|
<noinclude>{{Short description|Page for discussing policies and guidelines}}{{Redirect|WP:VPP|proposals|Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}{{village pump page header|Policy|alpha=yes|The '''policy''' section of the [[Wikipedia:Village pump|village pump]] is intended for discussions about already-proposed [[WP:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]], as well as changes to existing ones. Discussions often begin on other pages and are subsequently moved or referenced here to ensure greater visibility and broader participation.
<div align="center" style="border: 1px solid #000; background-color: #ccf">
*If you wish to propose something ''new'' that is ''not'' a policy or guideline, use [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)|Village pump (proposals)]]. Alternatively, for drafting with a more focused group, consider starting the discussion on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, the Manual of Style, or another relevant project page.
The '''policy''' section of the [[Wikipedia:village pump|village pump]] is used to discuss existing and proposed policies.
* For questions about how to apply existing policies or guidelines, refer to one of the many [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards]].
* If you want to inquire about what the policy is on a specific topic, visit the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|Help desk]] or the [[Wikipedia:Teahouse|Teahouse]].
* This is '''not the place to resolve disputes''' regarding the implementation of policies. For such cases, consult [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]].
* For proposals for new or amended speedy deletion criteria, use [[Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion]].
Please see '''[[WP:Perennial proposals|this FAQ page]]''' for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after {{Th/abp|age|{{{root|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|cfg={{{cfg|1}}}|r=y}} {{Th/abp|units|{{{root|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|cfg={{{cfg|1}}}|r=y}} of inactivity.<!--
-->|WP:VPP|WP:VPPOL}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{centralized discussion|compact=yes}}
__TOC__<div id="below_toc"></div>
[[Category:Wikipedia village pump]]
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
[[Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}}
|maxarchivesize = 400K
|counter = 204
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive %(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
{{clear}}
== Reword notice at top of WP:Copyright ==
Please sign and date your post (by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar)[[Template:Villagepump|.]]
Reword notice at top of [[WP:Copyright]] and restyle box, as it's not as neat as I liked, and it's not as easy to read. See it in my sandbox: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Waddie96/sandbox2&oldid=1303695668 User:Waddie96/sandbox2].
<big>
'''[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:Village pump (policy)|action=edit§ion=new}} Start a new discussion in the policy section]'''
</big>
</div>
===Compare:===
{{Villagepumppages}}
====Old====
== [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive|Policy archive]] ==
<div style="width:80%;">
Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive|here]]. These dicussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this
<div style="background-color: #ff000010; color: inherit; border: 1px solid; padding: 1ex; margin: 1ex; min-width: 20em;"> '''Important note:''' The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts or illustrations. '''It is therefore pointless to email our contact addresses asking for permission to reproduce articles or images''', even if rules at your company, school, or organization mandate that you ask web site operators before copying their content. The only Wikipedia content you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation about are the trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos, which are not freely usable without permission. Permission to reproduce and modify text on Wikipedia has already been granted to anyone anywhere by the authors of individual articles as long as such reproduction and modification complies with licensing terms (see below and [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks]] for specific terms). Images may or may not permit reuse and modification; the conditions for reproduction of each image should be individually checked. The only exceptions are those cases in which editors have violated Wikipedia policy by uploading copyrighted material without authorization, or with copyright licensing terms which are incompatible with those Wikipedia authors have applied to the rest of Wikipedia content. While such material is present on Wikipedia (before it is detected and removed), it will be a copyright violation to copy it. For permission to use it, one must contact the owner of the copyright of the text or illustration in question; often, but not always, this will be the original author. If you wish to reuse content from Wikipedia, first read the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Reusers' rights and obligations|Reusers' rights and obligations]] section. You should then read the [[Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License|Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License]] and the [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]]. </div>
period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the
====New====
discussion will be permanently removed.
{{Colored box|
| title = {{color|#101418|'''Important note:'''}}
| content = ; {{symbol|OOjs UI icon close-ltr.svg}}{{nbsp}}{{color|#101418|Please do not contact the Wikimedia Foundation for permission to reuse article text or images.}}
: The Foundation does not own that content and cannot grant permission. This applies even if your company, school, or organization requires permission from website operators before copying material.
; {{symbol|OOjs UI icon check.svg}}{{nbsp}}{{color|#101418|When to contact the Wikimedia Foundation}} : The only Wikipedia content that requires permission from the Wikimedia Foundation is use of its trademarked logos. These logos are not freely licensed and require explicit written permission for reuse.
== Risk of inappropriate images appearing ==
: For members of the media, see [[foundationsite:about/press/|Foundation:Press contacts]], others see [[Wikipedia:Contact us]].
; {{symbol|OOjs UI icon articles-rtl.svg}}{{nbsp}}{{color|#101418|Reusing Wikipedia article text}} : Permission to reuse and modify article text is already granted under open-content licenses by the original authors, as long as such use complies with the applicable licensing terms, provides proper attribution and licenses any modifications under the same terms.
I don't know if someone has already experienced the following issue in Wikipedia to date, but let me comment on it, just in case:
: If you wish to reuse content from Wikipedia, start by reading the [[Wikipedia:Copyright#Reusers' rights and obligations|Reusers' rights and obligations]] section. Then review the applicable licenses: the [[Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License|Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License]] and the [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]].
; {{symbol|OOjs UI icon imageGallery-ltr.svg}}{{nbsp}}{{color|#101418|Reusing images}} : Images on Wikipedia are not automatically covered by the same license as article text. Each image has its own license, which must be reviewed individually. Some images are freely reusable. Others are restricted or [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|non-free]] and may not be reused or modified without explicit permission from the original author. If an image was uploaded in violation of Wikipedia policy, reusing it could result in copyright infringement.
As there is no limitation on the uploading of images to Wikipedia, I believe that there is a chance that images that should not appear on any article (among others, pornography, images of disturbing violence, etc.), could get to appear. Even if this type of images appears for no more than an hour before the page is reverted, the damage is already done to those who come in contact with the material.
| background-title-color = #ffc8bd
| icon = OOjs UI icon information-destructive.svg
Is this risk already managed somehow? I would like to read your comments on this.--[[User:Logariasmo|Logariasmo]] 04:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
| style = border-color:#f54739;
:No more than any other risk, I think. Ideally, only one person should come in contact with it - and then they should revert it. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 04:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
| background-content-color = #ffe9e5
}}
::I don't think that casual visitors would know how to revert a page. It is even worse if it is children who visit the vandalised article.--[[User:JohnWest|JohnWest]] 04:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
</div>
:::Que Sera Sera. There is no mechanism set up for it, and I doubt one would be compatible with wiki nature. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 04:58, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
:You're right — images speak louder than words. If we ever move to a system where new articles are queued pending review by a pool of editors, new images will probably among the first parts of the wiki to be locked down. That's probably a long ways off, though. For now, the [[Wikipedia:RC patrol|RC patrol]] is doing a solid job. [[User:Benc|• Benc]][[User_talk:Benc| •]] 10:33, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Thanks for reminding me -- awhile ago, I noticed that a nude paparazzi photo of [[Brad Pitt]] was added to that article, but I had computer trouble before I could alert others to the problem. This is as much a copyvio problem as an inappropriate photo problem though. [[User:TUF-KAT|Tuf-Kat]] 22:54, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
:One partial solution might be use an algorithm that tries to detect "likely pornographic" images. Like spam filters, my understanding of such algorithms is that they're imperfect but often right. I believe they generally work by noticing a lot of flesh tones in a picture that doesn't seem to be a face. For a neural net, you train like crazy, and make sure that faces are in the "okay" list. You could then delay for a short time actual viewing of such 'suspect images', placing them on a "please check this" list (where an admin might okay, or after some period of time it just becomes visible). I agree that many people perceive pictures differently than words. I don't know if people would think this worth implementing or not, nor how hard it would be. But that might be a technical and procedural way to lower the risk a little bit. It's worth noting that in almost all cases, porn images are also copyright violations, so even if you don't care about porn per se, it's still a reasonable idea to have extra controls relating to images. -- [[User:Dwheeler|Dwheeler]] 03:45, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
::I did a little searching on filtering out porn images. I found a OSS/FS implementation of an algortihm to detect porn images, based on a larger project to detect 'bad' things called POESIA. You can see an [http://www.poesia-filter.org/pdf/Deliverable_1_4_public.pdf academic paper on POESIA as a whole]. [http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/poesia/PoesiaSoft/ SourceForge has POESIA software]; see the "ImageFilter" and "Java" subdirectories for code, and "Documentation" for - well, you can guess. Presumably, you could pass an image to this code, which would tell you if it's likely to be porn or not, and then you could make other decisions based on that. One interesting thing: POESIA can also detect certain symbols, like swaztikas, if you want it to. There may be other such tools; this is just the one I found. -- [[User:Dwheeler|Dwheeler]] 02:59, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
:::That sounds like a good technical solution. Like any technical solution, it has rough spots (e.g., we would need some mechanism to stop script kiddies from uploading tons of garbage images thus forcing the filter to eat up CPU cycles). I'd suggest putting in a feature request at [http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/ MediaZilla] and/or the mailing lists. [[User:Benc|• Benc]][[User_talk:Benc| •]] 09:48, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::Another thought: we could maintain a database of [[checksum]]s of deleted images. Any uploaded image matching a deleted checksum would be sent to the "check me" queue. This would prevent non-free images from being re-uploaded, excepting malicious users who modify the image slightly to change the checksum. [[User:Benc|• Benc]][[User_talk:Benc| •]] 09:56, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:My suggestion would be to restrict the uploading of images to registered users and/or to users who have already participated actively (posted more than once), as they are less likely to post this sort of things. Obviously, it is slightly against the open policy of Wikipedia, but it might be required in the future, and I believe it does more good than harm.
:Another reason for such a policy: Inexperienced users are more prone to unknowingly upload copyrighted images.--[[User:Lauther|Lauther]] 06:56, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is a terrible idea - how big a problem is this? The algorhythms cannot possibly filter out all offensive images - this will just lead to 'gaming' the system. Much better just to rely on people visiting the recent changes (is there a 'recently uploaded pictures' page? [[User:Intrigue|Intrigue]] 23:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:IMHO, the filtering algorithm idea is secondary to the main idea of sending new images to a "waiting for approval" queue, where admins would have to look at it briefly to make sure the image isn't inappropriate. Admins already do this on images that are already publicly accessible. This idea is just adding a safety net; it should catch a lot of the copyvios and outright vandalism — which we get a lot of, as far as images go.<p>You do have a very good point, though. I can see how implementing the algorithm as an automatic approval mechanism would encourage "gaming". Instead, we could send all new images to the approval queue, with those that the algorithm determines to be porn sending the image to a second queue, "probable porn". If and when a user's image gets sent to the porn queue, a message (or warning) is generated for that user instructing him to contact an admin if the image isn't porn, or to knock it off the image is porn. Unappealed images in the porn queue would be automatically deleted in three days. The regular pending-approval queue would have to be cleared out by admins on a regular basis, but the vast majority would be quick and obvious approvals.<p>Does this sound like a better solution, or are you entirely against the idea of a new images queue "safety net"? [[User:Benc|• Benc]][[User_talk:Benc| •]] 04:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:I've been a fan of wiki before I joined, and I have not once seen a hacking. But a safety net may tax the anti-hacking abilities of the community. Of course, we have the risk of explcit content being put here, that Wiki may even some day be a site of "Cyber Graffiti" or something of that nature. In fact, this may be giving vandals ideas as this is typed. Please forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems like a choice between images and the employee resources of Wiki. <p>PS- Plese inform me if I have done something wrong (or if I am wrong) here, as I am new.
[[User:Eseer Erre|Eseer Erre]] 20:20, 09 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:It seems to me that this issue is way overstated. The whole idea of the Wikipedia is that ease of edit makes the Wikipedia better. The easy edit policy may makes offensive and copyvio images (as well as other content) easy to add, but it also makes them just as easy to remove. If you try and change the system in a censor-istic attempt to control incoming content, you will remove, or at least dull, the fundamental advantage of the Wikipedia. [[User:Sowelilitokiemu|Sowelilitokiemu]] 09:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Credit for images ==
For years publications would customarily (US) use images without crediting the creator of that image, but that has changed in the US. Now credit is routinely given for photographs and artwork.
Is this official policy on Wikipedia?
In my view, it should be, unless the '''creator''' of the image has contributed it anonymously. Who made what images is a matter of history and knowledge as much as other article content.
This, however, raises another issue. Suppose a contributor to an article on Bugs Bunny (say, one Elmer Fudd) uploads one of his images for use in that article, and refers to himself in the caption in this fashion:
Cwazy Wabbit Eating a Cawwot (Photo by Elmer Fudd, 1999)
Anyone see a problem with this? (Other than Elmer's spelling?)
--[[User:NathanHawking|NathanHawking]] 01:17, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
:I see no problem; I credit all images I upload that I make as "Made by [[User:Golbez]]." --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 01:27, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
::I think he means in the article, not on the image's description page. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 01:28, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::Exactly. In the caption, visible to readers of the article.--[[User:NathanHawking|NathanHawking]] 01:43, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
:::Oh. In that situation, no, attribution should not be made in the article unless it's somehow relevant to the article. If people want attribution, they can click it. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 01:31, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
::::Why do you say this? Is this Wikipedia policy?
::::Custom in US print publications and even on websites is to give visible credit for the photograph or artwork. See [http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5989661/ MSNBC Space Plane].--[[User:NathanHawking|NathanHawking]] 01:43, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
:::::[[Wikipedia is not paper]]. I don't know where the policy is stated, or even if a policy is stated, but that's generally how it works here, unless it's a corporate source like CNN or the AP. But usually, having attribution on the image page seems sufficient. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 01:55, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
::::::Noted that Wikipedia is not paper, hence my observation that even online publications generally credit the source or creator of images. We attribute quotations and ''fair use'' passages of text from sources.
::::::If articles had sole authors, noting the authorship would seem appropriate. It only becomes impractical because of the large number of contributors and modifiers, thus the history of an article will have to do. Wikipedia documentation seems very clear (to me) on this rationale.
::::::But images do not suffer from that same ambiguity. If corporate sources like CNN or AP are credited in the article text, why not anyone who contributes an original image? Explicit credit might encourage more to create good images for Wikipedia. (Wow! Your name in print! Silly, maybe, but human nature.) --[[User:NathanHawking|NathanHawking]] 02:32, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
:::::::Don't quote me on that corporate thing, I was trying to think of any instance friendly to what you're saying. And the credit is just as hidden as it is for the article, so why should people be less motivated to contribute an image as an article? It takes at least one click to see who contributed either to an article or to an image, and in fact, takes more clicks to find out what was specifically contributed by the person. Image attributions are ''fewer'' clicks away. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 04:47, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
:It's not ''explicitly'' stated that you shouldn't. However, it violates some explicit guidelines implicitly. [[Wikipedia:Captions]] has guidelines for what should go in image captions, and a short summary of what goes on image description pages. The short of it is, captions should be short and to the point. Putting a credit in the caption pushes the caption farther from both.
:Print publications put credit lines next to images because they have no choice. MSNBC et al does it because they don't make effective use of the technology they have on hand. We have image description pages for voluminous information about the image itself, we don't need to clutter the articles with information that isn't relevant. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 02:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::I don't know how you could say that "Image courtesy of NASA." (for example) clutters an article. Now on the other hand if someone wrote a small paragraph on how they created the image, that would be clutter! However "short" captions are not always appropriate. Creating captions of 3 or 4 short sentences can add a lot of value in some cases, but of course this should be used sparingly. We should always avoid being too rigid in our guidelines and always attempt to add value when we can. If you haven't guessed already, I am for including short credits in the captions when appropriate. Authors (and even government agencies) ask to be credited for the images we use, and I doubt most people click through all of the images in an article just to read the credits. —[[User:Moverton|Mike]] 05:04, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
:I don't know about yours, but my encyclopedia (and my dictionary, for that matter) puts the image credits at the end, not in the caption for the image. So I'd say what we're doing is roughly analogous to the online equivalent of that. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 02:16, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
: For me, the chief problem with photo credits in article captions is that they have a negative effect, albeit a very small one, for the ''reader'' — it's a tiny bit of distracting and (typically) irrelevant information — I imagine that it's comparatively rare for anyone to have an interest in the authorship of a typical Wikipedia photo. As a courtesy to the photographer we should include the credits in the Image Description page, but as a courtesy to the reader we shouldn't clutter up articles with metadata. [[User:Matt Crypto|— Matt]] 09:10, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:Shouldn't we encourage people to include references with the uploaded images whenever possible? Not only would it make much easier the confirmation whether or not the image is in the public ___domain, it would also be of great interest for people who want to find out more about the image (painter, original publication etc.) – for example, the image of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oden_som_vandringsman.jpg Odin] is very nice, and I have no doubt it is indeed in the public ___domain. But how would I proceed if I wanted to determine the painter, and maybe find other paintings by him? That's just a random example, it's very common for images to have no reference. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 13:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::Which is what image description pages are for, not captions. An image description page describes the image by itself. Captions describe the image ''in relation to the article''. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 14:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:When I include copyrighted images of experts with permission I often give credit in the article, because this makes the copyright holder happier about giving the permission (exposure for them), and might encourage them to give more permission for stuff in the future. See for example [[Carl Hiaasen]]. Amateur work shouldn't usually be credited in the article though. [[User:Dcoetzee|Derrick Coetzee]] 05:26, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::I guess I might agree if I better understood the distinction between "amateur work" and its opposite. When I write for Sky Publishing or Kalmbach Publishing presumably I am a "professional writer" but when I write for Wikipedia, am I an amateur? When I shoot photos for Kalmbach or ANS I am a professional but the other 45 weeks of the year I am an amateur?
