keep the Wikipedia's neutrality, I wanted to wait till several researches like this appear. That is why I didn't talk about that research and I talked about the researches that are going to happen in future, which will be much more advanced, using newer techniques. Anyway, for those who are interested, here is a link of the research:
::www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf
::Another links can be found with google:
::http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=HLA+genes+macedonia&btnG=Search
::BTW, I already noticed some possitive changes in Wikipedia. When I say possitive, I am talking for Wikipedia's neutrality, not for my point of view. They are few, but encouraging. Anyway, there are many more that should be worked on.
::About the number of countries that recognized Macedonia under its constitutional name, I only got an oral information few days ago from our Ministery for External affairs (www.mnr.gov.mk). I asked for written information, but it will take longer. As soon as I get it, I will post it here.
::::Thanks I'll look at the links. [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 01:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
:::dear Macedonian friend,
:::David D. wrote "people will not listen if you get angry, at least your post above sounds angry to me." Wrong. I listen. I am a person.
:::It is very typical of Americans and other residents of wealthy nations, when confronted in the Internet with information they were not ready to accept, to refuse to respond to the information, but instead to respond to how it was said, who said it, what their motives were, or anything else other than the information itself.
:::I regret that people used Wikipedia to advance the rhetoric of genocide against you and other Macedonians. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is rife with such imperialistic mythology. A band of thugs who bases their Wikipedia reputation on plagiarizing their college text books makes it a routine to peruse the site and raise trouble for anyone who speaks with original knowledge on topics these collegiate thugs know nothing about. Wikipedia's philosophy, as cobbled together by the founders, is that it is okay to publish false information, because someday, somebody might come along and correct it. So what if they write you out of history for a while, Wikipedia advocates would say. It might get fixed later, and if it doesn't you're not that important anyway.
:::Wikipedia is as racist as are the people who created it. Trying to correct their racism by systematically correcting disinformation is a noble cause, but the problem is much deeper. These people don't care about facts, about history or about accuracy. They care about seeing their words appear on the Internet and seeing their scalp-cloth of trophies grow long with names of stories they contributed to or outright stole from copyrighted sources. No doubt the misinformation in Wikipedia you are attempting to correct was stolen from another source. You would do well to locate that source, then to expose Wikipedia for yet another flagrant violation of national and International copyright laws. [[User:172.191.154.17|172.191.154.17]] 09:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
::::Anon [[User:172.191.154.17]] has quote me above:
::::Quote
::::David D. wrote "people will not listen if you get angry, at least your post above sounds angry to me." Wrong. I listen. I am a person.
::::It is very typical of Americans and other residents of wealthy nations, when confronted in the Internet with information they were not ready to accept, to refuse to respond to the information, but instead to respond to how it was said, who said it, what their motives were, or anything else other than the information itself.
::::END Quote
::::It is not a case of if am I ready to accept the information. At the moment, I am ignorant of the information. Unless one is well informed on the topic, how can you tell the difference between hearsay and fact? An obvious route would be to present your case in a manner that Hoary describes below. Instead you rant and rave and wonder why everyone sits back and thinks you're another net loon. Calm and reasoned arguments will always prevail. If you have a strong argument then calm down and start teaching us. Shout all you want but it will never be effective. [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 23:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
----
:I do not want Wikipedia to write my POV. All this what I wrote here up is to inform you that there is another POV that Wikipedia should not ignore. Just search the web about this issue. You will find 3 different POVs, Macedonian, Greek and Bulgarian.
The problem is that Wikipedia ignores completely the Macedonian POV and promotes the Bulgarian and Greek POV. Why is that?
I don't want Wikipedia to support Macedonian POV. No way. I just want Wikipedia to stop supporting the anti-Macedonian POVs (but to keep them as information) and to include the Macedonian POV (as information too). I repeat, as information, without taking sides in this issue.
Just to give you a hint of how serious is this. Bulgarian and Greek POVs are to ignore the Macedonian nation. I am here, I exist and I am Macedonian. And Wikipedia supports these POVS and says that I (as Macedonian, or [[Macedonian Slav]] like Wikipedia is treating us, no matter is offensive for us) am a artificial creation of Tito and I don't exist. How would you feel? Would you like to be in my position?
----
Thanks for the support. You won't beleive what all I could read here. Wikipedia is some kind of 'internet [[holocaust]]' against the Macedonians. We are completely ignored and presented as creation of Tito. Nonsence.
For days I am trying to edit the bullshit that can be found here, very neutrally. I never erased anything, I just added that there is a Macedonian POV. The Wikipedia administrators simply erased it and kept only the Bulgarian and Greek nationalistic POV, which is domplete denying of all the Macedonian history till 1945th. We are even called Macedonian Slavs. It is truth, we are mostly Slavic. But they completely ignore any conection we have with the Antique Macedonians. And that is not all. All our history after the 6th century, fights for independence, culture and church was presented as a part of the Bulgarian history.
I won't waste my time on edits here on Wikipedia that will latter be erased. I will transfer the battlefield somewhere else.
Wikipedia publically claims its neutrality. But, obviously, it is ignoring 2,5 million people and stealing their history, culture and identity. So, this is a classic case of breaking the basic humman rights of the 2,5 million Macedonians around the globe.
I am quite familiar with this because I am highly involved in politics and I am a member of 2 international human rights organizations, which are quite powerful. My political party (the biggest one in Macedonia with great conections in the world) will be glad to get Wikipedia in front of the International Human rights court. Let's see how will they feel when they become an issue in the world press for breaking human rights.
I have to fight againt assimilation of my nation. We constantly experience this for centuries and I am not planning to stand at the side and watch. If no one wants to hear me now, they would be forced to.
Again thank you for your support
Best regards,
I_sterbinski ''... posted at 04:59, August 6, 2005 by [[User:62.162.197.128|62.162.197.128]]''
:You make some interesting points, but you also say ''I won't waste my time on edits here on Wikipedia that will latter be erased. I will transfer the battlefield somewhere else. . . . My political party (the biggest one in Macedonia with great conections in the world) will be glad to get Wikipedia in front of the International Human rights court. Let's see how will they feel when they become an issue in the world press for breaking human rights.'' I'll pay you the respect of taking what you say seriously. If you're really not interested in editing Wikipedia, then don't edit Wikipedia. If you want to take legal action against Wikipedia, then do so.
:But if this really is what you want to do, then why write it here? One possibility is that you're presenting this as a threat: "Let me edit as I want, or you'll be in trouble." But threats (intended or perceived) are never persuasive. (Moreover, talking of your great connections in the world makes you appear like an AM radio blowhard.)
:So make your mind up. Either (a) edit, and avoid anything looking like a threat or rant, or (b) don't edit, and pursue justice (as you see it) via other channels. If you choose (a), I suggest that you start a new section on this page titled something like "Bias in [[Macedonia]] and related articles", and present your case as cogently and tersely as possible: no arm-waving, no threats, no ranting. I'd happily read it and consider what it said with an open mind. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 05:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
----
OK, here is my answer. For the last few days I keep editing the Macedonia page, very, very neutrally. I even wrote some things that are deffinitly not in favor of me, as a Macedonian.
And, every single time my edit was erased and the old version of the text still stays. I asked anyone who wants to change my edit to contact me and discuss about it. NOONE did, but my edit was still erased. Let me repeat that this is going on for days.
I registered at Wikipedia with a hope that I will take a part of its editing. But, it looks like that I am wasting my time because all my edits that I worked for hours are simply erased. And, let me repeat again that I was not editing according to my POV. I was keeping it neutral 100%.
(If you would like to see my edit, check the Macedonia page on Wikipedia several times, so maybe you will reach it in the moment when my edits are on. You would recognise my edit because instead of the word "controversially", has the words "disputed by Greece" at the beggining of the text, next to [[Republic of Macedonia]])
Another thing. I did not ment to threat anyone. If I wanted to do so, I would send that message directly to the administrators and the other people involved in Wikipedia since its beggining.
I just expressed my deep dissapointment from Wikipedia and my anger of its assimilation supports. As a Human rights worker and politician, I will do everything I can to present what Wikipedia is doing to the Macedonian nation (denying it and ignoring it, promoting lies and assimilation point of view).
Putting this so called 'threats' was ment to show at least to some people that assimilation of a specific ethnicity is very serious political and social issue and breaking of the basic human rights.
I do not have some tremendous conections around the world. But I know where to present this issue to make it as public as possible. And, as a human rights worker, I am very familiar with this issues and It is more than obvious that Wikipedia (as a information media) is breaking the basic human rights of more than 2.5 million people.
As a human rights worker is my obligation to react on this. Beeing a Macedonian just makes it more personal.
It is pitty that you are more concerned about what I write here than about the lies that Wikipedia is promoting. This is just one example. I already was informed that I am not the first one who is accusing Wikipedia for breaking Human rights in one of the Human rights organizations I am working in, on a completely different issue. So, Macedonia is not the only example of this weakness Wikipedia has. Too bad that noone of you involved here cares enought to try fix this weakness. Not just about the Macedonia issue. All issues that there are complaints about.
:[[User:I sterbinski|I sterbinski]] 03:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
----
== Deletion of VfD ==
There are two discussions, and a vote going on related to the VfD process:
*An RFC about the deletion of the VfD page (since undeleted): [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD]].
*A vote on the deletion of the VfD page: [[Wikipedia:Requests for deletion]].
[[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|☎]] 05:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
== adding related info ==
Thanks for your service
I noted that there it to date no discussion added to James Tobin entry.
I am wondering how to approach you to link our idea on a new global tax similar to the Tobin Tax. Can it be linked to the Tobin entry? Or can we have an entry in the wikipedia, even though we are not historical, famous or dead?
Attached below to give you an idea, Thanks, Ian Greenwood
Subject: anything to environment? could our new idea reduce tax? Is it more politically do-able than the tobin tax?
How can international trade (where much of the profit ends up untaxed 'off-shore') be made to pay something to the environment (climate change etc) and made to pay something to rectify trade injustice? After all, when all the resources have been stripped out from poor countries by our Western nations, what do we do then? And how can sea level rise be stemmed, when Greenland ice currently melting adds 7 metres to levels, Antarctic ice about 50 m? Much of our most productive agricultural and developed land is at or near sea level and is at risk, globally.
Our proposal below is aimed to slow this process and using excise systems, return more to the environment/education of the recipient nation (of the trade) and an equal share direct to the supplier nation's climate change avoidance/environment/education projects.
Can anyone help me with a comment, by forwarding the message on to others, or by contributing to devise a simple way of calculating the exchange rate advantage and how this could be simply applied?
Ian@steerglobal.org I will post constructive replies on the blog/website we have under construction
Could this be the breakthrough idea to assist the pan-pacific climate change initiative to get the action we need soon enough, as well as help towards Kyoto targets that we are manifestly failing to achieve? That is, release enough funds for renewable energy, not just for the USA Europe and Asia, but also 'developing'/'under-developed' nations who also contribute to global warming and deforestation/desertification by burning timber?
Otherwise it seems we all get tax rises, and future shortages of resources. Instead, our proposal, if adopted, would take a little from the off-shore profits and not necessarily lead to price rises since the market already sets prices to that which the market will stand. An outline is below and attached as a slightly longer 2 page version:
A new idea for a structural adjustment to trade:
Connecting climate change, trade justice and EU unemployment.
Aims
To show how a new economic term could be used. Using this to promote a fund for renewable energy (etc.) returning a chunk to the poorest parts of the world, reducing their need to depend on debt/‘aid’. To slow our rate of “off-shoring”.
This should be of widespread interest, because increased funding for rail and other sustainable transport would reduce congestion, pollution and climate change. Additionally, business would be able to seize the opportunity to accelerate provision of renewable energy and implement other solutions to the climate change problem.
By splitting the proposed fund in half- both halves to be direct to projects enhancing environmental sustainability- the rich and powerful nations get an environmental benefit that is politically popular, against climate change; the poorest nations get a much greater benefit direct to their environmental sustainability projects (addressing their technological deficit) reducing their emissions and the resulting inevitable sea level rise. Could these problems be solved using the advantage that powerful traders have?