::I do understand what you are saying, but I think the issue of the professional status of the content creator is of no relevance while the quality of the content is highly relevant. On that view we should credit not for professionalism but for performance. -- [[User:Jeffmedkeff|Jeff Medkeff]]
:::Sometimes a picture gains extra credibility when the creator is known. A picture of some spectacular starscape gives an entirely different impression if the caption says "[[Hubble Telescope]]" than some artist, be they ever so well known. --[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 08:08, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Virtually all people I've asked about contributing images to Wikipedia are agreeable, ''as long as'' they are credited prominently for their contribution.
An idea: many things are now possible with CSS. Would it be possible to have <<Credit:©author name>> tag of some kind included in the image syntax, that could be rendered in very small text under the regular caption, or even in a vertical strip along the side of the picture (as is often seen in newspapers and comic strips)? With css it could be rendered differently with different skins, or suppressed in a user's personal style sheet. What do you think? [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine]] | [[User_talk:CatherineMunro|talk]] 18:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Sounds complicated [[User:Salasks|Salasks]] 02:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
== Sexuality in biographies ==
I note that the reference to [[Hardy|G. H. Hardy]]'s homosexuality, a trait ascribed to him by a number of people who knew him (Snow, Littlewood, Turing) has been removed from his biography. This has been done not because the information was not correct, but because this sort of information is not regarded ny some people as suitable to a biography. Why is this, and is this any kind of policy? If it is a policy, what precisely is the policy and what is its basis?
I note for example that Michelanglo's biography discusses his sexuality extensively, and Swinburne's mentions masochism. Is this because it is considered relevant to the artist? Hardy was also a literary figure, and his romanticizing of Ramanujan's remarkable gifts might well have something to do with his sexuality both directly and indirectly.
: Some random comments: I think it's unquestionably necessary for at least ''some'' biographies — [[Alan_Turing#Prosecution_for_homosexuality.2C_and_Turing.27s_death]], for example. For other people, it's less clear cut. My personal opinion is that you have to answer at least two questions:
# Why are we interested in this person? Is there interest in the person themselves, or are they primarily known for an important contribution? For example, people are intrigued by Turing's life beyond his contributions to logic, computer science, etc.
# What kind of impact does their sexuality have on the "reason for interest"?
:For a famous mathematician, such as Hardy, you could argue that his (rumoured?) sexuality was a private matter and of no relevance to his work or how he came to be famous. You could, I guess, also argue that there is now a wider interest in the details of Hardy's life, so it is worth mentioning — it's notable if someone is homosexual in a culture where it was considered atypical, taboo or even illegal (making it much more notable than if he were heterosexual). We do, after all, include other "life-trivia" such as "''Hardy never married, and in his final years he was cared for by his sister.''" [[User:Matt Crypto|— Matt]] 10:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As I pointed out, Hardy is also a literary figure; his ''A Mathematician's Apology'' is still in print after 64 years and is considered a classic; Graham Greene calling it "the best account of what it is like to be a creative artist". To say that he never married amounts to a wink and a nod under the circumstances; isn't it better simply to come right out with it? In any case it seems at least as relevant as his fascination with cricket or his atheism.
[[User: Gene Ward Smith]]
:So long as someone's sexuality is not the focus or most emphasized aspect of their biography on any article here, there is no reason why their sexual and other preferences should not be mentioned, particularly when, as Matt noted, they were taboo or illegal (which was the case with homosexuality in England at the time). It does seem silly to mention it in biographies of very recent Western celebrities however, because they don't face the same challenges and mentioning it seems like overemphasis (IMO)... - [[User:Simonides|Simonides]] 23:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::They don't face ''the same'' challenges, but they usually face ''different'' ones. For popular entertainers it can influence how closely they guard their privacy; for political figures it has bearing on their policy positions (e.g. either explaining why a conservative Republican favored a gay rights bill, or casting doubt on his integrity if he did not). Shying away from that particular aspect of the person's life when other aspects are discussed implies that it is scandalous or offensive (a POV with which I disagree). In most situations, I don't think that merely ''mentioning'' a person's homosexuality is "overemphasis" any more than mentioning another person's apparent heterosexuality (by referring to his wife and seven children). It's simply objective honesty. And I think we're a long way from the point where a homosexual or bisexual orientation really ''isn't'' significant to a person's biography; someday when biographers are working on the Wikipedia entries, books, biopics, videogames, and holonovels about me, they're going to find my sexual orientation far more interesting and informative about me than the city or the specific year in which I was born, or what the names of my sisters were. [[User:Tverbeek|Tverbeek]] 02:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::Also don't underestimate the influence this can have on young gay people, who will most likely not be told anyone in history is gay in schools. While it may not be at all relevant to the person's work it is sometimes very relevant to readers as it may give them something on which to relate. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion [[User_talk:Cohesion|☎]]]] 06:06, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment; should a person's heterosexuality be mentioned? My own view is that for [[Oscar Wilde]], for example, his sexuality is relevant because it played a major part in his '''public''' life, but for many other figures it isn't. Wikipedia is not here to provide role models but to be an encyclopaedia, at the end of the day. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 11:22, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Well, if their heterosexuality is somehow notable, yes. For example, if (as I believe) [[Aubrey Beardsley]] was heterosexual (and if we can get a reasonably authoritative statement to that effect), that would merit mention, since his close association with Oscar Wilde and the aestheticist movement would probably make people guess otherwise. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 01:58, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, homosexuality or bisexuality should be mentioned if there is some ''proof'' of it aside from rumors and urban legends. In the past, when homosexuality have been illegal, there have been truckloads of malicious rumors that have been used for defamatory purposes. They are not necessarily based in fact. I have also seen unfounded claims (althought I have not noticed any in Wikipedia as of yet) that most of the famous historical people have been closet homosexuals, which is about the same thing in reverse. If the persons have clearly had same-sex beloveds or have clearly indicated that they are homosexuals or bisexuals, that should be mentioned. That should be emphasized mainly if their fame or important event of their life or career was due to their sexuality (in Turing's case, the cause of his loss of security rating) - [[User:Skysmith|Skysmith]] 08:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:I'm not so sure. If, like [[E._M._Forster|Forster]], the person's sexuality is of great importance to the [[Maurice|work]] they produce over their lifetime, or emerges as a prominent or constant [[A_Passage_to_India|theme]] within their work, then ''yes'', their sexuality should be mentioned. Equally, Alan Turing's sexuality is important, as [[User:Matt_Crypto|Matt Crypto]] points out, because it plays an important part in our understanding of his life.<br>
:But there is a problem with sticking someone's sexuality in their biography as a minor detail, and/or especially next to their profession. For example,
:* "Jane Doe is a '''lesbian playwright'''..."
:as opposed to simply
:* "Jane Doe is a '''playwright'''..."
:can, IMHO, be seen as [[pigeonholing]] and has no place in an encyclopedia. If you take the view that sexuality is something you are born with, then if it has little influence on our understanding of a person's life and actions, it is no more useful than saying-
:* "Jane Doe is a '''blue-eyed playwright'''...".
:Just a thought. [[User:Shikasta|Shikasta]] 18:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::What I meant is something like this. If the aforementioned Jane Doe would be famous for writing lesbian-themed plays, she could be specifically listed as "lesbian playwright". In that case her fame would be based on her favorite theme. Otherwise she would be listed as a playwright and the fact that she is a lesbian could be mentioned elsewhere in the article, for example in a context of a same-sex partner. - [[User:Skysmith|Skysmith]] 08:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::Good point. We wouldn't say "Isaac Asimov was a bisexual writer", we'd say "Isaac Asimov was a science fiction writer" and mention his bisexuality where relevant; but we might say "Freddie Mercury was a musician and gay icon" or use a similar lead. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 01:49, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
::::Asimov was bi? I guess that explains why he didn't fly and always took a train or drove. --[[User:Gbleem|Gbleem]] 03:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
An interesting case study in this question is [[Rewi Alley]], who I've been researching (very little of the article is live, I decided to write offline). Neither Alley nor previous biographers make any definite statement on his sexuality, but the most recent biography is a revisionist history which concludes that 1) he was homosexual and 2) this played a key role in his life's path, e.g. it was his motivation for going to China. Should such a hypothesis be mentioned as an aside? (which implies some doubt in it if we otherwise retell the traditional version of his life, which the new book calls [[haigography]]).
:If it's in terms of "Jane Doe's lover Joan," for example, then why not? [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] 21:47, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
== Queen's v American English ==
This topic must have been covered before somewhere else. I'm noticing a lot of centres, metres, harbours, and judgements going on in Wikipedia articles alongside centers, meters, harbors, and judgments. Is there an ongoing discussion about using Queen's versus American English, or has this already been decided somewhere? If anyone can just point me to a discussion already in place I'd appreciate it. [[User:Thehappysmith|Thehappysmith]] 15:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
: I do not remember where I saw it (a quick look around turns up nothing), but I believe the policy is that each article should be consistent. For example, if an article uses "metre" then use the British forms. If an article uses "meter" then use the U.S. versions of words. Do not add "kilometre" to an article talking about "meters" because it is not consistent. [[User:Jgaughan|John Gaughan]] 15:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:The basic standard is, be consistent within the article, and for articles with a clear British interest, go with that spelling (i.e. [[London]]), and for articles with a clear American interest (i.e. [[Mt. St. Helens]]), go with American spelling. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]]
::Just a few comments:
::*I hadn't heard the form of english spelling used outside of North America called "Queens English" before. To me (an Australian) I thought "Queens English" meant a form of english speech, such as using "one" to refer to the first person among others. I normally call what is referred to as "Queens English" in this post, "International English".
::*I changed '''cubic kilometer''' to '''cubic kilometre''' in [[Mt. St. Helens]] a few days ago, because '''cubic kilometer''' was redlinked, and because I thought international measurements should match international spelling, and US measurements should match US spelling. It got changed back, but i didn't stress about it.
::*"For articles with a clear British interest".. I would think that should be "For articles without a clear US interest", as everywhere else (I'm not sure about Canada) uses that form.
::*What combination of US/international spelling/measurements does Canada use? Actually nevermind, I'll go read the articles and find out :)
::-- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 02:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::*Yes, this person has misinterpreted the term "Queen's English", which refers to a rather specifically aristocratic UK form.
::*[[cubic kilometer]] should redirect to [[cubic kilometre]]. The latter looks quite foreign to a U.S. eye.
::*"For articles with a clear British interest" should probably be something like "For articles with a clear British Commonwealth interest". But if you think that, as a Yank, I'm going to trouble myself to neatly write in Commonwealth English when I'm writing about Argentina or Romania, you're out of your skull. Topics with no strong connection to the English-speaking world are just going to reflect their primary authors' preferences.
::*Yeah, Canada's somewhere between. I believe that no one but those who've grown up with it cna comfortably reproduce a specifically Canadian English. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 02:04, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
:::*There has been an interesting discussion in the [[Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board]] about this subject under the title ''Erosion of British English usage and spellings''. [[User:Dieter Simon|Dieter Simon]] 23:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Whilst agreeing with the most of the comments raised above, I personally suggest that, wherever possible, words and phrases should be chosen so they aren't particularly UK/US/another form of English. For instance - instead of 'organisation' or 'organization', you can use 'group', don't refer to a 'public' school, but use 'private' school instead. Don't refer to meters or cubic metres, m or m<sup>3</sup> is easy enough to have in their stead. Sometimes this isn't possible, and the flow of the article is more important than thinking of a universally accepted alternative word/phrase. But wherever possible, use a linguistically neutral term. [[User:Jongarrettuk|jguk]] 20:54, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::I disagree completely, I think that tends to make for flaccid prose. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 01:46, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
:::I also disagree - particularly because of the school thing. A public school and a private school are completely opposite things to me. [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 00:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::::When using the term "public school" you really have to be careful. There are completely different meanings in US and UK usage. If the term is used in an article, a description needs to be added to make it clear what is meant by it. Otherwise the article will be seriously misleading to many. [[User:Jongarrettuk|jguk]] 04:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::: For that matter, anyone who's dealt with Latin America knows that U.S. English is the dominant form, Limey detractors aside. [[User:Austin Hair|A. D. Hair]] 03:34, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
I've copied the following from [[User talk:Tim Starling#Suggestion I posted on the Village pump]] bcz of its importance as a policy matter, not merely a no-brainer for Tim to implement. --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 01:45, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
:There was a discussion about spelling and punctuation AE vs. BE etc.. on the village pump. I put forward the following suggestion. Tell me what you think.
:This whole AE/BE preference problem is something that has probably got up the nose of very many Wikipedians over there years. I'm certainly one of them. I have a proposal for a relatively simple software solution that may be useful in other areas too. Some time ago we managed to kill off the debate about whether to use <nowiki>[[DD Month]] [[YYYY] or [[Month DD]], YYYY </nowiki> by implementing a system whereby wikified dates appear in one or other format depending on what the user has selected in their preferences. This works great but it only works for wikified dates. My solution world also work for unwikified dates. If we had a BE/AE option in preferences we could then have the flag checked when an article is displayed. Problematic words or phrases could be tagged e.g. "... he came to her {[defense/defence]} as soon as he could and ..." - and the appropriate word could be chosen as required.
:[[User:Mintguy|Mintguy]] [[User talk: Mintguy|(T)]] 14:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
** IMO, this is a terrible idea because it tries to impose a mechanical solution on a fuzzy problem. For instance, a UK buddy observed that i was mad keen about something. I use American English, so when i say i'm mad keen about anything, it would be a falsification of my intent to say, e.g., that i'm really hot for it. Similarly, i was taught that in AE, the first E is optional in both "judgement" and "arguement", which i take as evidence of reconvergence of the two dialects; the 'Net should logically be expected to be accelerating that in any case. We denigrate machine translations into English, and so we should, even more, unnecessary machine translations between these two mutually intelligible dialects. [Post by [[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] interrupted here by Mintguy's comment.]
:::My intention was to put this to Tim and for him to guage the feasibility. I would have preferred if you had not copied this here and then posted negative comments particularly as I don't think you have read my suggestion correctly. I don't quite understand what you are trying to say above. I am not suggesting that we have an automtic machine translation. It would merely be presenting some individually selected words (of the editors' choice) as AE or BE depending on the user's preference. To use your own words - It is a fuzzy solution. [[User:Mintguy|Mintguy]] [[User talk: Mintguy|(T)]]
:::This seems like a great solution to me. If an American finds an article that is written completely with British spellings, words, and phrases, or vice versa he or she could go through and edit all offending words to reflect either dialect based viewer preference. Examples: {[br:colour/am:color]}, {[br:centre/am:center/ca:centre]}, {[br:pram/am:stroller]}, I'm {[am:bent on/br:mad keen about]} making this clear. This solution would leave the ultimate decisions to the author(s) and editor(s), but would allow everyone to have it both ways. [[User:Sowelilitokiemu|Sowelilitokiemu]] 10:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Along similar lines:
* If editors who use Commonwealth English want a separate 'pedia, perhaps the current en: should become American-English only (and probably become ae: or something), and i'd join a corps of translators shuttling article back and forth, but i prefer that we speak, in our choice about that, for what is probably the future, and stick to pretty much the policies we now have. [Here Mintguy interrupts [[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] again.] <br>
:This comment exemplifies EXACTLY the point that everyone is complaining about. You are inferring the American English is the norm - and that us outsiders should branch off - when infact AE is the exception to most of the rest of the world. [[User:Mintguy|Mintguy]] [[User talk: Mintguy|(T)]] 09:12, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
* BTW, my quick read didn't quite satisfy me that anyone had enunciated what i thot was clear, and what i endorse: if the subject matter doesn't impose a logical choice of language, the original author's dialect should be retained. Two reasons i favor that are that it is even-handed, and that it offers a healthy incentive to Yanks to nurture their grasp of the Mother Tongue.<br>
--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 01:45, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
::Or to Brits to nurture their grasp of the fact that their dialect is no more valid than American, especially considering there are almost 300 million of us to less than 100 million of you. [[User:Sowelilitokiemu|Sowelilitokiemu]] 10:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Personally, as an effort to counter the 'perceived America-centric bias' -- even though I am an '[[American]]', I prefer to write in British English when writing, unless it seems to me that doing so will make it seem like a British imposition of viewpoint. I'm not thoroughly versed in the nuances of Britsh spellings versus American, but it's one way I try to fulfill the goals of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias|CSB project]]. '''Question:''' Is 'King's English' similar in connotation to Queen's English'?[[User:Pedant|Pedant]] 18:23, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
:Yes - when [[Charles, Prince of Wales]], or [[Prince William of Wales]], becomes [[King of the United Kingdom|King]], then we will speak (well, might aspire to speak) the [[King's English]]; [[officer]]s in the [[British armed forces]] will take a [[Queen's commission|King's commission]]; part of the [[High Court]] will be the [[King's Bench Division]]; we will have [[King's Counsel]] rather than [[QC]]s; and so on. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 18:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Queen's/King's English is the form of English spoken in England, and in the vast majority of the world. Much as I (being British) prefer to see the international form on pages, I recognise that it could cost Wikipedia contributors, and is thus probably something that all contributors/readers will have to put up with. It seems ridiculous to suggest one Wikipedia for Americans and one for the rest of the world, just as it seems ridiculous to have some articles which need to have American spellings just as the article is American-focused (or focussed!). For example, I expect just as many non-Americans view the [[George W. Bush]] page as do Americans. For my part, I shall continue to use the international varient. However, it would not be possible to have the (many) American contributors checked for every article they write. My solution: grin, bear it, and fix any broken links with redirects. --[[User:Smoddy|Smoddy]] 17:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::It is certainly not true that Queen's English is spoken in the vast majority of the world. I live in France, and have yet to hear a French person speak with the Queen's English! In fact, it is rather rare in the UK as well.... "Estuary English" seems to be far more common. Certainly in the U.S. and Canada, in Central and South America and even in Germany, Taiwan and China, most people speak English with a North American accent, not a British. But this discussion is pointless. ''Written'' English is still a single language with only some minor differences, and we all understand each other; that's the most important thing. People who are native English speakers should write in their own VARIANT of correct English; people who are not native English speakers should write in the English they feel comfortable with; everyone should stop casting aspersions on other native speakers who are writing as they were taught in school. Specifically, British people should stop criticizing Americans for not writing British English. There are historical reasons for the difference in our writing. [[Noah Webster]] (1758-1843) lived through the American Revolution, created the first American dictionary, and decided while compiling it that Americans should not write English the same way as their former enemies. Even though I, personally, would have preferred to have kept the old British spelling, American spelling is now correct usage for Americans. Words that are different in the two languages have all arisen since Shakespeare and therefore the British cannot claim that "car boot" is intrinsically better English than "car trunk" (although I agree that "lift" is a better word than "elevator"!). Everyone here should realize that there are literate (and polite) people on both sides. --[[User:Evangeline|Evangeline]]
21:41, 18 Nov 2004
:::I agree with you entirely that we should not worry about others' particular mannerisms of spelling English. I quite agree that we should write in whichever style of English we feel comfortable with. If someone else finds the result difficult to understand, it can be changed. British English ''is'' the most common form, but, in general, American English is, at worst, comprehensible to an International English speaker.
Someone suggested American English is the dominant form in light of Latin American speakers. This ''reasoning'' is invalid. The whole body of speakers of a language do not make it what it is, any more than the whole body of users of Windows determine what it is. The programmers of a language are those who learn it as their first language (and the speakers don't even vote with their pocketbooks, by helping pay these "programmers" for their services). (A tiny minority of those for whom it is a second-language can also contribute as significantly; such people are so rare as to be notable, and [[Jack London]] ''might'' be one, for English.)
Even the exception to this principle sharpens the point: when a [[creole]] (language) emerges from a [[pidgin]] (non-language), the only role that the speakers of the pidgin take in the process is specifying the vocabulary. The pidgin-speakers each learned a different language from ''their'' parents, and may have contributed some vocabulary to the pidgin, but if they learn the creole, it is as a second language, from the next generation. It is those who learned that vocabulary from their pidgin-speaking parents who build a language on top of it.
Who are the "programmers" of English? There are some in India, Pakistan,South Africa, and so on, but predominantly the
* nearly 290 M in America,
* nearly 61 M in UK,
* nearly 32 M in Canada,
* nearly 20 M in Australlia, and
* nearly 4 M in New Zealand.
It's probably far from true that that means 290 M speaking American English and 117 M speaking ''the same'' Commonwealth dialect, but even so
* these two or five or dozens are just dialects, not languages, and
* they are mutually intelligible, and
* they have become ''more'' mutually intelligible in recent generations, especially since [[communications satellite|commsat]]s and the 'Net.
I would not consider reading the "Erosion of British English usage and spellings" referred to above (unless someone assures me that it is mistitled and really concerns "Progress in Reunification of the Dialects of English"). Otherwise, its authors are in the dustbin of language history, with
* [[Noah Webster]],
* a [[Führer]] who decreed, for instance, the use of "Fernsehapparat" in lieu of "Television",
* the [[French Academy]],
* the Serb and Croat politicians who geared up for their respective hours of national glory by inventing two new languages and decreeing which [[Serbo-Croatian]] words were insults to each respective national glory,
* the Quebecois politicians who are now a quarter century into the emergency that overrode the civil rights guaranteed to their linguistic minority, and
* the Bush-leaguers who are doing their best to ensure that ESL elementary-school children sink if they can't swim in English.
Wikipedia is one of the reasons that individual dialects of English are blurring together; the internationalization of film is a far bigger one. Relative populations, the coherance of a single state, and (for a while still) per capita income, are going to give American English an influence in the result that is in many ways excessive and unfortunate. But languages, like species, ''evolve'' in response to real needs; don't forget that Yank arrogance has been insufficient to prevent the eager incorporation of "boondocks", "ketchup", "zen", "taco", "karma", and "Wanderjahr", to seize casually upon just a handful.
Any notion that ''planning'' how WP should handle dialect differences can matter in the long run is just plain silly, in ignoring the nature both of WP and of language.<br>
--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 19:04, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
== Fancruft ==
I believe the guidelines need to be a tad clearer concerning deletion, redirection, or merging of fancruft articles. Pages have been made on minute characters from shows like [[Buffy the Vampire Slayer]], [[Animaniacs]], [[DuckTales]] and [[Tiny Toon Adventures]] that do not belong here. Some, like the ones from Tiny Toons and Animaniacs, can be easily deleted, because the same information can be found on the show's main page. Others, like Buffy, have literally dozens of such pages to their name with a lot of information on them. Some have said that they could be moved to "minor character" gatherings on single articles, which has already been accomplished for shows like [[South Park]]. I think that's a good idea, but it still remains to be fancruft that makes little sense to anyone else, and even in these circumstances, I don't think deletion is out of the question. Any thoughts? [[User:Ian Pugh|Ian Pugh]] 17:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*:I'm noticing a lot of heat (and very little light) on the subject of [[wikipedia:fancruft|fancruft]] lately. It seems to me that a lot of people are forgetting that Wikipedia is not simply a place to find out information on subjects of which one already knows: it is also a place to discover new information. [[Wikipedia is not paper]]. Something to be borne in mind is the plan to make Wikipedia available—presumably on DVD—in places where there is no connection to the Internet; in this context Wikipedia needs to be able to stand more alone than usual. --[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 10:29, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
*One compromise that has been reached, in the case of [[The Apprentice]], has been to do just as you described -- move minor character information into a list page, or the main page, if sufficiently small in amount. One of the problems in making this kind of judgement is finding a principled position covering, say, [[Mr. Spock]], [[Jigglypuff]], and [[Kylantha]]. Figures such as Mr. Spock may have some significance to the general populance -- it could be said that he's the most famous fictional character from sci-fi. On the other hand, there's little reason we should know the entire fictional career. This brings to mind a question -- should the content of the article be related to the scope of notability? Particular, if person A, real or not, is notable for X, should we go much beyond X in describing them? How much detail do we want? We might, for example, decide that blood type, date of birth, first love, favourite foods, resume, family tree, and similar all belong on Wikipedia for someone who happens to be notable for something, or we might establish a rule of thumb to deal with this kind of thing. This is what I'd advocate, roughly -- if we can't explain why Jugglypuff or Kylantha are notable to society, they should not have an article, and if they do have an article, it should not go too far beyond a through exploration of the ties to notability. Thoughts? --[[User:Pgunn|Improv]] 18:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*I don't mind including fan information on various fictional universes. Wikipedia doesn't have a page count limit, and it frankly makes it a richer encyclopedia. The widespread coverage of J.R.R. Tolkein's fictional universe, for example, has probably brought in a lot of Wikipedia users, who then go on to edit other (even non-fiction) articles. In my mind, the biggest problem is that if minor characters have their very own article entry, and they might intersect with other entries, soon just about any entry will be ambiguous. If they're a minor character, it's probably worth considering putting them in a main article on their source. In any case, I think Wikipedia should cover all knowledge... even the knowledge of fictional universes. Let's face it, the world of literature is wide and influential, and ignoring it will ignore things that are important to many. To deal with size of printed materials, the real need will be to make sure that these things are categorized well.. then a printer can automatically remove them if desired. Besides, if this is the worst problem for Wikipedia, things are going really well. -- [[User:Dwheeler|Dwheeler]] 03:13, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
*Wikipedia is not paper. Fancruft is fine IMO if the article is really well written and if the subject deserves an article longer than a stub. [[User:Tempshill|Tempshill]] 00:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
**It's also important for the writers to maintain a sense of context. This is, after all, a general encyclopedia. People need to remember that a wolverine was a species of carnivore long before it was the name of a Canadian mutant. [[User:MK|MK]] 04:25, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
**Since we don't currently have a problem with ''too much'' content, I think minor character fancruft should be left alone unless it requires a disambiguation page, at which time those involved should decide if it should be consolidated. Otherwise, leave it alone. It lets people get angry about how ''biased'' wikipedia is, favoring US TV shows over whole continents. (This is reasonable, but the answer is too add more material, not remove existing material.) ;-) [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 07:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*Has anyone considered moving the stuff over to wikibooks? That seems like the best and most appropriate place for the minutiae that don't fall into the "encyclopedic" category. —[[User:Moverton|Mike]] 00:42, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
If an article about fancruft has potential to become encyclopedic or is encyclopedic, and the piece of fancruft is of reasonable notability within the surrounding fandom, I see absolutely no reason to delete it. If its a stub, you can of course merge it to some list. Wikipedia is not paper, and one of its greatest attributes is being able to have thousands upon thousands of articles about topics that people enjoy but a normal encyclopedia doesn't have space for. I don't understand the need to purify Wikipedia of any unimportant and not-so-notable topic. Half the point of it is to include all of those. [[User:Siroxo| ]]—[[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>siro</font>]][[User talk:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>''χ''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Siroxo|<font color=#627562>o</font>]] 11:36, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
The idea of a separate wiki for such material is sort of appealing (mostly because hopefully there no one would use the term ''fancruft'', which has very negative connotations in my mind). However, I don't like it as any sort of solution the way the current system works. (How does one move articles from one to the other? How does one ''get to'' one from the other? What if I want to link to information about [[Maglor]] from the Wikipedia article on [[Fëanor]]? For that matter, how to do I ''find'' the article on Maglor if I'm searching from here? What if I don't know enough about the subject to know which wiki I should look it up in?) We would also have to determine where to draw the line, which would be just as messy as the VFD notability discussions are today.
Of course, I ''do'' believe in merging small articles into larger, more useful articles. I'm working on convincing enough of the other Middle-earth editors. ;) [[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 00:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Solution suggestion: I believe in classification. If everything has a classification then when making a CD or custom version of wikipedia one may automate the process of selection. I would assume such automatic selection would work better if things are in separate articles. --[[User:Gbleem|Gbleem]] 03:00, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Template inside signature==
There are problems about use of this type of template in signature?
--[[User:Archenzo|[[User:Archenzo|Archenzo]] >> [[discussioni utente:Archenzo|{{Pax}}]]]] 13:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:I believe there is a limit as to how many times templates can be repeated on a page, so if you were to sign the same page multiple times, the template will stop working after the fifth occurance. I believe the name of the template is then shown instead. [[User:Zoney|'''zoney''']] <font size=+1 style="color:green;">♣</font> [[User talk:Zoney|'''talk''']] 13:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Um, what sort of problems? One that I know of (and why I stopped using a template in my sig) is that it only works for the first five times on a page--after the same template appears more than five times on a page, it does not get expanded properly. I understand that this is a setting in the Mediawiki software. [[User:Bkonrad|older]]<font color=blue>'''≠'''</font>[[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 14:01, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Not to mention that they are just damned annoying. Images like this draw attention. When I'm looking at a talk page, the fact that '''YOU''' have been there is not so bloody important as to deserve such visual prominence. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 18:25, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
:Seconded! This Unicode characters/images/tables/etc in signatures crap needs to DIE DIE DIE. [[User:Garrett Albright|Garrett Albright]] 05:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Just for the record your signiture contains 16 unicode characters without the datestamp. --[[User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason| ]] [[User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/|Ævar]] [[User talk:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/|Arnfjörð]] [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason|action=edit§ion=new}} Bjarmason] [[User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/| ]] 17:24, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
::Thirded. It's damn annoying, to tell the truth. I'd rather have everyone put a link to their Talk page instead. So much more convenient, and practical as well. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 11:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think i heard in #wikipedia that in MediaWiki 1.4 the 5 template limit won't be there (they have a differnt solution for infinite loops), then using templates in sigs will work fine (which I intend to do since my sig is very long :) [[User:Siroxo| ]]—[[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>siro</font>]][[User talk:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>''χ''</font>]][[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>o</font>]] 08:16, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
:If your signature is very long, you probably shouldn't use it. --[[User:Spug|Spug]] 10:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Many thanks! This was an experiment. The template is not now in my signature.--[[User:Archenzo|[[User:Archenzo|Archenzo]] ( [[User_talk:Archenzo|Talk]])]] 13:16, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:From the heart, thank you [[User:Ashibaka|A"shii"baka]] [[User talk:Ashibaka|✎]] 20:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Flash policy? ==
What is the wiki policy about including Flash (.swf) animations in an article? [[User:62.252.64.13|62.252.64.13]] 17:00, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:I'm not aware of any policy, but I'd call it unusual, but not discouraged. However, there should be some explanation of it for people without Flash, just as images have alt text. [[User:Dcoetzee|Derrick Coetzee]] 17:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*I would hope to see it forbidden -- it can offer very little useful content, is very nonportable to other formats, is impossible to translate, and is further difficult to edit. Allowing such things on Wikipedia would be terrible for the project. --[[User:Pgunn|Improv]] 05:44, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:The main problem I see is that editing Flash requires a proprietary tool. I strongly disagree with "can offer very little useful content." To the contrary, sites like [http://www.mathworld.com/ Mathworld] use a variety of Java applets where Flash would work just as well. Also, even images share the problems of difficulty in editing and translation, but at least image editors are free and ubiquitous. [[User:Dcoetzee|Derrick Coetzee]] 15:49, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::As previous posters have mentioned, Flash is too proprietary to be a good fit for Wikipedia. I doubt people would actually ''remove'' a Flash thingie from an article, but I think many people would work pretty hard to code a replacement, and put that in instead. So it's more like, please think really hard before doing it, and do it only if you '''really''' need to. (And expect it to be replaced, ASAP) [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 15:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::I'd say, keep the whole thing banned. Animations have no place in an encyclopedia. [[User:Gotalora|Gotalora]] 02:42, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::::I strongly disagree with this statement. Superfluous animations are distracting, but animation is a valuable tool for informing people in many cases. Encarta contains animations, Mathworld contains animations, and there are animations demonstrating a variety of academic concepts all over the web in math, physics, computer science, chemistry, and just about everything else.
::::Unfortunately, every widely-supported format for animations on the web is encumbered with problems. GIFs have patent (and size/smoothness) problems, MNGs are unsupported, Flash is proprietary, Java is heavyweight, and Javascript/DHTML are nonportable. If there were a standard for animations I can think of a number of articles that would benefit from them. [[User:Dcoetzee|Derrick Coetzee]] 03:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::::The GIF patent has expired. Animated GIFs are fine from a patent perspective. A free equivalent for Macromedia Flash (whether it uses Flash format or SVG) would be wonderful, but I'm not holding my breath... --[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]] 12:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::::[[Internal combustion engine]] is a perfect candidate for an animation, as is [[Lunar phase]]. The problem being, as others have said, an open format. I'm a little disappointed that neither page has any external links, animations or not! -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 03:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
HowStuffWorks.com uses Flash very well in explaining a variety of topics. Examples: [http://computer.howstuffworks.com/home-network1.htm Home Networking], [http://auto.howstuffworks.com/engine3.htm Internal Combustion], and [http://science.howstuffworks.com/earthquake3.htm Earthquakes]. I'm not sure if a propreitary format like Flash belongs in Wikipedia but there's no doubt in mind that it is possible to use it to improve articles, especially technical articles. [[User:Salasks|Salasks]] 03:08, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
==Messages in the article namespace==
Now that there are so many sources of these messages (stub, various COTWs, Countering systemic bias, more I do no know?), I'd like to propose that all such messages (yes, including the stub message) should be posted on the article talk pages from now on. If we do not tell readers on the article page that we think an article is good (the feature message), why do we tell them when we think one is rubbish, or too short? They might even work out the short bit for themselves. Do we need a poll? [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 08:21, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
:Featured articles don't need a message because they are the most evolved of the artices, and therefore need less work. The stubs and CSB messages need to be on the article page because they highlight the the shortcomings of the article, and encourage others to improve them. And if they were on the talk page hardly anyone would see this.- [[User:Xed|Xed]] 10:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Totally disagree. Editors read talk pages and information for editors can quite happily go on talk pages. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 10:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::Editors read talk pages, but often only if there is an indication on the article page that something is wrong. [[User:Xed|Xed]] 10:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Concur with Xed. --[[User:Pgunn|Improv]] 20:28, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Many templates by their addition on the main article page include the article in a category. We would need to have invisible templates to be added to the article page to add the category and alert editors to the status of the page. Actually, in general, I don't think it would be very workable to remove templates from the article pages - rather I would prefer to see the FA template being included on the page (and hey, that will suitably embarrass people enough to remove FA status if the page degrades). The NPOV dispute template or protected message are there to warn readers too for example. [[User:Zoney|'''zoney''']] <font size=+1 style="color:green;">♣</font> [[User talk:Zoney|'''talk''']] 09:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Is there a problem with having the talk pages inside those categories, which are categorizing metadata, not article content, anyway.