Our proposal uses the currency exchange rate advantage that traders and tourists have used for centuries. There is a need to clearly identify this advantage between the two trading partners that is contributing to unfair trade. Part could be put into a new fund, collected by the existing excise system. If 50% of the advantage were used, this could be up to 12% of the final price as an environmental levy, 6% to each region. The fund could then be distributed as described above, direct to projects, half in the 'rich' trading nation and half in the 'poor' supplying nation, where it buys more because of the same currency exchange rate advantage. If some of the fund were also used to plan resource consumption this would protect future generations, education could be devised against needless growth in cargo traffic and the pursuit of quick profits, many of which go off-shore.
The difficulty of collecting tax from those using trusts and off-shore accounts has been testing governments facing reducing revenues (in real terms) for many years (Observer 27-03-05: $255 billion p.a. tax loss). To change the global tax-gathering system like this could enhance security in several senses, but it would not cause a sudden shock to the economic system, nor immediately affect production. Rather it could reduce political and economic tensions between countries over such things as rapid re-___location of jobs (loss of trade skills) and climate change (water shortages etc). It could be win-win for rich and poor in terms of enhancing peace, reducing congestion, pollution and sea level rise. The environmental need has been highlighted in discussions on the recent EU budget crisis (Newsnight BBC1 21/06/05). An opportunity could exist for the WTO or EU/USA to link the climate change need to the trade injustice issue and generate environmental economy.
Ian Greenwood +44 121 449 0278
:Your idea seems worth considering, at the least. However, Wikipedia has a policy, located at [[Wikipedia:No original research]] that new theories and ideas like your tax should not be suggested first on Wikipedia. Instead, they should be proposed elsewhere. Wikipedia describes them when they become generally known. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 06:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
== Why a separate dictionary but not a separate atlas? ==
I read the policy that definitions don't go in Wikipedia but instead in Wiktionary.
I don't understand why the dictionary is separate. It makes readers and editors look in different locations and (I believe) reduces usage and growth.
Why not have a disambiguation page to point people to definition vs. article where both are present? Then everything can be looked up (or edited/contributed) while in the encyclopedia.
I have read a lot of articles about cities, states, and countries in Wikipedia. But they are NOT in a separate Wikipedia Atlas, nor would I wish them to be.
A curious newcomer [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]] 06:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:In my view, because they provide different focuses. An encyclopedia article focuses on the concept behind the topic, and uses its title only as a reference. A definition focuses on the word itself; it's history, meaning, translation, antonyms, and such. Hence, exact synonyms would have separate articles, unlike Wikipedia topics. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 07:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:I think you have a [[false dichotomy]] here. Dictionary definitions are not included because they are not ''encyclopedic''. That is, information that is about specific words' usage and etymology is not what we're after. However information that's about the ''thing'', people or ideas, etc. is. That's what cities and countries are, notable, encyclopedic subjects. Saying why do we have them here is like saying why do we have so many authors or Nintendo products; all are simply encyclopedic topics that deserve mention. The proper dichitomy is that we don't have definitions for the same reasons we don't have how-tos and source material. It's simply not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of data, and there's no more reason to include definitions than entire phone books, and census data, and astronomical records. --[[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 07:21, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Ok I'm reading [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] and what it seems to object to is "an article that is nothing more than a definition". But it doesn't say, delete it, it says "see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia". I see many words as worthy encyclopedic subjects, for example, "[[Ms.]]". New words and new uses of old words are added to contemporary society frequently. Some are registered copyrights and trademarks [[Dune (novel)]] vs. [[Dune]] {geography). I don't have a problem with shunting pure definitions off to Wiktionary, just with deleting them as not article-worthy. But I still have a concern that splitting off "special" topic wikis means they won't get traffic because new readers and potential contributors won't go there as easily and because the distinction is off-putting (get it right or we'll delete you!). A concerned newcomer [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]] 15:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
: I'm ready to close this section. Reviewing "[[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Can_dicdefs_be_speedy_deleted.3F|dicdef]]", I conclude that the distinction of Wikipedia vs. Wiktionary is a work in progress. As a personal policy, I prefer inclusion where there is a chance for useful information to be expanded. -- [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]]<small> | </small>[[User talk:Sitearm|Talk]] 21:46, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
==Image Tagging==
I propose that a separate form field for image tags be added to the upload page. If it is not filled out, the upload should not go through. If it is, the text inside should become the image tag. See [[Wikipedia_talk:Untagged_images#Round_3]] for details. If you've been working on the untagged images, you know this is no joke. Please give this proposal serious consideration. I know it requires developer work but I think it is worth it. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 07:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree and would go one step further.
:* We should have an image tag drop down selection box
:* We should require that all images fit into at least one category. This could be accomplished by adding a "category:" text box that is required. Of course, people could add additional categories in the main text box.
:So many images right now are floating into oblivion because they aren't added to any categories, pages, or anything else, which makes them useless. --[[User:Quasipalm|Quasipalm]] 19:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
::I like the drop down box, though the implementation will take work(someone will have to change it manually whenever [[WP:ICT]] changes). I don't think the categorization is necessary. One thing, if we're having a drop-down put up a page that says, "You selected <nowiki>{{GFDL}}</nowiki>. By continuing you swear or affirm that to the best of your knowledge GFDL is the accurate legal status of this image, or you have the legal right to make the image GFDL." It's harsh, but that way they can't just select random tags. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:Doesn't Commons have a system where you have to fill in an ICT field to upload your image? This is not a foolproof as a drop-down box, but it's better than at present. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] 20:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
::No, it does not. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:People, on average, do not understand copyright. By forcing them to fill in the field, they will insert something that "sounds good" but is likely to be incorrect. Images that are uploaded without copyright information are likely unusable on Wikipedia. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 21:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
::Yes, it is definately a good idea, but ''forcing'' the addition of a tag is going to create the problem of incorrect tags, maybe we could say "did you take create picture yes/no" yes = tag with gfdl, no = dialogue for more specific details, including "if you dont know what tag to put then explain where the image is from". [[User:Bluemoose|Martin (Bluemoose)]] 22:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
::I guess that could be an okay compromise. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 04:16, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
::I agree with the "did you take create picture yes/no" yes = tag with gfdl, no = dialogue for more specific details, including "if you don't know what tag to put then explain where the image is from". The last part is very important. I am finding that most users don't know about tagging and respecting copyrights. If they write where it comes from, it could go into a pool like [[Wikipedia:Untagged Images]] where an experienced user looks where it came from and then can tag it or delete it. The extra box draws attention to the problem because people see it. I know it says to write where you got the image from on the upload page, but the instructions are very long. Most people don't bother to read that. --[[User:Michael180|michael180]] 14:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:::All right. I'm going to refer this to [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)|technical]] and see if they'll implement it. If you have any issues with the ways I'm presenting the solution to them, please raise them soon. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 19:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
== Where is the "no how to's" policy? ==
I have read that there is a policy not to have "how to" articles in Wikipedia but I do not see this in [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]. But I do see many "how to" articles in Wikipedia. How to make [[Basic oxygen steelmaking|Steel]], how to play [[Draw poker|Poker]], how to do [[Home repair]]. What is the objection to including "how to" articles? A curious newcomer [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]] 15:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
: I don't know if this is written down anywhere, but I think there's a couple of issues here. One is that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is descriptive, not prescriptive. So it's reasonable to describe how people play Poker, that is, the rules, typical strategies used etc, but to actually tell people to play in a certain way would be prescriptive, and should probably be avoided. The second thing is that Wikipedia is a reference work, not a textbook or a how-to guide. While we obviously hope people will learn from Wikipedia articles, we're not setting out to ''teach'', per se; we present information fairly neutrally, rather than framing it for a learner. As for your examples, I would say, [[home repair]] is problematic, at least. One giveaway is that it uses the word "should" a lot, and it's quite difficult to establish "should" as fact. [[User:Matt Crypto|— Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 15:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:: You have to think about what people look for in an encyclopedia; most people look up a topic for a brief summary of ideas, not specific instructions. However, please see [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How-tos_bookshelf Wikibook's how to section] and feel free to add in any kind of how-to you like. --[[User:Quasipalm|Quasipalm]] 19:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I understand these comments but I am still curious, where is the "no how to's" policy? I ALMOST found a model example of connection between Wikipedia and Wikibooks. The Wikipedia article [[Four-in-hand knot]] has an external link to a third-party site [http://www.how-to-tie-a-tie.org How to Tie a Tie - Instructions How to Tie the Four-In-Hand Knot]. But it COULD instead be linked to the Wikibooks article [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_To_Tie_A_Tie#Four-In-Hand How To Tie A Tie Four-In-Hand]. This seems a desirable way to go. It is up to contributors to parse material and add cross-referencing links appropriately. So how about... '''Proposed "How To" Policy: "Specific "how to" instructions should be placed in [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How-tos_bookshelf Wikibook's how to section] with a link from a referring article [[Wikipedia]].''' A parsing newcomer [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]] 23:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:I would say: just use common sense and see where it leads you. If someone deletes your additions saying it's too "how-to," then have a discussion with them and come to a consensus. Yes, brief instructions on tying a tie are probably fine, but instructions on how to win at chess would overwhelm an article; again: common sense. Just remeber the most important rules: [[Neutral_point_of_view|NPOV]], [[What_Wikipedia_is_not|encyclopedic]], respect, and occasionally [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|ignore all rules]]. --[[User:Quasipalm|Quasipalm]] 14:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Having read the excellent comments in this section, plus [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]], plus [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Monopoly_strategy_nonencyclopedic.3F|Monopoly strategy nonencyclopedic]], it seems to me the assertion that there is a Wikipedia "no how to articles" policy is weakly founded. As a personal policy I will follow Quasipalm's suggestion to proceed with common sense. A ready to move on newcomer -- [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]]<small> | </small>[[User talk:Sitearm|Talk]] 01:34, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
There is no written policy yet. We've got [[Wikipedia:How-to]], which talks about howtos as if they belonged on Wikipedia, with a big note at the top saying that some people think they don't. Policy comes from what people do, and only later it's the other way around. To me it's obvious Wikibooks is a much more suitable project for putting how-tos than Wikipedia; you avoid any pitfalls about spouting POV that way (the big problem with prescriptive prose) and the lesser pitfall of spouting [[Wikipedia:original research|original research]] ("I/some people have found twisting the foo knob half a second before flooring the flux capacitor gives you a much smoother ride...") [[User:JRM|JRM]] · [[User talk:JRM|Talk]] 13:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
: Yes, it would be important to relay instructions with NPOV and references. -- [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]]<small> | </small>[[User talk:Sitearm|Talk]] 17:23, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
== Plane crash article titles ==
Wikipedia contains a number of articles about specific airplane crashes
where the entire article title consists of a flight number: the newest
of these is '''[[Air France Flight 358]]'''. I think this is a bad policy
(or bad practice, if there is no policy). If I find an article titled
[[Charles Dickens]], I expect it to cover all important things about
Charles Dickens, not just the fact that he was in a train crash one day
in 1865. Or more to the point, the article about the [[Big Bayou Conot train disaster]] is not titled [[Sunset Limited]]; the latter article is about that train in general.
There has presumably been an Air France flight 358 every day, or several
days a week, for many years, and for that matter, the same flight number
may very well have been used for different services in different
timetable periods. And may be used again in the future, depending
on whether Air France is one of those airlines that retires flight
numbers in this situation. But the article is about that flight on a
specific day: the one when the accident happened.
Since there are some cases where people do remember aircraft accidents by
the flight number, it makes sense for these to be available as redirects.
I have no problem with that. But using them as primary titles is just
wrong. The primary title needs to be in a style like
'''2005 Air France Toronto crash''' (the airport is actually in
[[Mississauga, Ontario|Mississauga]], a Toronto suburb)
or '''Crash at Toronto Pearson Airport, August 2, 2005'''
or even '''Etobicoke Creek Ravine A340 crash'''.
Something like that. The specifics don't matter; the point is simply
that the title should describe what the article is actually about.
--Anonymous, (sometimes) [[User:207.176.159.90|207.176.159.90]] 01:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
* [[Air France]] has information about its events, and either other articles or Categories should allow searchers who know the airline are able to find the information. I suggest the pattern for article names require ___location and dates. Other information, such as airline or flight, can be included if needed or relevant. Requiring date and ___location releases the airline/flight title. Ensuring the search engine can find such articles when airline and flight number are supplied is to be encouraged. ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 02:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC))
*Airlines almost invariably retire flight numbers after an incident involving that flight number, so using the flight number in the article is a good choice, especially since people remember them that way. That said, [[Air France Flight 358]] really ought to be moved to [[Air France Flight 358 crash]]. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 04:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
* I think the current system is adequate. Requiring a ___location or even a date would not only contribute to clutter, but imply the existence of other notable flights when almost certainly none exist. A flight or flight number in and of itself is rarely encyclopedic--we could say ''Wikipedia is not the OAG, the Star Alliance Timetable, VirtualTourist.com, or FlyerTalk''. Now, a particular [[:Category:Accidents and incidents in the aviation sector|accident or incident]] may be remembered by a particular name or construction, and we should by all means use them where appropriate. But sometimes the flight number itself is the most widely understood. Whether or not the number is retired by the airline is irrelevant; they didn't rename [[Three Mile Island]] after all. Just as there's one notable [[Good Friday Earthquake]], it seems to me readers can be trusted to guess correctly what the contents of [[TWA Flight 800]] will cover without resorting to the pedantic [[1996 TWA Flight 800 explosion]], or if you will humor a straw man, [[July 17, 1996 explosion of TWA Flight 800 over Long Island, New York]].- [[User:Choster|choster]] 05:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
*:It'd be a neat trick for an airliner to explode in more than one ___location on different dates. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 06:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Original poster's response (01:05 UTC, August 5): I concede that there are some accidents where it is the flight number that is commonly remembered, which might be appropriate as primary titles. But there are many others where it is not. Quick -- what was the flight number of the Everglades crash? The South American plane that ran out of fuel over New York? The British plane that crashed into the M1? The Air Canada plan that ran out of fuel and safely landed at Gimli? These events are remembered by their circumstances and ___location, and I suggest that this is more common than remembering flight numbers.
::I also think the current naming convention is fine. The only real notable thing about these flights was their crashing. Also, I see no reason that any other notable information could be added to the same page (for example, "XYZ Airlines flight 123 was the first direct flight to Guam from Iowa. It crashed on ..."). --[[User:Quasipalm|Quasipalm]] 13:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
:::It's not fine at all. It is completely unintuitive thing for people to search for. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 12:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Original poster: I say that the fact that after 1,000 instances of XYZ Airlines flight 123 had operated safely, the 1,001th one crashed, is not a "notable thing about flight 123" at all. It is only a notable thing about flight 123 ''on July 36, 1999''.
*If you look at [[:Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners]] you'll find that WP has been quite consistent in the past. Methinks that all would be fine if we removed the word "crash" from the title. [[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 15:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
:*And why was [[User:Pcb21]] allowed to add "crash" to the title with all of this debate going on? [[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 16:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Original poster: Yes, it's been consistent: consistently wrong. Which is why I'm raising the subject here: this is a policy issue. How many other general reference works, like almanacs and encyclopedias, that list air crashes list them primarily by flight number?
:There were seven or so hurricanes named Frances, but I really don't think we need to say [[Hurricane Frances (2004)]]. And I've moved the article back, per wiki standard. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 17:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
How about this: continue the current policy of ''Airlinename Flight#'' with the addition of ''(crash)'' just as we sometimes do for disambig. Additionally, provide as many redirects as you please (where, when, whatever was prominent) in order to help the user locate the article. IMO it is important that the main title of all these pages remains uniform and consistent. [[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 23:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
:If a crash becomes widely known by another name, such as the Gimli Glider, then that name should be used, but for other accidents without a consistant, widely used name the Airline Flight# should be used. And as for the article that really brought this up, air france flight 358, that is generally what I see in the media, especially in Canadian news, and it is too soon to see if a different name sticks, so if an accident is not generally know by a different name or is very recent it should use the airline flight#.[[User:Say1988|say1988]] 17:30, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection]] ==
[[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]] created [[Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiblower_protection&oldid=20236275], which was nominated for deletion by [[User:NicholasTurnbull|NicholasTurnbull]]. Deletion debate was de-listed by [[User:Essjay|Essjay]], who archived the deletion debate on [[Wikipedia_talk:Wikiblower_protection]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiblower_protection&oldid=20251528]. Subsequently, I am listing the policy proposal here, per [[Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy]]. I do not support this policy proposal. [[User:Evilphoenix|EvilPhoenix]] [[User_talk:Evilphoenix|talk]] 09:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
*Now on VFD again, per policy. This proposal violates WP:POINT, imho. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 10:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
== category titles ==
*'''[[Wikipedia:Category naming]]''' is a straw poll to determine if people prefer "Category:Greek Philosophers" or "Category:Philosophers of Greece". Please give your opinion. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 09:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
*There is also a second proposal asking for preferences relating to abbreviations of country names. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] [[User talk:steve block|talk]] 10:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Could you please clarify the question. Do you mean philosophers who have or had Greek nationality, those who espouse thought characteristic of the Greek Schools of Thought, e;g. Platonic, or those who contemplate what comprises the ideal of Greekness? -[[User:David91|David91]] 11:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
:The poll is to determine whether a general rule should be established for country-related category names, and if so whether it should be "X of country" or "nationality x", for example "Category:Rivers of Canada" or "Category:Canadian actors". One choice is "it depends". -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 14:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
*I don't know. Category naming is often irregular, and we see both choices. Again, "it depends". — [[User:Stevey7788|Stevey7788]] ([[User talk:Stevey7788|talk]]) 03:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
*Applying the same rules to everything can be problematic. For example, to me, "Greek philosophers" suggests the philosophers of antiquity (Plato et al.), while "Philosophers of Greece" suggests more modern times. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 04:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
*There is an obvious danger of anachronism if we start using modern nation-state names to categorize people. Ancient Greek philosophers or writers, who would be more or less correctly categorized as such (because of the language and culture they belonged to), may not have lived in present-day Greece at all, but in, say, [[Alexandria]] or [[Syracuse, Italy|Syracuse]]. Using "of Greece" in categories is potentially misleading. And how do you categorize an American writer from the time before the creation of the [[United States of America]]? Still existing buildings, cities or natural features can certainly be categorized according to where they currently are, but with people things are more complicated. [[User:Tupsharru|Tupsharru]] 10:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Please comment on the proposal at [[Wikipedia:Category naming]] or its talk page, not here. Thank you. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 13:45, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
== Style for results tables in sports ==
This relates specifically to athletics (track and field) and is particularly relevant since the world championships begins on Aug 6th.
The style issue is with regard to the use of flags in results tables. Below are some representative results from the [[1983 World Championships in Athletics|1983 World Championship]] in the two formats.
{| border="1" Cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"
|'''Event:'''
|!align="center" bgcolor="gold" colspan=2|'''Gold:'''
|!align="center" bgcolor="silver" colspan=2|'''Silver:'''
|!align="center" bgcolor="CC9966" colspan=2|'''Bronze:'''
|-
|[[Long-distance_track_event|5,000 m]]
|[[Image:Ireland flag large.png|20px]] [[Eamonn Coghlan]]<br> Ireland||13:28.53
|[[Image:East_Germany flag.png|20px]] [[Werner Schildhauer]]<br> East Germany||13:30.20
|[[Image:Finland flag large.png|20px]] [[Martti Vainio]]<br> Finland||13:30.34
|-
|[[Long-distance_track_event|10,000 m]]
|[[Image:Italy flag large.png|20px]] [[Alberto Cova]]<br> Italy||28:01.04
|[[Image:East Germany flag.png|20px]] [[Werner Schildhauer]]<br> East Germany||28:01.18
|[[Image:East Germany flag.png|20px]] [[Hansjörg Kunze]]<br> East Germany||28:01.26
|-
|[[Marathon (sport)|Marathon]]
|[[Image:Australia flag large.png|20px]] [[Rob de Castella]]<br> Australia||2:10:03
|[[Image:Ethiopia flag large.png|20px]] [[Kebebe Balcha]]<br> Ethiopia||2:10:27
|[[Image:East Germany flag.png|20px]] [[Waldemar Cierpinski]]<br> East Germany||2:10:37
|-
|[[Long-distance_track_event|3,000 m Steeplechase]]
|[[Image:Germany flag large.png|20px]] [[Patriz Ilg]]<br> West Germany||8:15.06
|[[Image:Poland flag large.png|20px]] [[Boguslaw Maminski]]<br> Poland||8:17.03
|[[Image:Uk flag large.png|20px]] [[Colin Reitz]]<br> Great Britain||8:17.75
|-
|}
{| border="1" Cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"
|'''Event:'''
|!align="center" bgcolor="gold" colspan=2|'''Gold:'''
|!align="center" bgcolor="silver" colspan=2|'''Silver:'''
|!align="center" bgcolor="CC9966" colspan=2|'''Bronze:'''
|-
|[[Long-distance_track_event|5,000 m]]
|[[Eamonn Coghlan]]<br> Ireland||13:28.53
|[[Werner Schildhauer]]<br> East Germany||13:30.20
|[[Martti Vainio]]<br> Finland||13:30.34
|-
|[[Long-distance_track_event|10,000 m]]
|[[Alberto Cova]]<br> Italy||28:01.04
|[[Werner Schildhauer]]<br> East Germany||28:01.18
|[[Hansjörg Kunze]]<br> East Germany||28:01.26
|-
|[[Marathon (sport)|Marathon]]
|[[Rob de Castella]]<br> Australia||2:10:03
|[[Kebebe Balcha]]<br> Ethiopia||2:10:27
|[[Waldemar Cierpinski]]<br> East Germany||2:10:37
|-
|[[Long-distance_track_event|3,000 m Steeplechase]]
|[[Patriz Ilg]]<br> West Germany||8:15.06
|[[Boguslaw Maminski]]<br> Poland||8:17.03
|[[Colin Reitz]]<br> Great Britain||8:17.75
|-
|}
I have established a separate [[Wikipedia talk:Flags in results tables for athletics (track and field)|talk]] page to try and discuss this issue since it involves results presented on many different pages. We are trying to reach a consensus on this issue and anyone that wants to weigh in with their own opinion is welcome to do so. [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 16:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
:I have no opinion on the style, I just have one question. Why are you holding the discussion in the Template talk: namespace? -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 19:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
::I spaced out. I got the idea to set up the separate talk page from a discussion about a template. The template was being used on several pages so it was inconvenient to discuss the issue on any one specific page that the template was being used. This discussion also involves many different pages. Since I based the page on that 'Template talk' page I forgot to remove 'template' when I created the page. Should I move it to a new page? [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 19:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Moving it into the Wikipedia namespace would be preferred. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 20:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
::::It's out of the template talk space. What should I do next? [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 02:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
==Non-english in en:Wikipedia 2==
As [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Non-english_in_en:Wikipedia|recently discussed]] about [[Glacier]], now [[Cuisine of Argentina]] is partially English and partially Spanish. ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 19:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC))
:My suggestion is they keep a sandbox open on their project and do the translation there. (Question, though - if I translate stuff over from another wikipedia, how do I properly cite them? Do I add Es wikipedia to the references?) --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]]
::A link back to the Spanish article is listed in the references. An example can be found [[Mars_Pathfinder#References|here]] — [[User:J3ff|J3ff]] 19:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
:: It was already pointed out that edits on another page hide the edit history and thus a record of origin of material. Follow the previous discussion links and you find a proposal that Spanish text be inserted within comments so only editors see it. ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 19:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC))
::: Or maybe use a sandbox, but notify people on the discussion page if they want to see the edit history. — [[User:Stevey7788|Stevey7788]] ([[User talk:Stevey7788|talk]]) 03:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:::: ...if that sandbox can be assured to remain forever and not be deleted, which takes all its edit history along to oblivion. Already mentioned in previous discussions. ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 14:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC))
==Lists can be categories==
The standard arguement against deleting "lists" in favor of "categories" is that lists supposedly have information that categories can not. Namely, they allow for extra information (beyond the article name), an alternate sorting/sub-sorting, and grouping. They also allow red links, to encourage future article creation.
So, why not put this list information *in* the category description. You can add whatever text you want to a catgory's description. You can even add sections. So, after defining the category, a seperate section could list items with a breif descrip, and include red-link itemss. It might look funny, but it would do the job. If the long category "description" is problematic, than such "list/categories" could be made into out-of-the-way sub-categories (to avoid interfering with normal navigation off the top-level categories).