::On the latter point, it seems clear to me that all those messages are for the benefit of editors not readers. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 10:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::We have a guideline that says that tags that are for editors should go on the talk page and I would suggest that the stub and cotw tags fall into this category. The guideline implies that tags for readers should go in the article and I would suggest that the FA tag falls into this category. So I wonder, why ddo we post them the wrong way round? I agree with Pete re the categories. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 10:15, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
:You're missing the point. The stub messages and so on are, effectively, apologies. Readers seeing a crappy incomplete article would tend to overgeneralize and think all Wikipedia articles are crappy and incomplete. The message tells them, 'This isn't our best article, we're still working on this one, don't consider it representative.' [[User:Dcoetzee|Derrick Coetzee]] 14:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Equally, the other messages might be read as sending messages to the readers. My point is, why are some messages accepted on article pages while other, equally valid, ones are not? Specifically why flaunt apologies and hide the FA message? [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 14:42, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
:::Featured articles don't need a message because they are the most evolved of the artices, and therefore need less work. The stubs and CSB messages need to be on the article page because they highlight the the shortcomings of the article, and encourage others to improve them. And if they were on the talk page hardly anyone would see this.- [[User:Xed|Xed]] 14:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::::You are saying that editors don't read talk pages. If this is true, and I don't think it is, it would be better to promote to use of talk pages again rather than pollute articles with non-article metadata. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 14:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::"This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by fixing it." Sounds like a message to editors to me. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 14:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::By definition. And often on articles that are actually quite complete. And if FAs do not need tags, why does <nowiki>{{FA}}</nowiki> exist? Article pages should represent the current state of the article, no more, no less. All the meta stuff belongs on the talk page. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 14:55, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
::::Note that <nowiki>{{FA}}</nowiki> *is* generally on talk pages. The battle of where to put the template has been won in that case, but the war about all the other templates is apparently still going strong. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 15:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::::YM <nowiki>{{featured}}</nowiki> HTH. <nowiki>{{FAC}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{farc}}</nowiki> also go on the talk page, as does <nowiki>{{COTW}}</nowiki>.
:::::I am persuaded of the rationale for a short message on an article's main page (rather than talk page) to explain to the reader that an article is shorter than may be hoped for (i.e. a stub message); similarly if there is a problem with POV or disputed facts then we (rightly) have messages that go on an article's main page to alert the reader, and these issues are generally dealt with quite quickly. However, stubbiness, POV, disputed facts can be tested reasonably objectively, whereas systematic bias is much more subjective. I don't think it helps the reader very much to know that a topic is (allegedly) subject to systematic bias. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 15:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::::::''Systemic'' not systematic. A description of the difference is on [[WP:Bias]]. -- [[User:Xed|Xed]] 15:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::::::Can't see the difference, to be honest - if the system creates a bias, that is a [[systematic bias]], whether it is deliberate or not. How does a [[systemic bias]] differ? -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 18:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::::::PS - both are redirects to [[bias]] which was in cleanup, and I have subsequently edited it a bit - if you want to explain the difference between systemic bias and systematic bias, you could do it there and expand the article at the same time. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 19:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::::::''Why'' are you persuaded of the rationale for putting stub messages? If an article is short, the reader can clearly see that for themselves.
::::::As for the pov messages, they are always put there to placate editors who are at war, not to help readers out (in fact it may even hinder readers whomight then suppose articles without this message have been ticked off as neutral). [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 17:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::::::Because, as [[User:Dcoetzee|Derrick Coetzee]] points out above, stub messages are effectively apologies to readers so they know that the stub is not typical (actually, at the moment, quite typical, but there is some good content too...) and to encourage them to have a go at filling it out. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 18:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::::::: I have to agree with [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] and [[User:Dcoetzee|Derrick Coetzee]]. The very first article I edited was one that was marked as a stub that I felt I could shed additional light on. If the stub message wasn't there, and thus wasn't inviting me to put in my two cents, I probably never would have started contributing. --[[User:HeartBurn Kid|HBK]] 05:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Filiocht that the policy on this subject needs some clarification, although I'm not sure I agree with his suggestion. As has already been pointed out in this discussion there are quite a lot of tags on article pages, and many seem to be intended mainly for editors. This probably explains why those of us involved in the CSB discussion on the templates and their use didn't really see any big problem with pasting them to article pages. For me, the main argument is that it would serve Wikipedia in the long run to encourage editors to expand on lacking articles, and that tags on article pages will be a more effective way of doing that than tags on talk pages.
I also think that the CSB Article tag (that says "This is an article targeted by the WikiProject Countering systemic bias as in need of expansion") fills a purpose as an excuse, and perhaps a hint at an explanation, to a reader discovering that important African profiles and huge labor organizations only have semi-stubs, when Wikipedia has half a novel on each and every obscure programming language and Middle Earth creature. The wording was chosen on the basis that it makes a non-POV statement, instead of a value judgement such as "this article is too short". Currently, there doesn't even seem to be any generally accepted way to alert the reader to the fact that an article is short in relation to the subject matter it's dealing with, if it isn't short enough to be called a stub.
The other CSB template, called Limited geographic scope, fills another important reader information function. It highlights the fact that although the article is about a seemingly general topic, "the general perspective and/or specific examples represent a limited number of countries". This is very common (for some examples, take a look at [[Lawyer]], [[Gang]] or [[Student activism]]) and can potentially irritatate and alienate a large number of readers and potential contributors. The template could be seen as a sort of "internal stub tag", indicating that important parts on the subject is dealt with in a stubby way or not at all.
The above is an attempt to explain some of the reasoning behind the well-meaning initiative that some fellow Wikipedians have chosen to call SPAM in capital letters. This does not mean that I don't see the other side of the argument. Neither does it mean that I won't accept not being allowed to paste CSB templates wherever I see fit. I'd just like some constructive dialogue on better ways to handle the problems this initiative made a serious attempt at addressing. I would welcome any wording suggestions that might lead to templates filling the purposes outlined above being generally accepted. [[User:Alarm|Alarm]] 18:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Part of the problem, I think, was the rather prominent nature of the templates used. The stub template is a short italicised sentence, no images, no box, no colour, and quite easy on the eye. I applaud your sentiments, but, for example, I was somewhat surprised to see that a prominent "CSB" notice had suddenly appeared at the top of the the current COTW, [[African Union]], dwarfing the rather discreet "Current COTW" tag. (As an aside, if you doubt the efficacy of COTW, you only need to see how [[African Union]] and [[Congo Civil War]] have come on.) -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 19:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::You should give the efficacy of CSB a chance. - [[User:Xed|Xed]] 20:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::Oh, I think it is an excellent project. I just don't think it needs banner templates at the top of articles to achieve its objective. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 20:38, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::::Why not give the templates a chance? What's the worse that could happen - Wikipedia gets better articles? - [[User:Xed|Xed]] 21:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::::Because (a) I think they are information for the editor, not the reader, and so should be on the talk page not in the article itself; and (b) I think they are too intrusive and detract from the content, which is, after all, the article, not the template. The worst that could happen is that readers see the banner and don't bother to read the article because it is marked as containing systemic/systematic/whatever bias. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 21:18, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::::::So is it just a design issue? It's too big? - [[User:Xed|Xed]] 22:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::::::The worst that happens is that you spam articles, and effectively enclose them, withyour own POV judgement which remains there for all time. And then along come 101 other projects which do the same thing, until the wikipedia starts looking like a parade of worthy but misguided project adverts, beneath which, if you look hard enough, you'll find an article. It is not a design issue; in the case of CSB it is a POV issue. More generally it is a policy issue. --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]]
This should not degenerate into a spat over a particular template. The issue here is consistency. I contend that his is lacking in the current situation. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 07:34, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
:Again, my contention is that a reader will assume an article is representative of Wikipedia content unless we indicate otherwise. In the case of a featured article, this is a ''good'' thing — we don't want to ruin their good impression of the project as a whole by saying, 'You might like this one, but this article is better than all the others.' With incomplete, highly biased, or factually incorrect articles, it's just the opposite — a notice to editors on the page tells the reader that the page is still being worked on and shouldn't be considered reliable or representative. Also, since readers are often interested in topics they look up, it strongly encourages readers to become editors, just as red links do. Other messages do not share this property. [[User:Dcoetzee|Derrick Coetzee]] 07:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Similar cases could be made for other messages and personally I don't buy them. Also, there are repeated debates over what a stub is, with many articles potentially being incorrectly tagged. Once again I state: IMHO, we need consistency, a consistent and clearly stated policy. The steps towards this goal, as it see them, are: 1) define which messages are for readers (as opposed to for editors). 2) recast policy so that only these messages appear on the article page. 3) institute a mechanism whereby new messages can be caterorised as talk page or article page messages. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 08:03, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
:::I could easily mark hundreds of articles with a template that says that the article is crap, in my opinion, in one way or another. Or I could put them on cleanup. Most of us don't do that. We gradually try to improve articles in areas we know and create new ones. We don't stick ugly apology notices on them. And I am tired of the argument that stubs and poor articles and blank links are good because they encourage new editors. By that logic, what you need are more systemic biased articles not less. A difficulty with templates is that it they are easier to put on than remove. It isn't worth a possible fight to try to remove them. But every supposed new problem that comes up has someone proposing another ugly template to mark the supposed problem, to alert readers that this ''especially'' needs to be fixed. Stop ''all'' ugly tagging of articles by template warriors. Fix it yourself, or send it to cleanup and mark it with a template for that purpose, or leave it alone. If a project plans to work on a particular series of articles, list them on the project talk page. Stop SPAMMING me through templates that I have some duty to work on something just because there is a template on it. Or add a feature to turn off all editorial template display and make it the default. In the case of stub templates often placed by someone who obviously knows nothing about the subject. Templates that mark that an article is listed on a dispute page or on cleanup or on VfD or copyvio are a different matter. There is some way of knowing when they should be removed. But when does a systemic bias template get removed: when Xed, according to his POV, indiosyncratically says it should? Or are there going to countless editorial fights over template removals? Wikipedia supposedly doen't allow tailored messages to be written within a article to be visible in normal viewing. Why should less helpful untailored templates be allowed? Get rid of this junk POV advertising. [[User:Jallan|Jallan]] 00:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Once again: my suggestion was not about one message, it was about all messages. I could mirror Jallan's rant substituting the stub message for the bias one, but that gets us nowhere. I'd now ask anyone posting here to read the original question first. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 08:32, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
== Avenues for handling the ever-increasing size of VFD ==
For a good deal of time, we've been certain that there's a problem with how we handle deletions. The one that most people are sure about is that [[WP:VFD|VFD]] is getting too big to handle. There are, of course, those who claim that VFD is an anachronism, useless, etc. (these people are often those residing in the extreme inclusionist camp), but their views don't carry wide support among the community.
Naturally, we've had proposals combatting the problem of an ever-expanding VFD, some of which can be viewed on [[Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion]], [[Wikipedia:Managed Deletion]], [[Wikipedia:Categorized Deletion]] and [[Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion]]. I originally wrote the following essay rebutting some common objections against Preliminary Deletion, but I found that the ideas outlined within would give a very good idea of where we could steer policy-writing in the future, regardless of Preliminary Deletion's outcome. Thusly, I have decided to share this with the community at large, since I believe that as our community grows, so will the size of VFD, and by extension our problem with maintaining such a behemoth.
<nowiki>[responding to the suggestion of expanding speedy deletion criteria]</nowiki>
Shall we rereview the results of Managed Deletion? I'd love to expand speedy deletion criteria, but that proposal would get shot down easily. There's a reason why nobody's drafted such a proposal — nobody but a few deletionists (or centrists leaning towards the deletionist side) want it.
The largest complaint about Managed Deletion was that it placed too much power in admins' hands. A good part of the community distrusts three admins to handle a deletion, so our alternative is to let one admin decide? That makes even less sense.
There's another compelling reason not to expand speedy deletion criteria. We might expand them, but the inclusionists always whine about the deletion of prose. It's one thing to delete "ioshgohgoaghoeg". It's another to delete a paragraph or two which some inclusionists might actually claim to be notable; these are borderline cases which some admins delete, but some admins don't. Expanding the speedy deletion criteria destroys the beautiful, if flawed, process of VFD.
Now, I'm going to discourse on why VFD is one of those genius-istic systems that some recognise and some don't, much like the U.S. Electoral College. VFD is not merely a place to delete articles. VFD is a place where borderline articles are placed when people don't know what to do with them.
For example, take a poorly written article on some rather obscure subject, say, a 1920s Bulgarian actor well known within his home country only, for pioneering filmmaking there. Google probably won't yield too many results on him. It may look like vanity. So following our current system, an editor places it on VFD, which basically advertises to Wikipedia: "Hello, I'm an article which is so confusing, nobody knows what I'm about or whether I should even be here. Can somebody help sort me out?" Anyone who knows the actor can easily describe how he is encyclopedic and should be kept.
Speedying full-fledged prose destroys this process, and as such, is probably not too feasible.
<nowiki>[responding to charges against Preliminary Deletion, such as "confusing bureaucracy", "instruction creep" or "too many problem resolution pages"]
<snip></nowiki>
Wikipedia is growing. We're getting more visitors. The population always contains a few baddies. At first we had one or two baddies, nothing our system couldn't handle. But as we grew bigger and bigger, we got more baddies, because we got more visitors. The percentage of baddies remains fixed, but not the total population. So naturally, we had to expand our systems for handling baddies as we grew larger.
Now, I'd say our current system is not scaling. Look at the debates on VFD. There are many contentious ones; however, there are always a few cases where practically everyone is for deleting the article; an obvious violation of policy, for example, such as irredeemably POV articles, or original research, or simply vanity pages. It's impractical to have them cluttering VFD, which is already damn bloody long to read, thank you.
So, our system simply isn't scaling. We will need to tackle this eventually, because people on dial-up simply cannot participate in VFD. Categorising VFD (another proposal) is an excellent start. But we will need to add extra pages. There is no doubt about this at all. We will need to expand our system for handling these, because there will be more people adding vanity pages, which will lead to more listings on VFD, which will lead to an extremely long page that only those on broadband can even read.
We have to cut down the size of VFD. The only way to cut down its size is to cut down the pages nominated, or move them elsewhere. The only way to cut down the amount of pages listed would be to loosen our policies, which surely a lot of people would oppose, or to develop other avenues for listing them, which leads back to "move them elsewhere". So it's your choice, folks. Either you centralise everything on one monolithic page, or you categorise deletions in some manner.
(this essay was originally posted on [[Wikipedia talk:Preliminary Deletion/Vote]]) [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 11:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:I don't think the main objection to managed deletion was that it gave admins too much power, but that it privileged them by excluding non-admins from a voting process. Maybe a managed deletion path without this privileging of one grouping might be accepted? (Disclosure: I'm an admin, but not a member of any [[Cabal]], as far as I know.) [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 13:17, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
::You know, Filiocht, I thought I was distinctly non-Cabalistic, if not unclubbable, until I wrote the Managed Deletion proposal and was called a Cabal member. The thing about the Cabal is that it's defined by the people who aren't in it. Anyway, the reason for admin-only was that I wanted it to be a form of expanding Speedy without the arbitrariness of "kill on sight" that ought to be really horking off inclusionists (if people only knew what they ''weren't'' seeing on VfD). I wanted a way for dangerous stuff and stuff that gamed us to go away, but with a consensus, and I structured the process so that any disagreement defaulted to VfD so that there couldn't be abuse. The reason I didn't make it open to all was that I thought the authors would vote "keep," and even a single keep vote punted to VfD. Also, I thought there were some people who might make it a point of pride or principle, because they don't think anything should be deleted, to go through and cast serial "keep" votes. That would have rendered the page nil. That's why I didn't have it open to all. There ''is'' another way, and that's to have a set of "Electors." I described this on the talk page to Johnleemk's proposal, but I gather he didn't like it, either, and it would definitely mean more beaurocracy. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 01:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::Electors are even more cabalistic, even if [[there is no cabal]]. We need to tailour proposals people can swallow. The thing is, as someone said elsewhere (can't remember where I read it), Wikipedia is so divergent now that it may be nigh-on-impossible passing any new policies in the near future, since there will always be a substantial amount of people you can't please (well, enough to prevent consensus at any rate). I find it close to hilarious people are calling Preliminary Deletion confusing or overly bureaucratic. I'm as fed up with red tape as the next person, but to me it seems people have taken advantage of this poll to vent their anger with the increasing bureaucratic procedures we have. I mean, you're able to boil down the policy itself to one sentence! And the additional "extras" are only one or two sentences more. How can this be complicated? I intentionally decided against using your suggestion, Geogre, not because I didn't like it, but because I know how afraid people are of bureaucracy. It's overly complicated, and people won't trust it. I'm extremely frustrated about how that despite the fact that we need to change our policies to keep up with an expanding Wikipedia, a substantial niche of people who have their own ideas (ideas ranging from the wildly inclusionist to deletionist that will get a lot of "no" votes if they're ever put to the vote) are holding up the majority who agree with a particular proposal. If 70% "yes" votes is the best a proposal as simple as this can muster, I wonder how "expanding speedy deletion" will go if it's ever polled for. Expanding speedy deletion gives '''one''' admin the vote. It doesn't just exclude non-admins; it excludes all admins but the one who stumbled upon the article. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 08:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::Now this is going to be hard for me to write, as I feel I'm going against my instincts, but maybe the answer is to just give up? I mean that maybe current VfD setup is the least possible evil? As someone who has tended to avoid the page for a long time now, I may be in no position to talk, but if an alternative solution is so hard to come up with, maybe that's because there is no alternative than to fight the good fight on an article by article basis? Or to accept that Wikipedia will never be an encyclopaedia in the conventional sense and that there will always be articles that I feel have no place here but that have a lot of support from others? In other words, if this place remains a process, thaen the presence of crap is less of a problem than it would be if it ever becomes a product. Of course, if it does ever become a product, I can imagine that a small group (2 or 3 people) will make some very hard-nosed decisions about what to keep and what to dump. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 09:03, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
:Well, Filiocht, after the failure of Managed Deletion, I just wrote articles for a couple of weeks, ignoring all else. I was even tempted, when writing, to say what the inclusionists say, "Someone will fix it" and write whatever crap my memory dumped out. I didn't. I researched. I was careful, but it's just as discouraging to know that one's attempts to be precise, to think about one's prose, are of no more value than "Melissa Doll is an erotic model. She is very popular." Why work, when the work has no value? Why not just litter the site with the eager fever of self-fame? Do the best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with a passionate intensity? If they are, what can we do but step up?
:So I have returned to VfD. Article by article. Checking in every :30 or every :60, because otherwise it's too long in ''new listings alone'' to manage. I have gone back to being [[Jack Ketch]] on the CsD page, though I don't do New Page patrol enough. I don't know what else there is to do, when Johnleemk is right: there are enough people of any point of view who are filled with zeal enough to kill ''all'' policy changes.
:Johnleemk, I came to the conclusion that speedy expansion was impossible ''before'' I wrote the Managed Deletion. On the proposal page, you'll see a bunch of admins agreeing. People will suggest new criteria, and they'll have a civil discussion (see the talk page of my old Managed Deletion -- very constructive and sane), and then it gets to a vote. When it gets to a vote, a host of people are marshalled from the void to not just vote "no," but scream "no" (see -Sj-'s taunting on the subject of extending the vote period on Managed Deletion on the vote page).
:My sad assumption is that there is going to be a point where only beaucrats, if not just admins, will have to make non-democratic (not unilateral) decisions. The reason is just that we have policies set up for the days when Wikipedia wanted to grow, when it was vital not to scare away contributors. It was well crafted, over time, for that. Well, we have contributors now. Now, we have a steady enough base and a large enough inventory that we need quality rather than quantity, but our rules are still set up so that no one can be scared off, where all is entirely democratic. I'm for democracy, of course.
:As for the Elector thing, it's pretty democratic, but it adds paperwork, no doubt. I don't even think, btw, that anyone is really worried about that. I think that's an excuse. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 13:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::I agree with you (but I still can't stomach a full-time return to VFD) in general, but...I don't ever see the community adopting any of these measures. Like I said, if people think Preliminary Deletion is confusing, complicated and bureaucratic, wait till they vote on the elector system. It doesn't stand a chance as the situation is now. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 16:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== typo/misspelling redirects ==
Is there a place where we collect redirects that should be removed? Redirecting misspelled variants can be outright harmful: it leads to wrongly spelled links on WP going undiscovered (because they will be blue, even though misspelled, this has happened to me several times), and also readers may be led to believe that the spelling is correct when it is not. Two examples off the top of my head:
*[[Qu'ran]] (for [[Qur'an]])
*[[Battle of Khadesh]] (for [[Battle of Kadesh]]).
[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 16:42, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Try [[Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion]]. [[User:Bkonrad|older]]<font color=blue>'''≠'''</font>[[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 16:45, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
I still believe that there is a strong argument for keeping common misspellings as redirects. It enables searching for the common misspelling. Ideally, we should develop a way to have these handled by some special approach that prevents them from creating blue links. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 06:39, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
:well, instead of a simple redirect, we could put a note saying "did you mean", e.g. at [[Qu'ran]]: "Did you mean [[Qur'an]]". An automatic redirect is not even noted most of the time, and people will not realize it was a mispelling (rather than an accepted variant). [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 08:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::It is possible to add a Category to a REDIRECT (you have to append it and make sure the whole thing is on one line. If we categorised REDIRECTs by their function, it would be possible for the [[Janitorial Squad]] to check that they are not being used for links where undesirable. --[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 12:06, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
:We have red links for missing articles and blue for those that exist. Is it not possible to get the system to make links to redirects green or something? Simply checking the first character of the article (a #) might be a simple way of doing this. If the green is of the same brightness level as the blue it would not be overly distracting but would allow us to spot them easily enough. [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 12:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::While having the redirect links display in a different color ''might'' be OK as a user preference, I just want to point out that it is perfectly acceptable to use redirects as links. I'd be cautious about anything that might give people the impression that using redirect links is somehow deprecated and should be avoided. [[User:Bkonrad|older]]<font color=blue>'''≠'''</font>[[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 14:02, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
:::To be honest I think that people shouldn't link to redirects - piping them is much better. When editting an article I usually check for any links that are redirects and update them. [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 17:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::It depends on the nature of the redirect. For example, if the title of a book currently redirects to the author it is still entirely correct to link to the book title: if that article ever gets written, it will now go the right place without further work. Similarly if the name of a building redirects to the city the building is in. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 21:32, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
If one adds [[Template:R_from_misspelling]], "What links here" can be used to makes sure nothing links there. This makes spell checking easy.
The source is much easier to read if with <nowiki>[[Mayor of Chicago]] instead of [[List of mayors of Chicago|Mayor of Chicago]]</nowiki> (to link to the [[List_of_mayors_of_Chicago|same page]]). Such redirects shouldn't be replaced with a direct link. -- User:Docu
Links to redirects can always be replaced automatically, if desireable, so there is no need to deprecate them. The "Misspellings" Category however is an excellent idea (as long as it doesn't spawn enthusiasm for the inclusion of as many misspellings as possible...), and it may also be used to automatically check for mispellings present in article texts. In fact, it would be great to have Categories for ''all'' redirects, allowing a classification of why the redirect is there (abbreviation, a.k.a/alias, misspelling, wrongtitle,...) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 16:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I just found [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages]]. nice. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 18:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Proposed method for reconciliation of Deletionist and Inclusionist Attitudes ==
Inclusionists and Deletionists share what often seems like very little common ground (at least when discussing what to do with unsatisfactory articles), but both hope to make Wikipedia as good as it can be. I have a suggestion that I think would render most inclusionist/deletionist disputes moot; and be a positive wikipedia change as far as both camps are concerned. In the policy proposal I may speak extensively of school articles, though articles on schools are certainly not the only thing that would be impacted by this proposal.
Sometimes (at least when tempers are a bit hot due to a vehement dispute), there is the suggestion from one camp that proponants of the opposition view ought to start their own wiki. Suggestions of this sort are problematic not only in so far as they produce factionalism, but also because, if we were to take them up on that, we would essentially be forking wikipedia. And splitting the editor base into two different projects with large degrees of overlapping intent/content seems to be a bad plan.
So, is there a way to 1) allow people of these diametrically opposed opinions to coexist and 2) not require anyone to give up the fundamentals of their views on what wikipedia is/should be?
I think the answer is yes to both, and the way I would implement it is to have a deletionist wikipedia and an inclusionist wikipedia coexist.
To spell this out: Though there are varying views within either camp with respect to the scope of what wikipedia ought to cover, let us call the inclusionist position the following: All informative factual, verifiable NPOV information belongs in the wikipedia. Let us call the deletionist position the following: Only a certain subclass of informative, factual, verifiable NPOV information belongs in the wikipedia, and that subclass is determined by some factor like Notability or "encyclopedic" subject matter. I put encyclopedic in quotes because it seems as though something very particular is meant by that, and so it is being used in a particularized way.
The solution: Wikipedia ought to have two tiers of articles. Call the broader tier the wide tier, and call the narrower tier the slim tier. All articles start in the wide tier. People can nominate articles to be elevated from the wide tier to the slim tier. Then, there is a votes for promotion process (for those of you concerned that we need fewer voting processes rather than more voting processes, I think that a consequence of adopting this policy would be a drastic, drastic decrease in the number of candidates on VfD). If, by rough consensus, an article is deemed promotion worthy, then the article becomes part of the slim tier. '''The slim tier would reflect the deletionist ideal of wikipedia''', not just the cream of the crop articles (like the one's featured on the front page), but basically all and only those articles that we, by consensus, think are on a suitable topic and well written. '''The union of the wide tier and the narrow tier would be the inclusionist ideal'''. Now, when a reader comes to wikipedia, they are presented with (by default) the narrow tier, but also with a clear announcement of the existence of the wider tier (and a notice reflecting the nature of the difference). People can set, via a cookie, whether they would like to use wikipedia slim/professional or the more robust (but also less refined) wikipedia. The result would be that 1) there is still only one wikipedia, and all wikipedians are working on the same articles (in the sense that no article has been forked to a different project, and thus, there is only one instance of each article for people to work on) and the wider tier would contain school articles, articles on hospitals, fire departments, obscure actors, so-called "fan-cruft." etc. Rather than fighting to remove information from the database, people would be proponants of the promotion of certain articles (and I'm sure we could include a process by which articles could be demoted, if that was favored).
In short, we would eliminate all of the notability arguments that occur on VfD, and VfD would basically be used to deal with issues like substubs with no potential for expansion, dictionary definitions, original research, etc. The school issue would be dealt with through 1) policy and 2) debates on votes for promotion. But, the inclusionists would be able to relax because failure to get an article promoted wouldn't mean the information is lost (in the same way an article's deletion results in a loss of information) and deletionists would be happy because there is a professional/"encyclopedic" face to wikipedia.
This compromise seems to be the best solution to accomodate everyone's preferences, alleviate the sheer number of articles on VfD, and allow us to focus on improving the articles themselves.
So, what does anyone think of this suggestion? [[User:Posiduck|posiduck]] 17:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I think this is a good idea that seems to arise naturally when you think about the problem. However, what you are effectively suggesting is a peer review process. If the narrow tier were the default, most readers would not be able to see articles in the wide tier, and so these articles would, for all practical purposes, not be "accepted" until they are promoted. Those who argue against peer review say that the proportion of articles that are created that are not encyclopedic is relatively small, and wasting time and effort reviewing these is detrimental, and was partially responsible for the destruction of Nupedia.
:On the other hand, a process which ''demoted'' articles from the narrow tier to the wide tier may be more helpful. In this way, articles could continue to be edited by people who care about them, even after effectively being erased from the public view, and perhaps one day promoted again. As for what the deletionists gain, the person whose content is currently deleted is bound to be more agreeable to a demotion (effectively meaning, go fix it, but take as long as you want) than a deletion. [[User:Dcoetzee|Derrick Coetzee]] 18:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::I know that I would be a lot less concerned with demotion than deletion. I would be happy with either system. My questions are, 1) are there problems with this proposal and 2) is this a technical feasibility? However, if there aren't major problems, and we could manage it from a software standpoint, I think this solution is as near to ideal as we are going to get. [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 22:56, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::This is already technically feasible. All we'd need is to do is orphan the "demoted" articles and then move them to a namespace reserved for them. Put a suitable tag at the top indicating its status. We could call it the Graveyard. Articles in the Graveyard are considered as good as dead, and are not reachable through normal links or default search, but can be revived by a dedicated editor. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 00:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Perhaps a more accurate description of the inclusionist ideal is that "All, verifiable, presumed-to-be-factual, NPOV information, at the exception only of the lowest trivia, should be included, at the expense of quality." A more accurate description of the deletionist credo might be "Useful, verifiable, presumed-to-be-factual, NPOV information should be included, at the exception of information which is outside the remit of an encyclopaedia, thus at the expense of quantity and breadth." (and it has two As, not one) The hardcore inclusionist understandably wants quantity, regardless of quality, whereas the hardcore deletionist wants quality, regardless of quantity. The key here is to have guidelines which strike a balance between the two, and clearly define boundaries. Perhaps the solution is to table articles at a panel of admins. If it fails the "clear delete" benchmark, then it is deleted (though more slowly than a speedy). If it passes the "clear keep" benchmark, then it is kept. Then, anything which falls in-between goes up for discussion on VfD-under-a-more-suitable-name. Examples of "clear keep" boundaries might be:
:# For a book, Amazon sales rank above 1,000
:# For a website, Alexa traffic rank above 100
:# For a band, a listing on AMG
:# For a society, clear evidence that being a member makes one notable
:# For a school, several noteworthy achievements which set it apart from others
:# For any article, that the article is younger than a certain age (one week? one month? one day?)
:"Clear delete" boundaries might be:
:# For a book, Amazon sales rank below 200,000
:# For a website, no Alexa rank, or a rank below 1,000,000
:# For a band, no commercial releases
:# For a society, no evidence that anyone famous has passed through their doors
:# For a school, no evidence that it is any different from your average school
:# For any article, no expansion beyond stub in a certain period (six months? one year? if it's not improved in this time, it likely never will)
:These are just examples. We would also need ''clear, unambiguous'' definitions of "encyclopaedic" and yardsticks of notability. Then it is only the middle ground over which people will argue, rather than putting all of WP policy at stake. Leaving sensible argument is good, since it concentrates the efforts somewhere. [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] 00:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::But these things aren't clear, by definition - what is clear evidence that being a member makes one notable? What if the article is utter garbage, in such a way that it would be unanimously deleted on VFD now, even under a week after being created? On the opposite side, I think there's a strong case that a society can be notable, without anyone famous having passed through its doors. These things need to be judged on their merits. Furthermore, this policy is doomed to failure, as there is no way the inclusionists will agree to the school delete criteria. As to the broader idea - I vote no. Let's not create a whopping technical mess in order to give the inclusionists a Wikimedia-funded playpen. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 01:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::A playpen as well as a critical source of GFDLed material to be used in future articles. I think such a resource would be well worth the minimal hardware resources it consumes. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 01:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::Actually, it depends. I wouldn't necessarily oppose such an inclusionist paradise version, ''IF'' it were not the default. If you could join and then select the preference, that would be fine, but I won't stand for new contributors being turned away by finding crap article after crap article. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 05:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::I agree with this. Such articles would not be linked or come up in searches by default. They would also be marked with a tag at the top indicating their status for unwary Googlers. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 23:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Coming to this fresh, so these comments are a response to the initial offering, and not to the comments that have followed -- forgive my going a bit long, please.
:What Posiduck has proposed is a form of the "version system" that some people have advocated. I have no general problem with the version system. The idea that I heard from Angela was that all articles carry with them a rating. Any user might enter a rating value. Only articles that achieve a high average rating would pass over to the "Version 1.0" Wikipedia that would then be eligible for the print versions of the encyclopedia. Users of the Wikipedia could use the "peer reviewed" wikipedia (when researching and wanting more reliable information or not wanting to take a chance on the information) or the unrated Wikipedia.
:''In general,'' I think it's an ok way of establishing quality control. However, there are no teeth to the proposal (nor, really, to Posiduck's). What separates us from a playpen or from Everything2 or from Slashdot? We may not be paper, but we are not infinite. Without some disciplinary functions as well as some pruning facilities, we become the latest way-kewel board for people to play, albeit a very expensive one with an extremely high Alexa rank. Our Alexa rank makes us highly coveted for page rank boosting. Our Alexa rank makes us a fun target for vandals.
:Therefore, I could abide a version system with the following changes: All new pages must win at least, let's say, 50 ratings before moving on. Let's assume a score of 1-10. Anything with an average of 8-10 goes to FAC. Anything with an average of 3-6 goes to Clean Up. Anything with an average of 2 or lower goes to VfD, simply for evaluation of whether it's worth keeping or not. Anything with an average of 1 or less goes to CSD. If something like that happened, ''then'' I could see it.