This eliminates the redundant lists/category pairs, that are quite common. There would still be redundancy of information between the category description, and directory of member articles, but that's no worse than with "normal" lists. Any contradictions between the information would be easily detectable, and fixable. Currently, there's no easy way of verifying information in lists and seperate categories are in sync.
It also, gives somebody reading the article an easy way of knowing *every* category/list that exists, which is relevant to the article. I think few people use the "What links here" feature as a way of finding what "lists" an article belongs to. There are simply to many "orphan lists" floating around, that nobody bothers to maintain. Once the creator of the traditional list "wanders off", it's often the case that nobody is even aware such a list exists. --[[User:Thivierr|rob]] 03:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:If you'd like to do this, I don't think anyone would stop you (see, for example, [[:Category:20th_century]] or [[:Category:20th_century_births]], which both sort of redundantly link to all the subcats included in these categories). There's also an apparently moribund project to stamp out lists that "should be" categories, see [[Wikipedia:Merge some redundant lists to categories]]. Note some other things lists provide that categories don't (which you don't mention) include the ability to format the entries however you'd like (the automatic category listing is a little primitive), and categories apparently don't work on a large number of wikipedia mirrors. IMO, a well maintained list is generally far better than a category, but categories usually take less effort to maintain. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 18:47, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Another argument in favor of lists is that they can include red links, i.e. pointers to articles that don't yet exist but (presumably) should. In response to Rick's comment, it's not clear whether categories are easier to maintain in the long run. There's a long-running debate on the [[Wikimedia Commons]] about the use of categories. One of the arguments against categories is that categories are harder to maintain in certain regards: for example, it's easy to rename a list (only the list itself has to be moved), but it's much harder to rename a category (all members of the category need to be changed). Of course, the counter-argument is that such changes should be done (semi-)automatically with the help of a bot. --[[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]] 18:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
::MarkSweep, I'm saying categories can now have redlink also. They could go where the "description" goes. As Rick Block said, I could just go ahead in do this. However, I fear I would upset many people, without a consesus (even then somewhat similiar categories exist already). Please understand I'm not simply proposing the typical "list to category" sugestion. I'm suggesting the use of "hybrid" "list categories" (but technically speaking, they would be called categories). As far as the difficulty of renaming categories, I'm not familiar with how hard that is to do. --[[User:Thivierr|rob]] 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:::The difficulting with renaming categories is that the category name is in the referring article rather than in one centralized place and categories cannot effecively be redirected (see [[Wikipedia:Categorization#Redirected_categories]]). Combined, this means that renaming a category requires changing the category reference in every article (and/or subcat) in the category. [[user:Pearle]] is a bot that can automate this process, but it's nowhere near as easy as renaming an article. Perhaps because of this difficulty, to rename a category you have to nominate it for renaming following the procedures at [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion]]. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 17:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Also don't forget that you can also use a nav template in lieu of a list. This has several advantages in that it appears in articles where the template belongs and if you correctly link to the template in another article you get a nicely formated display of the template. This would not work for large lists, but can work for many lists. Using a nav template is an easy way to get categories that are useful to all articles automatically added. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 19:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
== Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline (adding the disclaimer more prominently) ==
'''A change to the current Wikipedia tagline''' has been proposed for discussion and adoption at [[Wikipedia:Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline]]. Interested contributers please visit this page. -- [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]]<small> | </small>[[User talk:Sitearm|Talk]] 20:04, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
'''Contributers supporting adding the disclaimer more prominently''' on Wikipedia pages please '''cite articles and sign''' at [[Wikipedia:Proposed_update_of_MediaWiki:Tagline#Contributers_and_articles_that_support_adding_the_disclaimer_more_prominently]]. Thank you for your help! -- [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]]<small> | </small>[[User talk:Sitearm|Talk]] 13:44, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
== MoS for Disambiguation pages ==
Many guidelines of the MoS for disambiguation pages are being challenged over at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)]]. The following are main points of discussion:
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Wikilinking|one]] - challenging "don't wikilink on any other word on the line"
* [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28disambiguation_pages%29#Purpose_of_content-empty_leading_line.3F|two]] - challenging leading fragments
There are also some smaller ones as well. The discussions are growing to be quite extensive, but only about five people are participating. I request that more Wikipedians voice their views on the matters being discussed. -- [[User:jiy|jiy]]<sup>[[User talk:jiy|Talk]]</sup> 04:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
== ''True and encyclopedic'' inclusion of insults and derogatory characterizations ==
Some Wikipedia policies such as [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] and [[No_personal_attacks|no personal attacks]] seem only to apply to editors and not to passing through insults, personal attacks, and derogatory characterizations made by political, media, and cultural figures against one another: For example when [[Ann Coulter]] called [[Bill Clinton]] a good rapist ''(not in the Wikipedia)'' or [[American Dad]] depicted [[Karl Rove]] as the Star Wars character Emperor Palpatine ''(in the Wikipedia)''.
Are there consistently applied principles to include or exclude insults and derogatory characterizations or is this a new area for policy? [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 14:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:I suppose it depends a great deal on whether the insults are of historical interest–they became familiar quotations or memes, or they had major diplomatic, political, or other consequences–or if they were just namecalling by detractors.
:Regardless, if insults ''are'' included, they should be limited in quantity and thoroughly cited and verified. A lot will depend on the judgement of article editors and be very case-specific. RfC may be helpful where there is a question about the appropriateness of a quotation. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 14:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
::That criteria would exclude the Karl Rove depiction, wouldn't it? [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 16:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Well, it depends. [[American Dad]] is a comedy, and the Karl Rove depiction therein could perhaps be considered a good example of the style of the comedy. It wouldn't be appropriate in [[Karl Rove]]. Likewise, it might be appropriate to include [[Dan Savage]'s "Santorum (n)" coinage in the [[Dan Savage]] article as an example of Savage's wit or lack thereof; it's not appropriate in [[Rick Santorum]]. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 17:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
::::Are you saying that if there were a depiction of [[Hillary Clinton]] as a [[witch]] in a comedy television program, the principle you've just articulated would allow for its inclusion on her page? [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 17:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::Reread what Jpgordon just said—he suggested that including the characterization in [[Hillary Clinton]] would ''not'' be appropriate; it might, however, be included in an article about the program which made the reference. (Note that its inclusion isn't necessarily desirable there either, it just ''might'' be appropriate.) Although it may be a bit overly optimistic to ask for some common sense and reason on articles related to politics, really its what should be applied. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 17:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, when an insult or attack becomes widely repeated, and is itself notable, or an issue in an actual verifiable controversy, it might be appropriate to mention it in the article about that controversy. Of courseit should be in a properly sourced quote. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:Would you care to define "widely repeated, and is itself notable" and in a way that excludes [[Google_bomb|Google Bombs]] or other contrived ways to demonstrate it? [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 18:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
::Google bombs aren't notable. The first few were, as a demonstration of concept, but nobody pays attention to them now (at least not more than the proverbial 15 minutes). They might count as "widely repeated", but I doubt anyone is going to take that as an indication of serious notability. It's also not verifiable unless an independent source reports on it—and then it depends on how notable that source is. I doubt you'd need special provisions to exclude this. Whether or not an attack was part of a notable controversy is more concrete (again, I doubt anyone would call a Google bomb or other means of automated publicity-boosting "controversial"). [[User:JRM|JRM]] · [[User talk:JRM|Talk]] 20:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:Well, for example if an attack-joke is made on a nationaly televised news/variety show, like ''The Tonight Show'' and then is headline materiel in the papers the next day, that would count. Or to take a slightly more local example, a few months ago, in New Jersey (where I happen to live) two radio talk hosts made despariging comments about the wife of the acting Governor, and suggested that her experience of post-partum depression was "whining" and that her support of various groups for other women with similar complaints was trivial and pointless. The Governor said publicly that he "wanted to punch them in the mouth" or words to that effect. This was reported in and editorialized about in several major NJ newspapers. This might be appropriate in an article about a) the "shock-jocks", b) the radio station on which they broadcast, c) the Governor, or d) the event itself. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 20:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:In short, when an insult or an attack is the subject of commentary in major news media, or of widespread public comment, not of purely contrived wide mention like a google bomb, that is the sort of thing I mean.[[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 20:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Other famous insults:
*Opposing politican to Disraeli: "You, Sir, will die either on the gallows or of a loathsome disease". Response: "That depends on whether I embrace your priciples or your mistress." Might be appropriate in an article on Disraeli or on his opponent.
*Disraeli again: "Do you know the difference between a misfortune and a calamity?" "No what is the difference" "Oh it is a vast one. Now if Mr Gladstone, say, were to fall into the Thames, that would be a misfortume. but if someone were to pull him out..." Might be appropriate for [[Disraeli]] or for [[Gladstone]].
*Speaker of the US House of represenatives Reed, on a particular patronage appointment: "Never were abilities so far below mediocrity so well rewarded, no not when Caligula's horse was made Consul." (Quoted in ''The Proud Tower'' by [[Barbara Tuchman]]) might be appropriate in an article about Reed.
*George Bernard Shaw to a first night audince at one of his plays, who did not approve the play enough: "You are Philistines who have invaded the sacred temple." Response by an unknown member of the audiance "Yes, and you are driving us forth with the jawbone of an ass." Might be appropraite (if documented) for the article on Shaw.
Perhaps that list gives some idea of at least one kind of case where an insult might be appropriate in an article. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 20:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:The problem with ''this'' class of attacks, however, is that they don't have any lasting meaning, despite having staying power. A witticism one person launches to effectively put down someone else is always a joy to read, but how much does it contribute? If you can take out the name of the famous person and replace it with someone else and still end up with a good insult, did it really matter? Say, the Disraeli quote might be appropriate to illustrate Disraeli's disagreements with Gladstone (if notable), but there generally will be no shortage of famous people who famously disliked other people, or famous people who were famously disliked. The Reed quote, the Shaw exchange; these don't seem to be indicative of a larger theme, and their inclusion is probably not worth it, even if verifiable. [[User:JRM|JRM]] · [[User talk:JRM|Talk]] 22:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Gladstone and Disraeli were life-long political rivals, and opposed each other for Prime Minister of the UK, an office that each defeated the other for. I would say that their longstanding and well-documented personal dislike for each other is notable and an appropriate part of any article about either, whether the particular quote is used or not. The Reed quote is notable because it illustrated his style of debate (the comment was made on the floor of the House) but more because it illustrates his strong opposition to patronage appointements, a priciple that arguably cost him the Presidency of the United States (Tuchman does so argue in the book I cited, and used the quote as part of the argument). (It also illustrates his willingness to offend potential political allies, which is also relevant.) The Shaw excahange is more debatable, but does help illustrate his character and his relationship with his audiences. But the above were only examples I thought of off the top of my head, and i would consider any more deeply and of course have a verifiable citation before actually using it in an article. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:When people know what they're doing, they should by all means carry on. [[User:JRM|JRM]] · [[User talk:JRM|Talk]] 00:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
::Something else as well to remark on the Gladstone/Disraeli example, the Wikipedia isn't full of people pushing POV's corresponding to the political positions of Gladstone or Disraeli while people push their POV in articles by inclusion of the insults, derogatory characterizations, parodies, satires, etc. of people active in politics, culture, and media today. Of course there's a [[Vaughn Meader]] article but there's no link in the [[John F. Kennedy]] article to the Meader article. How about this for a principle to apply consistently: "Insults and derogatory characterizations entered into the article of the ''target'' are a means of pushing a POV which can not be made neutral by negation: i.e. "Hillary Clinton is ''not'' a witch." or "George W. Bush is ''not'' [[Alfred E. Newman]], Karl Rove is ''not'' Emperor Palpatine, and so on". [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 02:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
:::I don't agree with your underlying premise that all instances of inserting such insults into an article about the target are done for purposes of POV pushing. Instead, I agree with the view that insults and the like should be included if they were themselves notable or, less often, if they help to illustrate some important point. The [[Bill Clinton]] article reports the fact that he was called "Slick Willy"; that's an insult/personal attack/clear POV, but it was used widely enough to be notable, so its inclusion is proper. The [[Hillary Clinton]] article wouldn't report the fact that one TV show compared her to a witch. The bit about Rove might well be notable, though, because even one mention on a popular sitcom is more than most presidential advisers get, and it could be considered as an illustration of Rove's prominence. There will always be borderline cases. A while back somebody added the "Shrub" nickname to the article on [[George W. Bush]]. That isn't just a one-shot use (it's somewhat common and was the title of a book about Bush), but it's not so common as "Slick Willy" was. I think people could reasonably differ about that one. The only general principle we could promulgate is that an accurate report of a POV-based insult is not to be automatically removed and is not to be automatically considered proper for inclusion. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 03:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
::So what exactly is the "important point" illustrated about ''Slick Willie''? To use your example, any researcher looking at presidental nicknames is is going to find ''Slick Willie''. Its identification would seem inevitable -- it's very hard to avoid (as well as ''Gipper'' for Reagan or ''Tricky Dick'' for Nixon). But how wide is wide, how notable is notable, and how common is common? If we leave it to the consensus of editors, one can assume that where the majority of editors of an article politically oppose the target, the consensus will find it easy to include, where the majority of editors politically support the target, the consensus will find it easy to exclude.
::On the other hand ''Rove as Palpatine'' seems not an inevitable research finding but specifically selected and contrived so as to insert POV in the article that can not balanced by a factual statement that Rove is ''not'' Palpatine. Regarding your figleaf, if we are sincerely providing neutral encyclopedic material that Rove posesses prominence, there are many sources of evidence for this without insulting him, without pushing a POV. Oddly enough, with all the wide, common, and notable insults which have appeared regarding [[Hillary Clinton]], a person with a much higher public profile than he, there are none in her article. [[Harry Reid|Harry Reid's]] article only contains his insults of others, not others insulting him. This is another exhibit in the case that when it comes to currently active political figures, the Wikipedia isn't close to achieving neutrality. There's a double standard in the status quo: Insults of conservative political figures are included. Insults of liberal political figures are not included. This is the consistently applied principle I observe. [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 02:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
:::I notice that about 20% of the Hillary Clinton article is on "controversies", so it's not like she gets off really easy. I ''would'' think that article should include some examples of the insults that have been launched against her (there have been so many, including a cover of ''Spy'' in its heyday depicting her as a dominatrix) and should probably also mention her uncommonly high level of strong negatives in public opinion polling: she's been a rather polarizing figure. As for Rove: I don't think the Palpatine thing contributes much to the article; I think it does belong in the article about the television show in question, but not in the article about Rove unless someone can show that it has passed into the broad political culture the way the designation "Bush's brain" has. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 03:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
::::Rove is too obscure a figure to have an even more obscure one-off insult included. Even with the Valerie Plame scandal, he is still mainly an inside the beltway figure. Even wide-spread name calling, which is so common in the political opposition backrooms, is not noteworthy, unless it captures the public imagination because of some informative kernel of truth. I imagine that slick willie stuck because of Clinton's teflon resiliance combined with his lawyerly spin of "is" and other issues. I lived through "tricky dick", used it, but am not quite sure why it stuck. I know it was used in conservative circles, because conservatives did not trust him, he seemed unpricipled and too close to the liberal Rockerfeller wing of the party. Conservatives supported him only grudingly. Having only used it in conservative circles starting in 68, I didn't notice when it entered the popular lexicon, so perhaps someone can explain it further.
::::On another related note, I think, wikipedia is far to tolerant of an insulting atmosphere and it starts with the mocking tone at the top, and is supported by a presumptive hubris culture among the admins. The mocking article [[The wrong version]], is an insult to us all that take wikipedia seriously, and try to work within both the spirit and letter of its rules. We all know cases of admins violating and abusing the application of protection, and this article's mocking tone contributes to that attitude. I vote that it be deleted, and good riddance.--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 04:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
:::::Response to patsw: I noted two major categories of insults that should be included, those notable in themselves and those that illustrated an important point. I'd include "Slick Willy" on the basis of the first criterion; like "Tricky Dick", it was common enough to be notable. You're opposed to a subjective criterion of notability because you fear it will be applied inconsistently based on editors' political views. Well, that's certainly a problem, but it goes far beyond any policy about insults. In fact, I think it's the biggest weakness in NPOV. Reasonable people should be able to work out a suitably neutral presentation of most points, but they'll have much more difficulty when it comes to determining a topic's importance. This applies to whether a topic should be included in the article, how much space it should get, and whether it should be mentioned in the lead section. We face this kind of problem over and over. There's no way to eliminate subjectivity in this aspect of writing an encyclopedia.
:::::As for Rove, the article selects a couple of points to illustrate his unusual prominence: one favorable (Barbara Walters naming him as the "Most Fascinating Person" of the year) and one at least nominally unfavorable (the Palpatine reference, although Rove might not be completely unhappy at being compared to a character "of immense power and immeasurable cunning", according to our article on [[Palpatine]]). It's precisely because of Hillary Clinton's higher profile that such items are less important for her article. It's not unusual for a prominent elected official to be material for comedy. It is unusual treatment for someone like Rove. What's unusual about Clinton isn't her prominence, but the point noted by Jmabel, namely the way opinion about her is so polarized, which would be an appropriate point for addition to her article. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 12:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
:Let's jump back a nod. As my first comment here I'm going to try and be as broad as possible, without using many specific examples. I think being broad at first would be good. '''My first question''' to all you editors is this: is there a difference between a nickname and an insult? There have been clear insults that have become so common to so many people that yes, the term/s have often become household idioms. But where is that line drawn? Where does something move from being an insult to being a nickname (whether a derogatory one or not)? Secondly, what constitutes "common, true and encyclopedic"? I hope I can consider myself fairly up-to-date with news and such, and many of the examples being used above, I've never really heard. Most likely, that's just me completely missing the ball. '''But really''', what makes an insult common? Be aware that many editors might be hanging around a lot of like-minded people, so they assume some insult is commonly known, and in reality it's not really that well known at all. Also, if something is deemed to be common and encyclopedic and important enough to go in an article, there are many ways of wording something so that it is construed as an insult. In fact, there are many more ways to make in an insult than to make it a fact, but that doesn't mean it's not worthy of being in the article; it just means a little re-wording is needed. '''Next''', what makes an insult ''worthy of inclusion''? On this point I do have an opinion, and I apologize for using a specific example. Many books and encyclopedias include presidential nicknames. It's a very common practice. And in many instances, derogatory nicknames have become general nicknames. For instance, '''"Slick Willy"''' may have many different meanings, bad and good. It is the same as George Bush's '''"Dubya"''' nickname. In many instances, "Dubya" is referenced derogatorily, and in many others, well, his best friends call him that. Doors may swing both ways on nicknames. I suppose that would be up to the talk page to decide. On the other hand, insults are very different, because it's much harder to see an opposing side to it. ''When did insults become NOT inherently POV?'' Everyone in a high-ranking position is going to attract some kind of criticism. But there are '''two kinds of criticism''': intelligent criticism and criticism that makes no point. In an encyclopedia, intelligent criticism is what belongs, because it is well-thought-out and makes an argument against the article in question. Criticism that makes no point (i.e. insults) has no place in an encyclopedia, since it's not helping the reader draw any kind of conclusion about the article. If anything, it promotes thinking one way about the article, making it inherently POV. It's not constructive to the reader at all, '''and anyway''' it makes the person offering the criticism-that-has-no-point look stupid, because all he can come up with to argue against the article is an insult, and not a real argument. And honestly, I hold wikipedia to a higher standard than that. I believe that wikipedia can offer good, honest, real criticism of each article without bending to the outside influences that are insulting the subjects of the articles. (Sorry for the other example) There's a large difference between calling someone '''"a good rapist"''' and '''"Emperor Palpatine"''' - and giving real arguments. Who knows, maybe I'm just too idealistic. Well, I tried being as broad as possible.[[User:Stanselmdoc|Stanselmdoc]] 14:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
::The criterion of ''notability'' is useless since it is unquantifiable and inherently subject to the favorability filter of the editors especially when it concerns current political figures. Since when has the criterion of ''unwritten intent'' applied to the editing of articles? I find it utterly implausible that the actual intent of ''Rove as Palpatine'' (''or'' the impression that readers take away from this) is that Rove is more prominent than most White House Deputies Chief of State [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Rove&diff=15472790&oldid=15472784]. None of the subseqent editing of the article reflects that. An edit war commenced along the lines of varying the POV and wording of the insulting American Dad reference. The editing of the Rove article is consumed with the Plame investigation (for which there is new news and more than one side to the story) so this insult is being overlooked for the time being. If one thought that the current [[Hillary Clinton]] article didn't reflect her polarization (i.e. people hold strong strong opinions about her pro or con), then any number of factal and encylopedic sources could be cited without resorting to an insult. James, sometimes an insult is just an insult, and retrospection of a figleaf for its inclusion of a insult is not going to be practical. (To clarify my own position, ''Rove as Palpatine'' belongs on the [[American Dad]] page where it currently does ''not'' appear (assuming that original assertion is true which I have not verified nor wish to do so))
::Stanselmdoc prompts me to add that nicknames, insults, etc. cannot be engaged in criticism for balance to achieve NPOV (i.e. arguments Rove resembles Palpatine vs. Rove does not resemble Palpatine). A rationalization for inclusion of insults is their ''verifiablity''. That only argues to their placement in the insult author's article and not in the insult target's article. Another aspect of this I have not yet mentioned is insult as [[propaganda]] and explicitly forbidden by wikipolicy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machine].
::It far too convenient now to push POV insults and derogatory statements of opinion into articles of current political where the local editing cabal is hostile to the article's subject. They use third parties as a proxy hiding behind the fact that they are just passing through something they found or heard and did not personally author.[[User:Patsw|patsw]] 17:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
'''New suggestion''': Put the sample political insults cited in this discussion, and others as needed, in a separate page such as [[Political satire]] or a new page created for the purpose. Then link to the separate page as needed from the relevant articles on politicians. -- [[User:Sitearm|Sitearm]]<small> | </small>[[User talk:Sitearm|Talk]] 17:48, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
::Sitearm's suggestion only moves the debate from the verbatim insult in the subject's article to the ''link'' to the verbatim insult in the subject's article. If X is insulted by Y - how is it encyclopedic and neutral to add the insult to X's page? Should it matter if the editing filter is favorable or unfavorable to subject of the article at the moment? These insults and derogatory characterizations are in large part transitory phenomenon and cheap to add especially when the criticism, if written out in text by the author without the shorthand of an insult, it would be more obviously POV. It is stealth mode POV pushing. [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 19:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
== Use of the term prophet inherently POV? ==
[[User:Babajobu]] was upset by the many occurences of "the Prophet Muhammad, PBUH" found in various Islam-related articles written by devout Muslims. He believes, and I agree, that this usage is inherently POV. He has been removing these terms wherever he finds them. However, he also believes that ANY use of the term "prophet" in relation to a religious figure is inherently POV, implying that the "prophet" was truly divinely inspired. I disagree, and have been reversing some of his edits in Islam-related articles. I'm not a Muslim and I don't think that using the terms "the prophet" or "the prophet Muhammad" is inherently POV. I think of the word "prophet" as a descriptor, which implies nothing about the truth of the supposed prophecies.
Babajobou has agreed to suspend his prophet-removal campaign (which could conceivably affect thousands of religion-related articles) while the matter is discussed in a community forum. Is "prophet" an endorsement, or simply a useful descriptor, like "shaman" or "priest"? As an editor, I'd like to be able to use the term, just so that I can vary the words that I'm using. Otherwise the article starts to sound stilted.