:I look at Wikipedia as being an organism. It must get new food, and it must excrete waste. Growth for its own sake is the ideology of the cancer cell, Edward Abbey said. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 01:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::That is a proposal I could agree with - and that quote is particularly of note. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 05:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::I like this proposal in principle, but see two problems with it. First, wikipedia's penchant for attracting vandals, which has already been pointed out above, could conceivably mess up this sytem entirely if the process is open to all users. It may be wise to restrict voting in some way, whether by experience or number of edits or whatever. My second problem with the system is that it encourages including what is popular as opposed to what is relevant. This is probably inevitable no matter what system of quality control is used since this is first and foremost a communal project, but implementing a system such as this gets us no closer to resolving the conflict between deletionism and inclusionism. I would say that some basic standards that are more strict than wikipedia's current standards would still need to be established apart from popular vote (though these standards should be sensitive to both sides of the debate and not reflect one side or the other's beliefs too strongly)and that popular vote would be used to decide where articles that conform to these basic standards would go according to the version scheme proposed above. [[User:Indrian|Indrian]] 20:47, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
::What's interesting to me, Indrian, is that your objections are exactly the ones I made when I first heard the "Version" system proposed. I can see a dedicated POV warrior going through every article on HatedEnemy and giving it a 0 rating and every article on EsteemedHero a 10. I can also see the people who vote "keep" on every article on VfD giving every article a 10 score. Since demotion and deletion would depend upon ''average,'' it only takes a few curve-killing voters to keep a score out of the average that would lead to deletion or FAC. Further, highly academic topics, or highly esoteric ones, would not get many ratings. Currently, the very good [[John Dee]] article is on FAC. Hands up, all those who know who he was. If I tell you he was a 17th century mathematician, would you want to read it? I'm sure you see the dilemma. In fact, even though he was a mathematician, my literature background is better for reading the article than someone else's mathematics background. The biggest problem with all Version systems, though, is that they require what amounts to a major redesign. They take some software work, but they take a complete reorganization of how Wikipedians approach the site. We would all have to go to the Unrated Page every day, read and rate -- possibly having a queue of articles so that we could keep up with the ones we'd done -- and then go to whatever tasks we usually do. Still, as ideas go, it's one of the ones that is closest to something we can all agree upon, I guess. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 04:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*It's certainly a bold proposal, and on the face of it looks like it would solve a lot of problems. One thing I wonder, however, is if it really would. Specifically, not all Deletionists are the same, and not all Inclusionists are the same, and it is therefore unclear exactly which positions would be represented by each wiki 'slice'. We could, perhaps, do various clasifications for articles and allow cookie-based filtering of those (and then Rambot's work might be gone for those who decide not to use it, for example, while others might like Rambot's stuff but dislike pre-university schools). Another difficulty is the technical issues involved in this -- a lot of design work would go into implementing your proposal (and my improvement ideas make it even worse). Despite these two problems, it certainly is an interesting idea, and is not too much unlike other calls I've seen here that simply want reviewed, polished articles for professional purposes (e.g. printed form). Maybe that's in the future of the codebase if enough people decide it's important. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 06:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would be satisfied with just about any compromise that allows people who want to continue to work on the articles that would otherwise be deleted, without splitting ourselves into two different projects. That's my primary concern. [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 16:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:It seems to me that your proposal itself involves splitting Wikipedia into two projects, Wikipedia-narrow and Wikipedia-Wide. I don't think such a split is possible to avoid. And I judge from the fact that a significant number of people oppose merely allowing people to [[Wikipedia:Viewing deleted articles|view deleted articles]] that there is no hope of reaching a consensus on this, which goes one step further and allows people to both view and edit deleted articles. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|警告]] 20:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: Would I be a killjoy to say "If you missed it in the week on VfD, tough shit"? [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] 07:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I doubt that there is anyway to render this dispute moot as Posiduck claims at the beginning of his proposal. However, the proposal moves in the right direction towards compromise. The two tier system has promise, but I think if we are going to have two tiers of articles, then some guidelines need to be established other than popular vote for the top tier. These guidelines need not be overly stringent and should reflect the sensibilities of both sides of the arguement, but I think they are necessary. Establishing these guidelines would probably be a protracted and frustrating process, but the end result would probably make wikipedia all the better for it. [[User:Indrian|Indrian]] 20:47, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
:I completely agree. We have far too much voting already. It's already quite possible to spend your entire time at Wikipedia just voting. As such, one problem which arises is that most issues do not receive a significant number of votes, so a small group of individuals (or a single individual with a few accounts) can easily manipulate things. Fortunately, Wikipedia has already solved this problem. In fact, it is the entire basis of having a wiki. If this proposal were to work, I would suggest that anyone be given the power to move a page to/from the main space. Then guidelines can be established for broad, general cases, and voting can be used for the really disputed cases. Fortunately we already have the general guidelines (What Wikipedia is not), and the forum for voting (VFD). It sounds like we don't have to make any changes, but the key difference is that people can view VFDed articles. I think this alone will take a lot of the heated arguments out of VFD. The threshold for VFD and VFU could be lowered to 50%, and I think a number of people including myself would stop caring so much. I'd stop voting on VFD and VFU completely. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|警告]] 20:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===Revisited===
Here is my proposal, in rough brief form, based on Posiduck's ideas:
There will be a new namespace called the ''Graveyard''. Whenever a page [[Blah]] which does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion is voted to be deleted, it is not immediately deleted but is instead moved to [[Graveyard: Blah]], and the redirect at [[Blah]] removed (effectively orphaning it). The default Wikipedia search does not search this namespace. A template, <nowiki>{{graveyard}}</nowiki>, is added to the top of the article, explaining to anyone who stumbles across it its status and asking for help in "reviving" it. All articles which are not significantly edited within a specific amount of time, say 6 months, are permanently deleted.
There will be a symmetric process, similar to Votes for undeletion, which can vote to "revive" a significantly improved article from the Graveyard.
What are the advantages of this approach?
# Inclusionists win, because content which was formerly deleted is now kept and may be improved for a considerably longer period of time.
# Deletionists win, because there will be considerably less opposition to demotion of articles than deletion, without sacrificing quality.
# Graveyarding can be achieved by ordinary users using ''Move'' (followed by blanking the redirect); administrators can delete Graveyard articles at their leisure, or this could even be made automatic.
# Articles which must be removed immediately, due to copyright violation, offensive content, or any speedy delete condition, can still be deleted instantly.
What are your thoughts?
[[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 23:30, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Except for the part where you needlessly delete graveyard articles, I think this plan would work just fine. [[User:posiduck|Posiduck]] 00:31, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::I consider this a concession to deletionists who worry about resource usage. Graveyard articles which are continually edited would not become candidates for deletion. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 02:17, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::Deleted articles are already kept in the database, and so they already use just as many resources as they would in this scenario. Furthermore, I'm sure you could get together enough inclusionists to donate a computer and hard drive to store everything. I myself pledge $100 to Wikimedia if this gets implemented. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|警告]] 20:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I have a serious problem with it. First, it essentially allows Wikipedia to be a web host for whatever junk anyone wants to put up. Let's say that the article [[blah]] is not "I am the kewelest!!!!! I rule!" but "Bush stole the election. We will have a revolution on January 21st?" What then? Conspirators edit it like mad. It stays edited and edited and edited. Or let's say it says "Bush deserted the military. He was supposed to report but didn't." Then let's say that someone at one of the bad lefty sites puts up a link saying, "Learn the truth about Bush. See Wikipedia's revealing article at" and gives the link. Edits? You bet! Tons of them. It's still trash, and we're now hosting. In the one case, Wikipedia is someone's Angelfire. In the other case, we're having our good name used for politics.
:It's only a matter of degree between those and "My new way kewel game is at the following server" or "Chad is so gay" and "Lord Somersault is the cooooooolest character in console game Foobar" that we usually get. Add to that the vanity page where the person edits it a lot. Add to that the kind of junk that happens when illegal things like pedophilia find ways of passing information to one another, and you've got the real world.
:We '''must delete''' things. There are damned good reasons for killing the junk, and they're not hatred of humanity. They're not attempts at spoiling fun. They're not academic elitism. There is crap out there that puts us all at risk. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 04:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::I agree completely with Geogre on this. This site advertises itself as an encyclopaedia and people really need to consider what that word means. The acceptance of crap is the greatest current danger to the future of this project. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 08:34, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
::I mostly agree with Filiocht -- I don't think it's the greatest danger (the greatest being some successful lawsuit imposing dangerous process on submission, or shutting us down), but feel that it is an important danger to pay attention to. The ability to delete is an important one, but, perhaps unlike a number of other deletionists, I usually vote to delete based on encyclopedicness of topic, not of article. Articles that I argue to delete, therefore, are articles that I think never, regardless of how good the article, will be appropriate for Wikipedia. Generally, if I think a topic is encyclopedic, and the article contents are even roughly aiming in the right direction, I will vote to keep the article, and sometimes work on improving it or rewrite (I've done it a few times -- if you're really interested, dig through my contribution history, noting that I was [[User:Pgunn]] before I renamed myself to follow my sig). This proposal seems aimed more at reconciling with a different type of deletionist -- someone who votes to delete articles that are poor but on encyclopedic topics. It may be interesting to attempt to determine how many of both types of deletionist there are. I should also note that, again, I wish people were more civil in these discussions on both sides. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 15:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::When I say current danger, I mean one that is actually happening, not some (I agree much more serious) potential but not actual lawsuit. I agree with your approach to deletion, by the way. Unfortunately, it would appear that some contributors do not take the time to consider what an encyclopaedia is before creating an article while others, as you point out, want to delete articles because they are badly written or contain crap. If these articles went to cleanup and 50% of the effort that now goes into VfD went there instead, the problem might well reduce. That said, I do feel that the current voting setup on VfD is counterproductive and in need of reform. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 15:58, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
:: What's being missed here is that Graveyard articles are effectively dead. The notice at the top would specifically indicate that we do not claim such articles have any credibility or significance. As for free hosting, well, yes, but they're also releasing all their content under the GFDL, and so it's available for morphing into actual article content. For example, an editor on the page about the console game Foobar might read your hypothetical Graveyard page on "Lord Somersault" and incorporate some of it after some fact-checking and copyediting. Also, just as real Angelfire pages are terribly unpopular and cost Angelfire little in bandwidth or space, so would these pages.
:: As for political speech, just because an article is in the Graveyard doesn't mean it's not subject to the same policies as the rest of the encyclopedia, such as NPOV. If the title itself is POV, it can be moved. The point of it being there is for it to be either eventually improved, or eventually deleted. If you could propose an amendment which better ensures this, I'd like to hear it. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 16:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: Geogre, I'm not suggesting we eliminate deletion altogether. I think for copyvio, for random strings of characters, etc., it makes sense to delete those, and we'd still have a VfD for that. But, I am suggesting that for things like schools, hospitals, b-movie actors, as well as stubs on topics that people think should be included, it would be nice if instead of being deleted the articles could be preserved. If we delete a bunch of short but still informative schools now, and then later, policy changes, and the school articles are considered something we should include, it would be nice to just modify and promote the already existing articles rather than have to recreate all of them. It would cut down a ton on the debates of VfD, because most of the hotly debated VfD articles would be candidates for demotion rather than deletion. At the very least it would give inclusionists a chance to put our money where our mouths are, and take the time we aren't wasting on VfD anymore and put it to use improving stubs and whatnot. [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 01:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::I was under the impression that Graveyard articles would still be editable. Vandalism can still be removed, and vandals can still be blocked. We should still require that anything in the graveyard be verifiable and NPOV. Just not "famous" or "notable". As for the accusation of giving people free hosting, we could run it on a separate computer. In addition to marking the site as not representative of the views of Wikipedia (just as we do with the history pages which suffer from the same problem only worse), we could even put these pages on a separate ___domain name. Of course, now this is starting to sound more and more like McFly, which is already up and running. Just with better database connectivity (which I'd be willing to lease from Wikipedia at cost). [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|警告]] 20:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I have two answers to make, I guess. Ok, first, unlike Improv, I do vote on the article, not the topic. This is because there are shades of quality in articles. I'll vote to keep even a poor article on a good subject and vote to delete even a good article on a topic that doesn't belong. I think we've got to know, though, that we're being used by more than authors. We're a reference, and there are many, many people using us as such. There are times, as I've argued on my user page, when nothing is better than an insulting something. If the article is "Ironweed is a book by Kennedy. It won the Pulitzer prize," then I'm going to vote to delete it. Why? Well, it's a great book, and it's being used in college classrooms. A new user comes to Wikipedia, searches for information on the book the class is doing, reads that misspelled and useless bit of junk, and never uses us again. It's not that it has to be a beautiful article, but it has to be ''an'' article. The authors of substubs are killing us to get their names in lights.
:One of the things neither Deco nor Posiduck answered, though, is the very, very real worry that we will become a subcultural board. The worst case has already happened at our sister projects. The German Wikipedia almost got shut down because the pedophiles began writing coded articles that had external links that allowed them to keep in touch with each other. We've had the same things happen here, but nasty deletionists have stomped on them, sometimes with extreme passion. Trust me: that community knows about the possibilities of keeping in touch and posting information on free wiki's. Aside from the legal jeopardy of unwittingly allowing any of these people to propser on a graveyard or demoted space (and yes, ISP's and server corporations have been taken to court and suffered seizures in the US, where Wikipedia lives, for having this junk ''and not knowing it''), think of the '''moral''' side of it.
:Let's back up, though, from that edge, which is a real one. Let's look at what did, in fact, happen with the [[John Kerry]] article during the campaign. Someone went in and just said that Kerry's wounds were "minor." Well, that was POV. Bushcountry.com put up a page telling its readers to "learn the truth" about Kerry's fraudulent Purple Heart medal and gave a link to...guess what?... the edit warred [[John Kerry]] article on Wikipedia. Like I said: people do this because we ''are'' regarded as a reference.
:Let's back up another step, though, from that also real edge, and let's just stick to the game of [[blah]]. What is the benefit of it? ''Cui bono?'' The primary benefit seems to be that people like it. Ok. They like it. Is that enough? People like pornography, too. We don't exist simply to be fun, or entertainment, or a communications medium, or the service of interests. What is the harm of losing it? People like it. Ok. What is the harm? You see what I mean? The fact that people do like the game means that they're eager to talk about it. It means that we get disproporationate activity on something about which we cannot be encyclopedic and ''need'' not cover. We become, in other words, a step closer to GameFAQs. These matters are already covered very well, and the primary benefit is that they entertain contributors, rather than inform the user.
:Finally, schools. My objection, and I note that it's the objection mounted by most of the other "school deletionists," is not that the schools have information on them, but rather that they are treated as ''subjects.'' It is a question of granularity and taxonomy and of information retrieval and use. When the information on a given school is ___location, mascot, and principal, a table does the trick. By breaking out the information on every single school, and all of it trivial and out of date immediately, we ''lose'' that information. It can only be kept together if there are multiple pointer pages. My other problem with individual schools is that we're begging for edit wars and taunts when we have them. That's not a reason to delete, and I don't offer it as such, but "Mr. Smith's class realy sux0r" is going to show up more and more, and school rivals will taunt and repaint each other, once every school is known to exist here. It doesn't happen now because the kids don't find the schools here. If it ever gets to be the case that every HS and MS has an individual article, we're going to be awash in disputes and ugliness. We already get kids calling each other "fag" in articles that get deleted. Imagine when the schools are present.