I should perhaps add that removing the caps from "Prophet" doesn't necessarily make the term NPOV, at least in my opinion, and that keeping a disengaged tone in the article may require some careful copyediting. I just don't want a blanket prohibition on the use of the word "prophet" in Wikipedia. [[User:Zora|Zora]] 23:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
: Zora, I'm with you -- blanket removal of the term "prophet" is probably overzealous. In Christianity and Judaism, at least, there are many warnings about "false prophets"; thus, for at least those religions, not everyone widely labelled as a "prophet" is actually speaking for God. Speaking for myself, I'm not Muslim and I don't believe that Muhammad spoke for God, but I don't object to using the term "prophet" to refer to him. The NY Times dictionary defines prophet as "one who tells the future, esp. if divinely inspired or claimed to be." There, the definition self-claiming; while most people worldwide do not believe Mohammad spoke for God, there's agreement that he claimed to speak for God. Careful copyediting sounds like a good idea, though; certainly we don't want the text that seems to claim that there's universal agreement that he DID speak for God. [[User:Dwheeler|Dwheeler]] 00:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
: Nor do I want a blanket prohibition on the term "prophet". However, I do think that in the monotheistic religions "prophet" is not simply a position like "deacon", or a title like "father": it is an assertion of that individual having been in receipt of divine revelation. This is quite different, in my opinion, from the colloquial use of the term to mean "truth-speaker". When Mormons describe Joseph Smith as "the Prophet" or even "a prophet" they are not saying that Joseph Smith told it like was, come hell or high water. They are saying that he was spoken to by God, or by God's angels. This has just as little place in an encyclopedia as references to Jesus "Christ". I do realize, though, that names like Joseph Smith and Muhammad could conceivably use for some specification and contextualization, so I think in the first instance in an article it is acceptable to refer to them as "The Mormon prophet Joseph Smith" and "The Islamic prophet Muhammad". All subsequent references should stick with just the name, IMO. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 00:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
: Babajobu's idea of adding adjectives makes sense. Certainly there's universal agreement that "in the Islamic faith, Muhammad is considered a prophet" which is what "The Islamic prophet Muhammad" implies to me. But is that practical? Christians and Jews, at least, typically refer to prophets by name (not "The Prophet"), and while "Christ" is a title, many people are unaware of it, and "Jesus" by itself is commonly used. In Islamic works I believe it's conventional to say "The Prophet", since "Muhammad" is a really common Islamic name. Is "The Islamic prophet Muhammad" going to be too wordy? Interesting issue. [[User:Dwheeler|Dwheeler]] 00:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
::Incidentally, I also think the same pattern would hold nicely for the biblical prophets: in the inital reference stick in a lower case "prophet" with the qualifier "biblical": "The biblical prophet Joel", "the Islamic prophet Muhammad", "the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith". And in instances after that just refer to them as Amos or Joel or whatever. No more ambiguous assertions of "prophethood" to people who are claimed in religious texts to have been "prophets" in the sense of having had personal communication with the divine. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 00:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Hmm, you're starting to convince me. It's at least clear and NPOV. Is it workable? [[User:Dwheeler|Dwheeler]] 00:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
::: I think it is workable. I disagree that it presents stylistic problems. Most Wikipedia biographical entries are stuck with just the name and third person pronoun without having to rely on other "The Prophet"-ish terms.
: Not so. I can describe people as actors, warriors, rulers, writers, couturiers, etc. Most people famous enough to merit a biographical notice are famous for SOMETHING. It just gets difficult when they're famous for prophesying <g>. [[User:Zora|Zora]] 02:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
On "false prophets" in Judaism and Christianity: I think this demonstrates the point nicely that in these faiths (Islam, too), being a prophet is not merely a matter of self-definition. if it were, there would be no such thing as a "false" prophet. They are regarded as "false" because their claims of having been in communication with God are rejected as fabricated and not real. The colloquial definition provided by the Times is different from the way the term is used in the monotheistic religions. All this makes the term at the very least ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations, which is reason enough for ditching it except in the first, qualified instance. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 00:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think a religious definition trumps a dictionary definition. I don't think most users read "prophet" as an endorsement, either. I've been working on Islam-related articles for a long time, removing PBUHs, changing Prophet to prophet, removing instances of "prophet" when it seemed necessary, and no one heretofore has said that my articles are too pious. I think you've just become sensitized to the issue, B, and you're starting to see bias where there is none.
Reminds me of a friend of mine who was upset by her noisy upstairs neighbors. I was visiting her one day when she stopped and said, "Listen, would you? There they are, making noise again!" I couldn't hear anything. She was on such high alert for upstairs noise that she was starting to hear it even when an outsider couldn't.
Instead of a blanket policy of "no use of the word prophet without a modifier", I'd prefer to deal with articles one-by-one. There IS a problem, there ARE too many obscure Islam-related articles that have just been cut-n-pasted from religious websites, and there is a lot of editing to be done. It just calls for judgement, not black-and-white thinking. [[User:Zora|Zora]] 02:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
When the emphasis is on Muhammad's legacy as a prophet then the word prophet should be used. That is the reason why he is important in Islamic tradition. It is not bias it is a common term of reference and help differentiate between [[Muhammad Naguib|Muhammad]] and [[Muhammad]]. What Zora is saying makes sense... people don't react if the encyclopedia says "prophet" and assume that's a fact or POV... they are sensible enough to realize the multiple definitions of the word and its context. Of course there are some instances that must be fixed... but as a rule banning the term is no good. [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] [[User talk:Grenavitar|グレン]] 02:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
: Again, I never suggested banning the term. In those instances in which Muhammad may be confused with Muhammad Naguib or any other Muhammad, I have no problem with specifying "The Islamic prophet Muhammad". But the point here is not that the religious def trumps one of the more colloquial dictionary defs, but that "The Prophet" or "the prophet" can very reasonably be interpreted as an assertion of a supernatural phenomenon, and I don't think an encyclopedia should be written in that way. Regardless, please, please no capitalizations of Prophet in any religious context. That pushes it substantially toward the supernatural interpretation, IMO. At the very least lowercase. Can we agree on that? [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 09:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
:: Of course. I agreed with you on that before we started this go-round. I've been routinely de-capping or removing "Prophet" for many months. I have a feeling that a great many of the Muslim editors have been carefully trained, by schools or mosques, to speak "respectfully" of Muhammad, and it's very hard for them to drop old habits. [[User:Zora|Zora]] 12:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
::: If you want sometimes to rotate in the term "the prophet" in place of Muhammad for stylistic reasons, I suppose that's defensible. But do you really think that referring to "prophet Muhammad" time after time in the same article is appropriate? If you were writing an article about a historian, would you repeatedly refer to the "the historian Jones", "the historian Jones", the "historian Jones"? Of course not. Repeatedly referring to the person's profession has no stylistic or informative value, IMO. Incessantly referring to "the prophet Muhammad", even when uncapitalized, is done to emphasize his supernatural experiences. How is this for a rough guideline for how to handle the "prophets" of the various religions (again, just a rough guideline, not a rule or a diktat): in the first instance in an article refer to "the Islamic prophet Muhammad"; do the same in other instances in which ambiguity regarding specific "Muhammad" is a concern; later refer to him as "the prophet" if to do so would have stylistic advantages over Muhammad; otherwise, call him by his name. Same goes for Joel, Amos, Joseph Smith, whoever. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 19:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
==The Wikipedia policy of shouting down your opponents to get your way==
Admittedly, I am a new user here, but I have just encountered two rude users at [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Colditz Castle staff]] whose tones are just more of the same from what I have seen from most Wikipedia users. Policy here seems to be that the only way to create an encyclopedia is to shout down those who have valid disagreements with you. This is a shame, and is not the approach that I had hoped to encounter here. I'll find some less stressful way to spend my time. Goodbye. [[User:John Barleycorn|John Barleycorn]] 05:20, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:See the note on your talk page. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 05:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
::There were no "personal attacks" as you unjustly allege there. He made a mistake and has been oversensitive that everyone has disagreed with his nomination. [[User:Osomec|Osomec]] 05:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Technically, there may not have been personal attacks. However, there certainly was incivility, which is also a violation of Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Civility|policy]], as you should know. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 06:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
::::An update: not everyone has disagreed with the nomination. I've just recorded my agreement with it. Incidentally, connoisseurs of incivility may be impressed (though not necessarily as intended) by at least one of the later contributions to the "Problem users" section that right now is near the top of this ("WP:Vp(p)") page. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 06:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
== British or American English? ==
Is there a policy on what kind of English to use, and in what cases? That is, British or American English, for example. [[User:Maver1ck|Maver1ck]] 06:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, there is. For uniquely American topics, use American English. For uniquely British topics, use British English. Otherwise, first come, first served, and stay consistent within articles. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 06:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
:See [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style]], section "National varieties of English" (currently section 11). [[User:Dwheeler|Dwheeler]] 09:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:The double letters in words such as travelling often trip me up when spell-checking a British English article. I had never heard of that until recently. I guess the answer is to switch to the British dictionary when spell-checking a British English article. [[American and British English spelling differences#Common suffixes]] [[User:Spalding|Spalding]] 11:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
::Out of interest, does anyone know why the U.S. spelling was changed (I assume by Webster)? It subverts one of the more useful conventions of English spelling (vowel-1 + single consonant + vowel-2: vowel-1 is long; vowel-1 + double consonant + vowel-2: vowel-1 is short — e.g., "sited" but "sitter"). There are few enough spelling guides to pronunciation in English — it seems odd to ditch one. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 13:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Apart from long and short vowels, there is also the [[schwa]], the unstressed vowel mostly written as an "e". The convention in English spelling is almost uniformely: vowel1+cons+vowel2 means vowel1 is either long or a schwa. Compare "traveling" with "happening", and "littering". The spelling "travelling" suggests that the syllable -vel- is stressed; compare the hypothetical pronounciation of a word spelled "happenning". So the Americans have it right, this time. (This also explained why e.g. "compelled" is spelled with double -ll- on both sides of the Atlantic.) [[User:Eugene van der Pijll|Eugene van der Pijll]] 13:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
::::There are exceptions (as there are to most rules in most languages), but that doesn't show that the rule doesn't exist and isn't useful. The following comment fits with my momentary response when I see such formations. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 17:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
:::: I always read traveling as "traveeling", assuming it was from the verb ''[[Wiktionary:travele|to travele]]'', assuming it was another silly uncalled for neologism like ''[[Wiktionary:transportation|transportation]]''. Or not? :) [[User:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 19:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
: I think it long past tyme to open a uk:wikipedia and shove all the brits in there. For that matter, en: to am:wikipedia for the American language. There is no such language as "English" and has not been for at least 100 years -- or, to put it another way, two popular groups fight over ownership of the word (with the Indians and Australians yelling on the sidelines and occasionally wandering onto the field of battle) and nothing can resolve the conflict. Chinese share one written language and at least 8 major spoken language groups. I have never heard one yet insist that ''his'' language was the only "correct" one. — [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|<font color="#997749">熊</font>]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]][[Wikipedia:Deletion reform|<font color="#009900">*</font>]] 19:11, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
::So let people fight. The fight isn't significant enough to open up separate Wikipedias, and it generally hasn't been significant enough to open up separate ''whatevers'', except dictionaries—and most of those have the good sense of not trying to be perfectly segregationalist. That said, I wish people who want forks the best of luck setting them up, as long as they make sure I don't have to enter my edits twice. [[User:JRM|JRM]] · [[User talk:JRM|Talk]] 21:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
::That's an absurd proposal, Xiong. We speak different dialects of the same language. No reason to force everyone to do the same work twice. We have language policies and they work as long as people submit to them. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 22:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
First European-Originated Contestant: Brita Petersens (Cycle 4)
== Level of Detail on Date pages ==
Heaviest Contestant: Toccara (Cycle 3 - 180 pounds)
I confess I have a certain affection for the day I was born. I find it fascinating to browse the events that have occured on that day. I've turned many people on to Wikipedia via "birthday parties" in which a room full of people gather around a computer as we look up everyone's birthday and see what events took place or what famous people were born or died that day. I think this is a common motivation for perusing pages about specific days. I've seen a lot of criticism of date pages, but I think they are important.
Lightest Contestants: Elyse (Cycle 1), Amanda & Magdalena (Cycle 3) & Shandi (Cycle 2), all 115 pounds
This is why it's troubling to me to see certain users who seem to be cycling through the date pages to remove details from the descriptions of people listed in the births, and deaths sections. Specific examples include stripping any indication of specific accomplishments. [[Igor Kurchatov]] is no longer the leader of the [[Soviet atomic bomb project]], but merely an anonymous Russian Physicist. [[Joseph Weizenbaum]] is not mentioned as the creator of [[ELIZA]] but merely as some computer scientist. In both these cases, this change meant the difference in me being interested enough to read their article and passing on to the next person in the list. In the case of artists, the genre of music or style of art they are typically associated with is frequently removed. [[R. Kelly]] is a singer of some kind, but it's not considered worth mentioning that he is an R&B singer. [[Kay Sage]] is now a random artist/poet, not a surrealist artist/poet. In some cases, these additional details help people to recognize names they might otherwise be unable to due to the lack of context.