:At any rate, I don't have a problem with a Version system, if it has a digestive system attached to it, but "all things that are not completely false are kept" is not something I support. As for better ideas, Deco, I've offered them before, both above and elsewhere. I'm not one of the people you can accuse of cursing the darkness. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 04:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::''The German Wikipedia almost got shut down because the pedophiles began writing coded articles that had external links that allowed them to keep in touch with each other. We've had the same things happen here, but nasty deletionists have stomped on them, sometimes with extreme passion. Trust me: that community knows about the possibilities of keeping in touch and posting information on free wiki's. Aside from the legal jeopardy of unwittingly allowing any of these people to propser on a graveyard or demoted space (and yes, ISP's and server corporations have been taken to court and suffered seizures in the US, where Wikipedia lives, for having this junk and not knowing it), think of the moral side of it.'' This could be done just as easily on Wikipedia already, by just putting the information in non-deleted articles, which would then be preserved in the history. Yes, the history can be purged by any developer, but a Graveyard article can be purged by any admin! [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|警告]] 20:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:And that's why we need to '''delete''' articles, rather than having them get continually preserved by redirects. It's why the proposal made by Netoholic and you has met with such resistance from me. We don't need to preserve the histories of junk articles, or inappropriate articles. This is also why admins need to spend their time on RC Patrol with knives out and why people doing New Pages patrol are better off being overly eager to tag speedies than too lax. The danger of illegal junk is very real. Look at the history, some time, of one of the pedophilia-related pages. It's nothing but scar tissue. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 01:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::''It means that we get disproporationate activity on something about which we cannot be encyclopedic and need not cover.'' But that's just your opinion. The point is not ''just'' that people like "blah", it's that people consider it encyclopedic. ''When the information on a given school is ___location, mascot, and principal, a table does the trick. By breaking out the information on every single school, and all of it trivial and out of date immediately, we ''lose'' that information.'' This is true, and it's why I think the best solution for schools would be to start a schoolopedia. But it's also true for cities, and numbers, and years, and species, and many of the other things in Wikipedia (I just wrote a script to extract the information from the year pages [[1]]-[[1999]] and put it in a database, 99.7% of it fit into the category "events", "births", "deaths", "links to specific year in pages", "nobel prizes", and "leaders", that's a real number, 99.7%, 34319/34425 lines, not an estimate). And this is even more true with year pages than it is with schools, because there is a whole lot that can be said about any school which doesn't easily fit into a table. One advantage of this system is it gives all the information a home in the mean time, and allows us to easily judge whether or not there is enough interest to start a subproject. In the case of schools, I think there would quickly be enough schools in the "graveyard" to justify a full project. Once this project was created, the information would be easily accessible, and there would be no need to start doing mass undeletions. Besides, people could work on the school articles before the new project gets created, without fear of being blocked for recreating deleted articles. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|警告]] 20:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:"My opinion?" Well, yes, Anthony. I would express my opinion. Whether my opinion is informed or not is up to community consensus. The problem is, indeed, that people consider the game encyclopedic, but the reason for the problem is the demographic of an online encyclopedia: Wikipedians are overwhelmingly young. The same folks, when they hit 30, will think Pokemon blather silly. So, what do we do? Do we say, "Hey, the Wikimedia Foundation and Jimbo Wales put up money so that everyone can have fun?" Do we say, "This was an effort to create a useful encyclopedia to be used as a reference?" If the latter, then we cut out things that only serve to stroke the happy button of the author in favor of things that satisfy the research needs of the reader. The reader will not seek and will not care about whether GameBlah has rad new supertwisterphasecannon fire pistols. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 01:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::If this proposal were limited to Pokemon cards, I might agree. But it isn't. Did any of the people who like Pokemon donate money? Probably. Will some of them one day hit 30 and still be contributors? I bet so. I am quite confident that putting this proposal into place will generate more in contributions than it costs. And I've even pledged $100 to the Foundation if this proposal gets implemented to put my own money where my mouth is. Putting this proposal into place will help create a useful encyclopedia, not hinder it. And by the way, the Wikimedia Foundation wasn't created merely for the purpose of making an encyclopedia, it was created for the purpose of developing and maintaining online, free, open content encyclopedias, collections of quotations, textbooks, and other collections of documents, information, and other informational databases. That certainly includes information on schools, and I'd say it even includes information on Pokemon. Maybe this proposal would be better suited for meta. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|警告]] 15:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::I have to say, while I like the ideas that have been put forth to attempt to find ways to reconcile the different opinions, as well as the fact that people care about negotiating here, I find the idea of including articles to get money to be one which we should avoid at all costs. We are not advertising, nor should we make decisions on article content, for any reason, to seek funds. Our goal should, pretty firmly, be just to make the best encyclopedia we can. The other projects should do the same for their proper scopes. As a side note, as you know, we (along with plenty of others on both sides) disagree on (pre-university) schools, and also on Pokemon. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 15:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I certainly like this idea. In fact, it's part of the intention of my Wikipedia fork, [http://www.mcfly.org/en/ McFly]. Call Wikipedia the narrow version, and call McFly the wide version, and we've already got this essentially in place. I'd much rather have Wikimedia adopt this solution itself, but until then there's always [[McFly (website)|McFly]] (I've just added the ability to edit, and am working on parsing [[Wikipedia:Deletion log]] regularly, only allowing users to edit deleted articles, and sending the edit button to Wikipedia for everything else). [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|警告]] 19:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===Copied discussion===
I think the two-tier idea has a lot merit. It could be especially good for schools. I copied the discussion to [[Wikipedia:Two-tier system]]. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:33, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== GFDL-friendly merge-and-delete of short, single-author material? ==
As some may know, there is continuing contention over the disposition of very short articles about non-notable high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools. I am experimenting with the idea that such material should be merged into articles about the towns, on the premise that people interested in the town are better able to judge the appropriateness of this material than the general VfD population.
Here's the question. In the case of a short article that is exclusively, or almost exclusively the contribution of a single author, it seems to me that it ought to be possible to perform a "GDFL-friendly merge-and-delete" by placing a manually-written notice in the article's talk page, similar to the one below. (I've deliberately chosen one in which the article was created primarily, but not exclusively, by a single author). I'd like thoughtful comments on whether this is good enough. (I realize this isn't what you might call algorithmically perfect but GFDL is a human-interpreted license, not an algorithm).
This example concerns inserting the entire text of [[High Tech High]] into a section of [[San Diego, California]].
----
{{collapse-top|title=Diff}}
The text is copied exactly from [[High Tech High]] to preserve GFDL traceability. Will clean up shortly. The text is that as of 17:25, 1 Nov 2004 Bboarder12. The text is entirely the product of a single author, Bboarder12, with the exception of the insertion and removal of various Wikipedia administrative notices by others. The history is: [[User:Dpbsmith|[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]]]] 01:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===Diff===
(cur) (last) 17:25, 1 Nov 2004 Bboarder12<br>
(cur) (last) 17:20, 1 Nov 2004 Bboarder12<br>
(cur) (last) 17:05, 1 Nov 2004 Bboarder12<br>
(cur) (last) 17:04, 1 Nov 2004 CBDroege m (reason)<br>
(cur) (last) 17:04, 1 Nov 2004 CBDroege m (original author of page is not allowed to remove speedy deletion candidacy.)<br>
(cur) (last) 17:02, 1 Nov 2004 RickK (vfd)<br>
(cur) (last) 17:00, 1 Nov 2004 Bboarder12<br>
(cur) (last) 16:56, 1 Nov 2004 Bboarder12<br>
(cur) (last) 16:52, 1 Nov 2004 CBDroege m (candidate for speedy delete)<br>
(cur) (last) 16:49, 1 Nov 2004 Bboarder12<br>
(cur) (last) 16:47, 1 Nov 2004 Bboarder12<br>
{{TextDiff|1=<div style="background-color: #ff000010; color: inherit; border: 1px solid; padding: 1ex; margin: 1ex; margin-right: 20em; min-width: 20em;">
----
'''Important note:''' The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts or illustrations. '''It is therefore pointless to email our contact addresses asking for permission to reproduce articles or images''', even if rules at your company, school, or organization mandate that you ask web site operators before copying their content.
The only Wikipedia content you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation about are the trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos, which are not freely usable without permission.
Placing a notice on the talk page does not satisfy the terms of the GFDL, which requires the list of authors to be in the section entitled history. If history information is lost accidently this isn't such a big deal, and we can wait until someone actually complains to remove the material, but we shouldn't be making this a regular practice. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|警告]] 21:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Permission to reproduce and modify text on Wikipedia has already been granted to anyone anywhere by the authors of individual articles as long as such reproduction and modification complies with licensing terms (see below and [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks]] for specific terms). Images may or may not permit reuse and modification; the conditions for reproduction of each image should be individually checked. The only exceptions are those cases in which editors have violated Wikipedia policy by uploading copyrighted material without authorization, or with copyright licensing terms which are incompatible with those Wikipedia authors have applied to the rest of Wikipedia content. While such material is present on Wikipedia (before it is detected and removed), it will be a copyright violation to copy it. For permission to use it, one must contact the owner of the copyright of the text or illustration in question; often, but not always, this will be the original author.
== Accelerated VfD ==
If you wish to reuse content from Wikipedia, first read the [[#Reusers' rights and obligations|Reusers' rights and obligations]] section. You should then read the [[Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License|Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License]] and the [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]].
I have just posted another proposal to try and deal with VfD overload. Since it a) is primarily a formalization of current practice, and b) requires unanimous consent of the entire community (admins and non-admins alike), I am hoping that it will be less controversial than some of the other proposed ways to deal with Wikipedia's seriously broken housekeeping processes. It currently is [[Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Another_proposal_to_trim_VfD|here]]. If someone wants to make it into a formal, separate voting page, fine. If people want to comment or suggest tweaking the numbers there, that's fine, too. [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 19:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
</div>|2={{Colored box|
| title = {{color|#101418|'''Important note:'''}}
| content = ; {{symbol|OOjs UI icon close-ltr.svg}}{{nbsp}}{{color|#101418|Please do not contact the Wikimedia Foundation for permission to reuse article text or images.}}
: The Foundation does not own that content and cannot grant permission. This applies even if your company, school, or organization requires permission from website operators before copying material.
; {{symbol|OOjs UI icon check.svg}}{{nbsp}}{{color|#101418|When to contact the Wikimedia Foundation}} : The only Wikipedia content that requires permission from the Wikimedia Foundation is use of its trademarked logos. These logos are not freely licensed and require explicit written permission for reuse.
== Whether to allow warnings about inaccurate information on the WWW? ==
: For members of the media, see [[foundationsite:about/press/|Foundation:Press contacts]], others see [[Wikipedia:Contact us]].
; {{symbol|OOjs UI icon articles-rtl.svg}}{{nbsp}}{{color|#101418|Reusing Wikipedia article text}} : Permission to reuse and modify article text is already granted under open-content licenses by the original authors, as long as such use complies with the applicable licensing terms, provides proper attribution and licenses any modifications under the same terms.
When I was web searching for information about the [[APS Underwater Assault Rifle 5.56 mm]], using [http://www.altavista.com Altavista]'s web searcher, I found a realistic-looking page about this rifle, which described this rifle in detail, and also mentioned a USA copy of this rifle and a recent undercover war called the Twilight War. The Russian APS is real and as described, but the USA copy and the Twilight War are fiction and occur in a videogame scenario. The page did not mention anything obviously fictional such as ray guns or spaceships. I do not play videogames and I had not heard of that videogame or its scenario. The web page did not mention any videogame and did not warn that any of its content was fictional.
: If you wish to reuse content from Wikipedia, start by reading the [[Wikipedia:Copyright#Reusers' rights and obligations|Reusers' rights and obligations]] section. Then review the applicable licenses: the [[Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License|Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License]] and the [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]].
; {{symbol|OOjs UI icon imageGallery-ltr.svg}}{{nbsp}}{{color|#101418|Reusing images}} : Images on Wikipedia are not automatically covered by the same license as article text. Each image has its own license, which must be reviewed individually. Some images are freely reusable. Others are restricted or [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|non-free]] and may not be reused or modified without explicit permission from the original author. If an image was uploaded in violation of Wikipedia policy, reusing it could result in copyright infringement.
That sort of mixture of fact and fiction (sometimes nicknamed "faction") can be a major pitfall and landmine for people looking for information. As a result, when I wrote the Wikipedia page [[APS Underwater Assault Rifle 5.56 mm]] (having checked the information by looking in reliable information at the APS's maker's web site), I included a pointer to a web page [[A warning about websites that describe guns]] which I wrote describing this risk of being misled. But someone deleted the page and the pointer to it.
| background-title-color = #ffc8bd
| icon = OOjs UI icon information-destructive.svg
| style = border-color:#f54739;
| background-content-color = #ffe9e5
}}}}
{{collapse-bottom}}
What do you think? <span style="color:#CD0000">[[User:Waddie96|waddie96]] ★ ([[User talk:Waddie96|talk]])</span> 18:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
However, the Wikipedia page [[Gestapo]]'s section "Books" includes this warning:-
:I think it’s great! [[User:Nononsense101|Nononsense101]] ([[User talk:Nononsense101|talk]]) 19:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
<i>Suspected hoax works about the Gestapo include:
<br>Gestapo Chief: The 1948 Interrogation of Heinrich Müller - Gregory Douglas. San Jose, CA 1995</i>
:The new layout is much easier to comprehend. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 19:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
which has been allowed to stand. Please, what is policy about warning the readers about inaccurate information on the WWW or in books or in films etc?
: Much better! I'd say it's ready for implementation. Structure is key for improving understandability. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 20:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
:Readers should be told about possible inaccuracies in our own articles. We cannot be held accountable, however, for the rest of the web — anyone who isn't aware by now that the web isn't a totally reliable source of information probably shouldn't be reading Wikipedia. If it's a widespread phenomenon, it may at best deserve mention in the body of the article. If you're afraid an editor may use the faction page as a source, feel free to include an HTML comment mentioning it specifically. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 07:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: Excellent improvement, and breaks up the wall of text that currently exsist and should help ensure people actually read it. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']] [[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 20:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
::Wow thanks guys! Really appreciate it. Will edit-request the change 😄. <span style="color:#CD0000">[[User:Waddie96|waddie96]] ★ ([[User talk:Waddie96|talk]])</span> 21:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
: Update for passersby: change has been implemented (I approve). [[User:Mrfoogles|Mrfoogles]] ([[User talk:Mrfoogles|talk]]) 18:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
::Cute, {{+1|2|color=green}} passed code review step. <3 <span style="color:#CD0000">[[User:Waddie96|waddie96]] ★ ([[User talk:Waddie96|talk]])</span> 05:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Btw! Codex icons just got officially, officially released. So maybe I do this to the Commons Copyrights webpage too? What notices right now are v. important. I'm good at copyediting (I hope). <span style="color:#CD0000">[[User:Waddie96|waddie96]] ★ ([[User talk:Waddie96|talk]])</span> 05:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Mrfoogles}} could you remove the newlines before each <code><nowiki>;</nowiki></code> in the code? there are currently 4 separate description lists for the FAQ because of this, which obviously should not be the case. [[Special:Contributions/91.193.178.220|91.193.178.220]] ([[User talk:91.193.178.220|talk]]) 23:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:91.193.178.220|91.193.178.220]] I don't understand why you are pinging me? I'm not involved in this. I just left a note because I clicked through initially, not realizing it had already been done. [[User:Mrfoogles|Mrfoogles]] ([[User talk:Mrfoogles|talk]]) 01:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:Much comprehensive and easier to understand. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 02:04, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:Much better - thank you! [[User:Matt Deres|Matt Deres]] ([[User talk:Matt Deres|talk]]) 12:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:Count one more enthusiastic approval. --[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 16:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:A much more areated design that improves readability. Kudos!--'''[[User:A09|<span style="color:#004d99">A09</span>]]'''<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[User talk:A09|<span style="color:#004d99">(talk)</span>]] 14:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
==RfC: Party affiliation in BLP infoboxes==
Thanks [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 08:03, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 03:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1757991669}}
{{Rfc|policy|rfcid=E526D0C}}
I am an AMPOL editor and I often see articles with party affiliation assumed in the infobox. For instance, [[Adriana Kugler]]'s infobox states that she is a Democrat, but no inline citation is provided. On the other hand, [[Todd Blanche]] does provide a citation for having registered as a Republican. I am questioning the purpose of this parameter for individuals who are not directly associated with politics—in other words, their profession does not pertain to being a politician or political consultant. "If relevant" in the {{T|Infobox person}} documentation is rather vague. The misuse of this parameter warrants some action.
The rationale for removing the party affiliation parameter is similar to [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes|the RfC over the religion parameter]]. As was stated then, "This would be consistent with our treatment of sexual orientation and various other things we don't include in infoboxes that are matters which may be nuanced, complex, and frequently controversial. The availability of a parameter encourages editors to fill it, whether they have consensus to do so or not, regardless of instructions in template documentation to gain consensus first; new and anon IP editors generally do not read documentation, they simply see a "missing" parameter at article B that they saw at article A and add it." <span style="font-family: monospace;">[[User talk:ElijahPepe|elijahpepe@wikipedia]] (he/him)</span> 16:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
I think [[A warning about websites that describe guns]] was correctly deleted. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 09:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===Survey (party affiliation in BLP infoboxes) ===
See also [[Talk:A_warning_about_websites_that_describe_guns|this talk area]]. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 17:03, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Question presented: Should the party parameter in infoboxes be deprecated for non-political BLPs?