Shortest Contestants: Eva (Cycle 3), Jenascia (Cycle 2) & Cassandra (Cycle 5) all 5'7"
I think this kind of generalizing of the listing next to names significantly decreases the value and interest of these pages. However I've been unable to find any formal or informal policy to support or denounce this trend of simplification for lists of names.
Tallest Contestants: Ann, Kelle (Cycle 3), Xiomara, Yoanna (Cycle 2), Brittany, Keenyah (Cycle 4) & Diane (Cycle 5), all 5'11"
My opinion is that such entries should be the result of a balance between two goals. First, communicate why this person is interesting enough to have an article dedicated to some aspect of his/her life in the first place. Joseph Weizenbaum may be a computer scientist, but so am I. If he hadn't written ELIZA, he'd be as anonomous as I am. Second, fit within a reasonable space for the quick list that these births and deaths lists are intended to be. I have seen simplifying edits that do an admirable job of stripping out superfluous details and getting to the heart of what makes a person noteworthy in an economy of words. I think in all the cases I've mentioned, these goals would render these edits unwarrented. I want to revert them, but I worry if that may violate some explicit policy or implicit goal of which I am unaware.
Most Reward Challenges Won: Yaya (Cycle 3 - 5 in total)
I'd be very interested in other comments on this issue.
Most Reward Challenges Won Consecutively: Yaya (Cycle 3 - 5 times in a row)
[[User:Sadangel|Sadangel]] 07:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
First contestant to ever win CoverGirl of the Week from start to finish: Naima (Cycle 4 winner of ANTM)
::I checked your first two examples, and found that they had both been removed by {{user|131.107.0.106}}, who seems to have been "generalising" a lot of such descriptions (including, in one case, changing "Northern Ireland" to "Irish"). May I suggest you contact this user, and ask why this is being done? It doesn't look very helpful to me. [[User:Bovlb|Bovlb]] 17:41:59, 2005-08-06 (UTC)
Total Escapes From Elimination: Ann (Cycle 3 - 4 times in bottom 2 without getting ousted)
:: I think it is ok to have the level of detail indicated by the examples you gave. I think it would be fine if you added the information back. [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|☎]] 17:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Consecutive Bottom 2 Appearances: Lluvy (Cycle 4 - 3 times in a row)
== Multiple Sandboxes ==
Worst Photo In History: Lluvy (Cycle 4 - Pisces Photo)
I have noticed that there are multiple sandboxes at [[Wikipedia:Sandbox]], [[Wikipedia:Tutorial (Editing)/sandbox]], [[Wikipedia:Tutorial (Formatting)/sandbox]], [[Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wikipedia links)/sandbox]], [[Wikipedia:Tutorial (Related site links)/sandbox]], [[Wikipedia:Tutorial (External links)/sandbox]]. I think that this is uneccessary and only leads to more places to do sandbox maintenance on (bot or human) and can be confusing to new users who are directed to any one of the 7 sandboxes and would have very little hope of finding an old experiment should they decide that they want to. I propose that all the sandbox pages except [[Wikipedia:Sandobx]] be removed and links be made that would direct users to the sandbox so that functionality would stay the same and it would still be user friendly. I was hoping to get a community feel on the idea before implementing it or scrapping it. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="FF9900">Jtkiefer<font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jtkiefer|<font color=#00A86B>T</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="FF0033">@</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="0000FF">C</font>]]</small> </sup> ----- 07:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:User shouldn't be making long-term experiments in the sandbox anyway. They're sweeped at random intervals. Nothing important should ever go there. As for extra maintenence, if people don't go there, they don't need to be maintained. Only when the box is "full" should it be emptied and if one is little-used that just happens less often. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 07:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
::I read somewhere that the issue is edit conflicts, which are really confusing to new users and much more likely to occur if only one sandbox is used, considering the number of edits it gets. --[[User:Spangineer|Spangineer]] <small>[[User talk:Spangineer|<font color=brown>(háblame)</font>]]</small> 15:31, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Most "First Called Out For Safety": Amanda (Cycle 3 - 4 times in total)
==POV Pushing Guilds==
:''Moved from [[WP:AN/I]].''
Is it appropriate for Guilds to be formed within wikipedia whose aim is to push a single pov?
This includes
*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild]] (pro-Islam POV) (up for VFD - [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild|at this link]])
*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG]] (anti-Islam POV) (up for VFD - [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Islam:SIIEG|at this link]])
*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild]] (pro-Shia POV) (up for VFD - [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild|at this link]])
*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Sunni Guild]] (pro-Sunni POV) (up for VFD - [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Islam:The Sunni Guild|at this link]])
----
[[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] | [[User:-Ril-/Nissa|*]] ) 14:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
**Ehm, don't be too harsh, Ril. SIIEG tries to make pages about islam NPOV as per their policy. --[[User:Germen|Germen]] ([[User_talk:Germen|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Germen|Contribs]] [[image:nl_small.gif|25px]]) 15:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
***Their/your stated aim is to remove "sycophantic" edits to articles concerning Islam due to an "influx" of "pro-Islam" editors, so as to obtain what SIIEG sees as "NPOV". This is not a neutral attitude. Addressing BOTH sides of POV is the neutral position. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] | [[User:-Ril-/Nissa|*]] ) 15:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
****To assure you, Ril: SIIEG believes in the power of facts rather than other things. This makes
# removing biased language (such as PBUH additions)
# the addition of relevant sources
essential in obtaining NPOV. In fact, that is which SIIEG wants. --[[User:Germen|Germen]] ([[User_talk:Germen|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Germen|Contribs]] [[image:nl_small.gif|25px]]) 15:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
First Contestant To Quit The Game: Cassandra (Cycle 5)
Approaching NPOV from only one side not both will naturally result in bias. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] | [[User:-Ril-/Nissa|*]] ) 15:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
First Publicly Announced Lesbian Contestant: Ebony (Cycle 1)
This is a tough call. On the one hand you can argue that:
*It's alright for people to come together to discuss how a single POV is represented in Wikipedia. POV pushing is behaviour, not intent.
*Nobody demands that Wikipedians ''think'' in NPOV terms, only that articles end up neutral.
*Deleting a POV-centric project is not suddenly going to make its members go away, or change their attitude. Would you rather discuss things in the open or quench all talk that smacks of POV?
But on the other hand:
*NPOV isn't attainable if people only look out for how their own POV is treated. NPOV is not a compromise game where every side tries to get the biggest piece of the pie—or rather, it shouldn't be.
*We don't require people to agree with each other, but we do demand they cooperate fairly. Separating into cliques is not going to encourage that.
First Publicly Announced Bisexual Contestant: Michelle (Cycle 4)
I would be weary to say: you definitely shouldn't do this, ever. I do think this approach is far less effective than getting together on a single project. Acknowledge your bias, but do not separate people based on biases. Projects ought to be focused on ''expertise'' and ''areas of interest'', not ''sympathetic points of view''. It's easy to blur the line between being really interested in something and acknowledging it's better than other things, which makes it especially important not to do it. Nobody should be a member of a subproject without also being a member of the overarching project, and the overarching project should be the preferred venue for working with others.
First Contestant To Contract Disease During The Show: Michelle (Cycle 4 - she came down with impetigo)
These are issues VfD isn't going to satisfactorily address, so if you were looking for a simple yes/no answer, I apologize. [[User:JRM|JRM]] · [[User talk:JRM|Talk]] 15:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
First Contestant Who Tyra Banks Shouted At: Tiffany (Cycle 4)
: But we already have [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement]]. Each of those promotes what would kindly be described as minority POV (and at worst as [[religious cult]]s). We however lack wikiprojects for the major mainstream Christian denominations of Catholicism, Anglicanism or Lutherism. Are therefore standards being applied differently? What do the members of the wikiprojects concerned think? [[User:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 19:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
First Double Elimination: Rebecca & Tiffany (Cycle 4)
::Those projects are '''not''' guilds of editors having one POV, but collaborations to improve and add to subject areas the editors have interest in. Note that the collaborations do not require members to have a certain POV. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] | [[User:-Ril-/Nissa|*]] ) 23:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
First Contestant To Faint In The Show: Rebecca (Cycle 4 - before the panel of judges)
::Or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology]]? Which was started by a critic (me), but is attracting Scientologist editors. Which is good. NPOV is paramount; every individual editor should have their interest be in NPOV editing, whatever POV they may personally hold - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 17:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
First Contestant Whose Loved One Died While Filming: Kahlen (Cycle 4 - her best friend from high school died)
== [[Talk:Opposition to Islam]] ==
First Contestant To Refuse Taking A Photo Shoot: Robin & Shannon (Cycle 1)
there was consensus on [[Opposition to Islam]] for a move to [[Criticism of Islam]]. It turns out, however, that a pov essay titled [[Criticism of Islam]] had been vfd'd at some point in the past. So, as soon as we moved our article to [[Criticism of Islam]], people showed up and tried to speedy-delete it, saying it was "recreation of a vfd'd article". Clearly, the article text bears no relation to whatever was vfd'd, and clearly, this is not what is intended by the "recreation" speedy criterion. Do we need to rephrase the speedy criteria, or is this case covered already? I have moved the article back to [[Opposition to Islam]] for the time being to avoid deletion wars, but it does seem unsactisfactory that we should be prohibited to move the article just because someone chose to post his essay under that title at some point. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 19:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
:They're simply wrong; tell them so. CSD's language is clear that the recreation provision only covers what is substantially identical content to what was there before. — [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 19:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
::I've explained my position and reasoning at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]], as well as on dab's talk page. In fighting the recreation of VfDed articles by, for example, white supremacists and anti-Semites, we argued that a VfD wasn't a comment on content, but on the existence of an article under that title. We can't do it for one lot of people but not for others. I don't understand the problem, to be honest. If it's so important that the article have this exact title, then it would have taken no more time to make a case at [[Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion]] than it has to do the same on at least three pages (here, AN/I, and my Talk page). --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 22:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
First Contestant To Arrive Late For A Photo Shoot: Jenascia (Cycle 2)
== Three revert rule inherently unfair to the minority in any case ==
First Contestant To Verbally Request To Leave Competition: Nicole (Cycle 1)
The three revert rule is inherently unfair to minorities in any case, in that a tyrannous majority anywhere here in Wiipedia can call in the troops and always control the content of any article by force of numbers. To be fair, the minority side should be allowed a number of reverts equal to the majority side. This might have the benefit of stopping revert battles forever, since the majority would always be doomed to lose! (You do the math.) --[[User:172.192.86.66|172.192.86.66]] 20:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Most Frequently Appeared Name For Contestants: Nicole (Cycles 1, 3 & 5) and Sarah (Cycles 2, 4 & 5)
:The 3RR is not ment to be part of the wikipedia disspute resolution process[[User:Geni|Geni]] 20:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Most diverse racial mix: Cycle 2 (Whites: Other Races = 6:6)
That's precisely the problem with the policy. It is not meant to be part of the process of resolving content disputes, but any tyrannous majority can make it the final solution to any content dispute by calling in the troops to rally 'round and control the content of any article by force of numbers, each of them only taking their alloted three reverts. See the problem now? Have a quick look at [[truth]] to see a perfect illustration of it. Solution: Give the minority a number of reverts equal to the majority, and this will have the marvelous effect of insuring that revert battles never get started, and the WP policy of [[wikipedia:negotiation|principled negotiation]] is strictly adhered to, because the tyrannous majority will always lose if the playing field is leveled! (You do the math.) --[[User:172.196.13.37|172.196.13.37]] 20:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
First fake double elimination/time no contestant was eliminated in a regular episode - Episode 8, Cycle 5 (Nicole and Jayla)
:No, it'll just mean debates are completely interminable.
~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 21:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Unique Parentage:
No. Think it through. Each side would get only three reverts, unlike now, when a tyrannous majority can bring in say ten minions resulting in as many as thirty reverts.--[[User:207.200.116.5|207.200.116.5]] 02:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
1) Giselle (Cycle 1 - Mexican)
:The 3RR is partially intended to enforce consensus. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 21:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
2) Yoanna (Cycle 2 - Canadian American/Mexican)
It's not working. It is resulting in tyranny of the majority. Solution: Give the minority a number of reverts equal to the majority, and this will have the marvelous effect of insuring that revert battles never get started, and the WP policy of [[wikipedia:negotiation|principled negotiation]] is strictly adhered to, because the tyrannous majority will always lose if the playing field is leveled! (You do the math.)--[[User:207.200.116.5|207.200.116.5]] 02:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
3) April (Cycle 2 - German/Japanese-Irish/Welsh)
:One person's "consensus" is another's "tyranny of the majority". If you think that on some particular topic the participants are not representative of the Wikipedia consensus, you can raise the profile of the discussion, for example with a Request for Comment or with a formal NPOV dispute. But there are always going to be matters for each of us where there is a broad consensus and we find we are not part of it. You're not going to win every dispute, and you are rarely going to win any by repeatedly reverting rather than attempting to convince people. This is a deliberative process, not a sports competition. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 04:08, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
4) Camille (Cycle 2 - Jamaican)
It appears that you might have the wrong idea about what the policy is here in Wikipedia for resolving content disputes. It is not "Whichever side can muster the most people get to control the content of an article," ([[wikipedia: tyranny of the majority|tyranny of the majority]]) it is principled [[wikipedia:negotiation|negotiation]] in which "BOTH POINTS OF VIEW NEED TO BE INCLUDED to achieve [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] (emphasis added):
<blockquote>Principled negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. Compromising or "splitting the difference" is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. <!--Pages 3 to 14, Chapter 1, ''Getting to Yes'', ISBN 0140157352; pages viii, ix, ''The Art of Negotiating'', ISBN 156619816X--></blockquote>
5) Sara (Cycle 2 - Iranian[Persian])
See the diference between that and your point of view, that tyranny of the majority is okay, that those of the majority point of view should control the content of an article through force of numbers, getting more reverts than the minority side can muster? --[[User:207.200.116.5|207.200.116.5]] 16:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
6) Jenascia (Cycle 2 - Filipino/Greek/Cherokee Indian/English/Irish/Possibly German)
== Shouldn't we obey robots.txt? ==
7) Yaya (Cycle 3 - Caribbean Origins)
Some sites have a robots.txt which prohibit certain pages from being scanned by engines such as google. Some sites wish not to be listed at all. If it's not important to the article, then why not obey their [[Robots.txt]] file? I would think it to be a kind thing to do. If it's really important and needs to be listed, someone could try to contact the site owner and ask if it is ok. --[[User:The Inedible Bulk|TIB]] [[User_talk:The_Inedible_Bulk|(talk)]] 00:30, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
:...? Wikipedia doesn't spider pages. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 00:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
::Correct; robots.txt does not have anything to do with linking. ''"This memo defines a method for administrators of sites on the World Wide Web to give instructions to visiting Web robots, most importantly what areas of the site are to be avoided."'' — [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 00:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
::If a page doesn't want to be listed in a search engine, there's a chance they don't want to be found by random people. Wikipedia is indexed and contains content relevant to the pages linked to, similar to blogspam (blogs made to generate pagerank) coming up as well as the page whos rank was intended to be boosted. It was just something I was thinking about, and wanted to hear others opinions. --[[User:The Inedible Bulk|TIB]] [[User_talk:The_Inedible_Bulk|(talk)]] 00:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
:::Wikipedia has approximately 1,500,000 external links. Are you suggesting checking all of these sites for robots.txt files? Nah, I think we should continue to deal with this on a case-by-case basis. It's not like people come here complaining about it regularly. I don't understand the connection to linkspam at all. — [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 00:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Robots.txt only applies to spiders, TIB. Please see [[Robots.txt]] to gain a better understanding. Robots.txt really has nothing to do with Wikipedia. --[[User:Quasipalm|Quasipalm]] 14:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
8) Norelle (Cycle 3 - Irish American)
Wikipedia is not a search engine. It does not automatically search or index the web. There is no need for us to be concerned about robots.txt, because Wikipedia is produced by humans and robots.txt is intended for robots. Please do not invent new hoops for Wikipedia to jump through. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 01:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
9) Julie (Cycle 3 - Indian)
== Others Deleting My Contributions ==
10) Magdalena (Cycle 3 - Panamanian Origins)
I have experienced others deleting my contributions as a form of what I consider to be bias against these factual statements, while they claim inaccuracies and vandalism on my part as their justification. What recourse, if any, do I have?
11) Naima (Cycle 4 - Black/Irish/Mexican-Black/Welsh)
[[User:RDF|RDF]] 01:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
12) Noelle (Cycle 4 - Black-White)
:See [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 02:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
13) Jayla (Cycle 5 - Italian)
== Proposed guideline ==
14) Lisa (Cycle 5 - Distant European Origins)
I've written a new proposed guideline, which I feel was sort of already an unwritten rule previously: [[Wikipedia: Defend the status quo]]. Please expand and comment on it. [[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]]) 07:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
15) Most Successful Modeling Career After Show: Elyse Sewell
== Let's finally SOLVE the Macedonia issue... ==
16) Only Two Former Strippers: Cassie Grisham (Cycle 3) and Tiffany Richardson (Cycle 4)
Please visit the following link:
17) Homosexual/Bisexual Contestants: Ebony Haith (Cycle 1), Adrianne Curry (Cycle 1), Michelle Deighton (Cycle 4) and Kim Stolz (Cycle 5)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Let.27s_finally_SOLVE_this_issue...
== Contestants ==
[[User:I sterbinski|I sterbinski]] 13:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Cycle 1 contestants (in order of elimination)
==suggestions to change the RFC system==
*Tessa Carlson
I've been pondering an idea for the dispute resolution system around RFC's, and I thought I'd propose it and see if there's merit enough to do something with it. Basically, the idea is to take the user RFC and remove it from any association from the process for arbitration. I'm still not exactly sure of the entire process, but my understanding is that when someone requests arbitration, the committee may request an RFC if they think it will help or if they want more information. So there seems to be some soft linkage between an RFC and arbitration. And I've seen RFC's used by editors as an attempt to punish people they disagree with.
*Katie Cleary
*Heather Panattoni
Basically, the idea would be to change the RFC to be a way for editors working in good faith to resolve a dispute. It would have no punitive results. The results of an RFC would not be used in arbitration. The fact that an editor is part of the RFC would not be viewed negatively against them. And the RFC itself would be deleted after some point. The language of the RFC form itself would be changed to some less accusatory tone, and more to a "we're part of a dispute with this user" attitude. A user RFC would actually be a "request for comments" as the name implies. If the editors on both sides are acting in good faith, then an RFC would allow some outside observers to comment, and any side that sees some problem with their own behaviour, they can change it, and the dispute can be resolved. Even deleted after some period of time.
*Ebony Haith
*[[Giselle Samson]]
The current RFC system, with it's accusatory tone, its evidence of disputed behaviour, its certifying users, its response, and all its formalities could be used as some precursor to arbitration.
*Kesse Wallace
*Robin Manning
There's somethign about the current RFC process that feels too "open ended", in that you can submit just about anything in the 'evidence' pile, and the "dispute" can be some vague, nebulous disagreement that several editors have with one individual. There is something to this approach that has the flavor of "mob rule" rather than "rule of law". The formal dispute processes should be restricted to specific policy violations. This might change the current RFC system into an "incident report" that would focus on one edit, or a number of edits on the same article within a short period of time. There is subjective interpretation of what constitutes a "NPOV violation" or even a violation of "NPA", and the result would then be a number of editors who would vote aye/nay as to whether the specific incident qualifies as a violation.
*[[Elyse Sewell]]
*[[Shannon Niquette Stewart]]
There should also be some way to separate "witnesses" from "jurors". People involved with the incident can testify what they think. People not involved with the incident can vote. The definition of "involved" could be written into a script which checks the edit histories of the user accused of violating some policy and the person making a comment and finds out how much interaction they've had. It may not be possible to have a hard and fast separation between "witness" and "juror", but at the very least, some metric should be possible that would indicate how much involvment a commenter has with the parties involved.
*[[Adrianne Curry]]
If it might end up in arbitration, then some sense of a commenter's involvement seems warranted. If someone who has never worked on an article involving any of the editors involved, votes that the person violated policy, that would seem to be less biased than if someone who has a long history of working with the person accused of violating policy. Allies might vote "innocent" even if the specific incident was a violation. Enemies might vote "guilty" even if the specific incident was not a violation.
Also, there seems to be no "statute of limitations", which has its reasons for existence in any rule of law: witnesses start to forget what happened. witnesses go away, can't be found, drop out. It would seem that if someone hasn't filed a ticket for a specific incident within three months (insert time of choice), it should be chalked up to experience and the forgive and forget rule should be applied.
Anyway, there may be pieces of the dispute resolution system that already handle this and I'm just not aware of their existence. If so, please point me in the right direction and I will happily educate myself on how they work. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 16:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Cycle 2 contestants (in order of elimination)
----
*Anna Bradfield
*Bethany Harrison
*Heather Blumberg
*Jenascia Chakos
*Xiomara Frans
*Catie Anderson
*Sara Racey-Tabrizi
*Camille McDonald
*April Wilkner
*[[Shandi Sullivan]]
*[[Mercedes Scelba-Shorte]] (Mercedes Yvette)
*[[Yoanna House]]
Cycle 3 contestants (in order of elimination)
== Links to [[freenet]] in wikipedia ==
*Magdalena Rivas
*Leah Darrow
*Julie Titus
*Laura Gromment (Kristi)
*Jennipher Frost
*Kelle Jacob
*Cassie Grisham
*[[Toccara Jones]]
*Nicole Borud
*Norelle Van Herk
*Ann Markley
*[[Amanda Swafford]]
*[[Camara Da Costa Johnson]] (YaYa)
*[[Eva Pigford]]
Cycle 4 contestants (in order of elimination)
Please take a look at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Beta m and his freenet spamming]]. [[user:mikkalai|mikka]] [[user talk:mikkalai|(t)]] 19:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[Brita Petersons]]
*[[Sarah Dankleman]]
*[[Brandy Rusher]]
*[[Noelle Staggers]]
*[[Lluvy Gomez]]
*[[Tiffany Richardson]]/[[Rebecca Epley]] (double elimination)
*Tatiana Dante
*Michelle Deighton
*Christina Murphy
*Brittany Brower
*Keenyah Hill
*[[Kahlen Rondot]]
*[[Naima Mora]]
Cycle 5 contestants (not in order of elimination, some last names not available yet)
{{spoilers}}
*Ashley Black (eliminated 1st)
*Ebony Taylor (eliminated 2nd)
*Cassandra Whitehead (quit - Episode 3)
*Sarah Rhoades (eliminated 3rd)
*Diane Hernandez (eliminated 4th)
*Coryn Woitel (eliminated 5th)
*Kyle Kavanagh (eliminated 6th)
*Bre
*Jayla
*Kim Stolz
*Lisa
*Nicole Linkletter
*Nik
== International versions ==
==Biographical content==
An Australian version of the show called ''[[Australia's Next Top Model]]'' was broadcast in [[January 2005]]. A second series will be aired early next year. The format was also used for British show ''Make Me A Supermodel'', the first series of which was broadcast in 2005. [[Thailand]] also used this format in a show broadcast in mid-[[2005]] There have been many spin-offs in many countries, mostly European. These countries include Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France, Thailand, Israel, Australia, Germany, Britain, and more. Most recently, supermodel [[Heidi Klum]] is set to host Germany's Next Top Model.
The content on the [[Nick Adams]] article became the subject of Mediation between User:Wyss and User:Onefortyone but did not proceed after one dropped out. However, that biographical article, and possibly others, now has a new section header called '''Rumours''' inserted by one of the parties to the aborted Mediation. Question for discussion:
== External link ==
# Is such a biography category encyclopedic?
*[http://www.upn.com/shows/top_model/ Official site]
# Is this consistent with the Wikipedia requirement of verifiability?
*[http://imdb.com/title/tt0363307/ ''America's Next Top Model''] at the '''[[Internet Movie Database]]'''
# Does such a category have the potential to be used for expressing POV etc. or circulating vicious gossip?
*[http://www.realitytvworld.com/americasnexttopmodel/ ''America's Next Top Model''] at '''[[Reality TV World]]'''
# Could open-ended content reduce Wikipedia credibility?
*[http://fansofrealitytv.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=195/ America's Next Top Model Forum] at Fans Of Reality TV
# Would such a biography category open the door to an increase in the number of edit wars?
[[Category:Reality television series]]
[[User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes]] 19:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:2000s TV shows in the United States]]
[[Category:UPN network shows]]
| 