* '''Support''' — As nominator. <span style="font-family: monospace;">[[User talk:ElijahPepe|elijahpepe@wikipedia]] (he/him)</span> 01:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', and I note that both of the examples given in the original RFC question are "political" BLPs (both of them were [[Political appointments in the United States|political appointees]] in a system that expects appointees to come from the president's own political party) – people who very much are "directly associated with politics". Whether an inline citation is needed directly in the infobox depends on the usual [[Wikipedia:When to cite]] rules, namely whether the information is also present and cited elsewhere in the article. While political party affiliation ''can be'' "nuanced, complex, and frequently controversial", it is usually not, especially for people, such as political appointees, for whom this is actually relevant. "If relevant" appears in the documentation for {{tl|infobox person}} more than a dozen times. If you can figure out whether to add <code>|employer=</code> or <code>|height=</code> or amateur radio <code>|callsign=</code> "if relevant", then you can probably figure out whether to add <code>|party=</code> "if relevant", too. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - Whether the use of the field meets [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]] varies by article. [[User:Graham11|Graham11]] ([[User talk:Graham11|talk]]) 04:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - per {{u|Graham11}} — [[User:Chalst|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst|(talk)]]</small> 15:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - per above. >^[[User:CreativeLibrary460|<span style="background-color:#ADD8E6; color:navy">'''CreativeLibrary460'''</span>]] /[[User talk:CreativeLibrary460|<sup>access the library</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/CreativeLibrary460|<sup>revision</sup>]]\ 08:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per WAID. "Non-policitcal" requires exactly as much nuance as "if relevant" and so doesn't actually bring any benefits. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 08:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
===Discussion (party affiliation in BLP infoboxes)===
== Reporting the POVs in dictionary definitions together with the POVs of opposing experts is always NPOV ==
:I would say that unless they are running/elected in a position that requires a political affiliation to be made as part of the election process so that we have a clear basis to document it, this should be left out of the infobox and explained in the prose. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
::I think that if they are ''explicitly'' running as a candidate for/in affiliation with a given party, and this is cited in the pose, then it should be in the infobox. Otherwise it should not be. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Agree. {{slink|Talk:Sydney_Sweeney#RfC:_Sydney_Sweeney's_political_party_affiliation}} was recently [[WP:SNOW]] closed with consensus against inclusion, for instance, and editors should not have to waste time dealing with similar disputes on other BLPs whose subjects are not directly associated with politics. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 17:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I agree too. Too often I see a supposed party affiliation being added to judge infoboxes (Scalia, for example), based not on party registration or self-declaration but by some third party claiming it, and that opinion being claimed as a RS. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 17:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I am thinking of many local elections that are intended as non-partisan positions, though candidates often assert their position in their campaign materials, in comparison to partisan offices that usually require party primaries to be elected to. In the latter case, the political affiliation is part of the election process and can't be disputed (making it fair to include the infobox). [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 17:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
::::If someone is explicitly running on a partisan position then that position should be in the infobox. Even if the position is intended to be non-partisan if someone is running on a partisan platform then it is de facto partisan. The job of Wikipedia is to represent what the reality is, not what it is/was intended to be. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I would be more clear in this comment and state that the infobox should be following what sources say. [[Brad Schimel]] was nonpartisan in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election earlier this year, but he was described as a Republican across various outlets. <span style="font-family: monospace;">[[User talk:ElijahPepe|elijahpepe@wikipedia]] (he/him)</span> 18:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::That's exactly a situation that I would *not* include the political affiliation in the infobox, because that's not a requirement for running in that election. In prose, absolutely. Its the same reason we restrict calling out religion in the infobox for only those people who's careers are specifically tied to the church/equivalent body of their religion, though we are free to include any stated religious beliefs in the prose of the article. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 04:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Schimel is in an interesting position because he ran as a Republican in the Wisconsin attorney general elections he was involved in. Most of the cases where a politician running for a non-partisan office is clearly affiliated with a party involve prior elections. I was reading a local news report from Wisconsin that made it clear that Schimel was ''de jure'' non-partisan. In cases where a candidate explicitly says they are of a certain party but they are running for office in a non-partisan role and they have not run in any other elections where they would be a candidate for that party, then that should not be in the infobox. <span style="font-family: monospace;">[[User talk:ElijahPepe|elijahpepe@wikipedia]] (he/him)</span> 19:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:For a given individual, in some cases it's clear that they're "directly associated with politics," in some cases it's clear they aren't, but there are some people/positions where it's unclear. Todd Blanche is someone I'd put in the third group. He is a political appointee in an ostensibly non-political position, but in this administration, it seems that the position is political as well. I don't think political party is a "nuanced, complex" issue. I also don't think people should be adding this info without an RS. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 02:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
::I would argue that Blanche should not have "Republican" in his infobox. He is not a politician nor a political advisor. The argument that the "position is political" is a reach from what is being suggested here. Wikipedia shouldn't make its own conclusions. In reliable sources, Blanche might be described as a Trump loyalist, but not a Republican, a rather vague term that doesn't encompass Blanche's fealty to the president. The prose can handle describing Blanche properly. <span style="font-family: monospace;">[[User talk:ElijahPepe|elijahpepe@wikipedia]] (he/him)</span> 04:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
*I think we should limit listings of party affiliation to people who ran for office as a candidate for the party or people who served as officials of the party. I have seen party affiliation listed for people who served in political office in a position that was elected on a non-partisan basis, I do not think that is justified. There are of course people who have had multiple party affiliations. If they served in office for multiple parties that can be listed. One thing to keep in mind is on occasion a member of one party has appointed people from a different party to their cabinet, so even cabinet members we cannot assume they share the party of the president. This is even more clear in cases or any sub-cabinet position, for judges many times so. The same probably applies even more so to people who serve on the cabinet of governors. Many mayors and other local officials in the US are elected on a non-partisan basis.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 15:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
*I don't think there is a one-size fits all solution. There are the obvious cases, candidate runs as a partisan in a partisan election. And on the other side, there are non-partisans who run in non-partisan elections. But, there are many people who may be known (either in independent sources or verifiable non-independent sources) as a partisan. And, there are individuals who run as a partisan in a partisan election who change parties or disaffiliate at some point after that election. And, for many subjects, there are BLP considerations to account for. --[[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 16:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Political party is a voluntary act, not something that can be otherwise discerned, even by RSs. Unless there is evidence of voluntary affiliation, through registration to vote or entering a party primary that requires party membership, or being a party official of some kind, I would exclude. RSs without evidence of this are just partisan name callers. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 17:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:If this is an RfC then it needs to be formatted and advertised as such. If it's just a discussion, perhaps in advance of a potential RfC, it needs to be relabeled. [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 00:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::I have done that now. <span style="font-family: monospace;">[[User talk:ElijahPepe|elijahpepe@wikipedia]] (he/him)</span> 01:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::You still haven't formatted it so it will be advertised as an RfC at [[WP:RFC/A]]. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 02:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*The two examples provided are political BLPs and the infobox used is {{tl|Infobox officeholder}}, not the generic {{tl|Infobox person}}. Party affiliation is a basic and often uncontroversial piece of information for office holders. I appreciate that there may be more complexity with non-partisan state and local races and political appointees whose personal party affiliation may differ from that of the leader or body who appointed them. I agree with the comments above that someone like Sydney Sweeney should not have their party affiliation listed; if relevant and appropriate per [[WP:DUE]] and other applicable standards it can be discussed in the article body. If this is meant to be an [[WP:RFCBEFORE]] discussion, which would be helpful, it should be clarified that this does not apply to {{tl|Infobox officeholder}}. I'm not yet convinced party affiliation should be completely deprecated from {{tl|Infobox person}} but I may get there. It is inappropriate for most public figures who are not/have not been office holders who are not primarily known for political, partisan work. For folks known primarily for and associated with politics but who are not office holders, like commentators and strategists, it may be case-by-case. --[[User:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana; color: blue;"><b>MYCETEAE</b></span>]] 🍄🟫—[[User talk:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>talk</i></span>]] 18:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*:It really seems like this is a field that belongs in office holder infoboxes or modules with a start/end, and not for a generic person. I'm really struggling to think of situations where party seems appropriate for a person. Even for non-office holders who are clearly very partisan, it seems like the better way to do it would be to have it in the occupation or known for fields. Something like "occupation: <party> strategist", or "known for: <party> political writings" or similar. That strikes me as more neutral and verifiable for a potentially nuanced fact like affiliation. [[User:Driftingdrifting|Driftingdrifting]] ([[User talk:Driftingdrifting|talk]]) 17:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*I think for info boxes we should only ever list party affiliation for people who held public or political office, and not list it for people whose primary office was a non-partisan elected office.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 13:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*If we did want to partisan affiliation to a non-political person's infobox, we'd have to weed through what to make of people who are registered with one political party, but have given significant donations to candidates of a different party; or who are registered as (say) a Democrat but who ran for political office on the Green Party ticket 15 years ago; and other combinations like that. I think it gets complicated quickly and it would be better to avoid it altogether. Just askin' for trouble. [[User:Novellasyes|Novellasyes]] ([[User talk:Novellasyes|talk]]) 18:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
== LLM/AI generated proposals? ==
Cited definitions from dictionaries such as the American Heritage Dictionary have been cut repeatedly from several Wikipedia pages. The reason given is that the "dictionary definition is POV." I cite you to the recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Evolutionism_%28disambiguation%29&action=history history] of a disambiguation page and its [[Talk:Evolutionism_%28disambiguation%29|TalkPage]].
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 17:01, 19 September 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1758301267}}
{{RFC|policy|prop|rfcid=D90E1F5}}
We had an RFC earlier this year around how to handle LLM/AI generated comments. That resulted in [[WP:HATGPT]] after further discussion at [[WT:TPG]]. Recently, an editor [[Special:Diff/1304748131|started a requested move using LLM generated content]]. I ran that content through two different AI/LLM detection utilities: GPT Zero says "highly confident", and 100% AI generated; Quillbot stated 72% of the text was likely AI generated.
Should HATGPT be expanded to allow for the closure of discussions seeking community input (RFC/VPR/CENT/RFAR/AFD/RM/TFD/RFD/FFD/etc) that are started utilizing content that registers as being majority written by AI?
I suggest part of the solution to this problem is to insert a new paragraph into the [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view|NPOV]] page to state explicitly, "Dictionary definitions are always NPOV if the contrasting definitions of experts are also quoted and cited." The most appropriate position would be following the "Religion" paragraph of the NPOV page. ;)
I was tempted to just start an RFC on this, but if there's alternate proposals or an existing [[WP:PAG]] that already covers this, I'm all ears. =) —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 00:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Any suggestions? ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 08:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I think this is a good idea. Editors shouldn't be required to waste their time whenever somebody posts LLM slop. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:I’m hesitant still with suggesting the use of gptzero except as additional evidence alongside with conclusive proof. But otherwise I’m always of opinion that most use of LLM in discussion is a bad faith usage of editor time. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 00:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:As I say every time things like this come up, the focus is completely wrong. We really should not care whether it is or isn't AI-generated, that's just wasting everybody's time trying to determine something that is irrelevant. If the proposal is understandable, relevant to the page it's on, isn't just rehashing something that's already been discussed to death (even if you disagree with it) then whether it was written by a human or machine couldn't be less relevant: deal with it as a good-faith contribution unless you have evidence it is not (use of an LLM is ''not'' evidence of good faith or of bad faith, it's completely independent of faith). If it is in bad faith, not understandable, trolling, rehashing a settled discussion, etc. then close it to avoid wasting time - this applies regardless of whether it is LLM-generated or human-generated. One of the many advantages of this approach is that it doesn't require any changes to policies or guidelines, because that's how Wikipedia has worked for many years. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::Fair points. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::"Fair" points perhaps, but not ''good'' points. Real editors who could be doing real things to benefit the project should not have to spend their time parsing machine-generate bloat in the hope that it will turn out to be the one-in-fifty case that isn't anywhere from fatuous vacuity to bullshit hallucination. The OP's linked example is an unfortunately poor exemplar of the problem, but anyone who's been active in project space over recent months has seen examples of text which makes you angry that someone expected you to waste your time reading it. You know how you can tell a tsunami is coming because the ocean suddenly recedes, leaving asphyxiating fish flopping on the sand? That's the stage we're at right now. We should respond to AI-generated text the way we'd respond to text in Klingon: tell the author to come back when they can write in English. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::::EEng's statement above matches my own sentiment exactly, and I '''support''' the expansion of HATGPT to cover LLM-generated proposals. Comments in a discussion shouldn't be generated and neither should requests for discussion. [[Special:Contributions/fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]] ([[User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|talk]]) 04:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::And take a look at this [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1305669496#User:JoseyWales019_creating_AI-generated_mainspace_articles] ANI discussion for a truly epic example of how one AI-drunk incompetent can waste hours of the time of a dozen competent editors. `[[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 02:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::"AI-drunk" reminds me of drunk driving. Cars a powerful and dangerous tool. We have licenses to operate, competence restrictions (age, eyesight), training courses, rules of the road, consequences for violations, etc.. the alternative is ban cars entirely because horses, public transport and walking work fine. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 04:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Except we don't have licenses, competence restrictions, training courses, rules of the road, consequences for violations, etc. for AI. All we have is doofuses careening left and right, knocking down pedestrians, tearing up the pavement, frightening the horses, jamming the roadways with their vehicles actually headed nowhere, and poisoning the air with noxious fumes. So yeah, until those issues can be addressed AI should be banned, and walking, cycling, horses, and public transit -- which have served WP very well to date -- will have to continue serve until AI gets to the point that it can magically transform those lacking competence in English, and/or an understanding of what an encyclopedia is, into useful contributors. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 23:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::I agree. LLMs are getting better, and we will very soon be unable to spot their output.[https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/how-to-spot-an-ai-video-lol-you-can-t/ar-AA1KaA7C] We need to deal with problem posts and edits the way we always have. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 01:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Some guy at some company says his people have trouble recognizing fake videos with their naked eyes. So what? You want to throw in the towel right now based on that? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 03:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Eh, I think the [[GPT-5]] fiasco points to LLMs reaching a plateau in terms of "quality". I'm not worried. <span class="nowrap">—[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="color:#004080">python</span><span style="color:olive">coder</span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]])</span> 21:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::To some extent I agree, but just because LLMs aren't improving fast doesn't mean they aren't improving at all. Especially the biggest and most obviously identifiable tells remaining are likely to be improved on, even if the strategy of just making bigger and more powerful models no longer leads to large increases in performance. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 22:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::If it makes you feel better, pretend we're enforcing our existing policy on meatpuppetry to remove text written by some<s>body</s>thing other than the user account editing it onto the page. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 01:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::I used to think that that agnosticism about the source of commentary is correct but I have changed my mind. The choice is not between using an imperfect heuristic like "is this LLM-generated" and sedulously evaluating the content of discussions. As others have pointed out, editor time is a limited and precious resource. Since LLMs make it easy for editors who would not have otherwise been able to do so to add superficially plausible content to a discussion, we can expect that volume of content to increase, without a corresponding increase in time to evaluate it. That means our standards for discussion are going to shift in the direction of being more BITEy and intolerant of imperfect contributions ''regardless of whether we adopt any rule regarding LLMs''. If LLMs really do improve to the point of undetectability, as Donald Albury suggests, then we're probably going to be driven into a different set of heuristics with hard and stringently enforced limits on [[WP:BLUDGEON]] and so on. But for now, LLMs do seem to have a distinct "register", even if it's hard to prove with certainty, and I think it might be more fair to go after that while we can. [[User:Choess|Choess]] ([[User talk:Choess|talk]]) 03:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] As I say every time you make comments like this, I disagree. The source matters and LLM use ''is'' evidence of bad faith, because it shows the editor doesn't care, doesn't respect the community's time, and is happy to outsource their brain to a machine. We should have a heavy bias towards proposals created by thinking, breathing humans, not something someone lazily asked a bot to slap together. The former has value, even if the proposal is dumb; the latter is slop and without any worth. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 13:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Tpq|LLM use ''is'' evidence of bad faith, because it shows the editor doesn't care, doesn't respect the community's time, and is happy to outsource their brain to a machine.}} I couldn't disagree with your rabid assertion (note it's not even an assumption) of bad faith more strongly. LLM use is not evidence of faith, good, bad or otherwise. What matters is the faith of the user, and that is not demonstrated by their using an LLM because some users of LLMs do so in good faith (for example those completely unaware of the attitude of ''some'' editors here towards it) while others do it in bad faith. ''Please'' stop assuming that everyone who has a different opinion of LLMs than you is inherently out to destroy Wikipedia - they are not. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::You're calling my assertions {{tq|rabid}} now? That's a new low. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 13:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::If you don't want to be accused of making rabid assertions, don't make them. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Good grief.
::::::By the way, I don't assume {{tq|that everyone who has a different opinion of LLMs than you is inherently out to destroy Wikipedia}}. I assume that (1) article contributions based on AI are bad for the encyclopedia, even if the intent is good, and (2) talk page contributions based on AI are evidence of bad faith, (3) that AI is a bad thing. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 13:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Now for some facts:
:::::::#''Some'', but not all, article contributions based on AI are bad for the encyclopaedia. Good contributions based on AI are indistinguishable from good contributions that have been nowhere near an LLM.
:::::::#''Some'', but not all, talk page contributions based on AI are left in bad faith. Use of AI alone is not evidence of good or bad faith.
:::::::#Not all AI is LLMs. Not all AI, and not all LLM, is bad (or good) - it is vastly more nuanced than that.
:::::::[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::In effect, the AI/LLMs-on-Wikipedia debate is divided between those like you who want to assess the ''content'' of the contribution, regardless of its origin, and those like me who think it's just simpler to ban LLMs because they're a net negative and more trouble than they're worth. The upside of your approach is that it's less likely to chase away potentially positive contributors; the downside is that it means a lot of cleanup work and AI slop to manage. The upside of my approach is that it's clean, simple, and effective; the downside is that it is best suited for cynical, paranoid people like myself. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 15:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::In general I agree with your last comment, but I have a few quibbles:
:::::::::*{{tpq|it means a lot of cleanup work and AI slop to manage}} is incorrect. Slop will continue to be posted whether LLMs are banned or not for multiple reasons - not all slop is LLM slop, we have absolutely no way of determining whether something is or is not LLM-generated before it is submitted, and bans don't stop people doing the thing that is banned (either in good faith because they don't know it's banned, or in bad faith because they do it anyway). Fortunately we already have all the tools we need to manage this as best we already can: slop can be closed/hatted/reverted (as appropriate to the situation) regardless of whether it is LLM-slop or human-slop, disruptive non-slop can be closed/hatted/reverted (diito) regardless of whether it is LLM-disruption or human-disruption. So in summary neither approach changes the amount of cleanup work required.
:::::::::*Your list of downsides to your approach neglects to include the significant harm to the project from driving away good-faith editors and the amount of needless disruption caused by arguments over whether something is or is not LLM-generated.
:::::::::[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|divided}}{{pb}}Well... going by the outcomes of the last half dozen LLM P&G RfCs, I'd say this division is like an 80/20 split in favor of "ban all LLM slop", and closer to 90/10 if the opposition is at Thryduuulf's level... <br>Anyway, it's not like copy-pasting LLM output in conversations or as scholarship is considered "okay" in the wider world, in which case we could AGF a bit more for newbies who don't realize it's not acceptable here. So frankly I have no qualms about biting an editor who needs an unfiltered LLM to communicate as they are either too lazy/incompetent to be a productive editor or they belong in a different language edition. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree with this. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 19:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I am not okay with endorsing the biting of ''any'' editor, for ''any'' reason, let alone enshrining a requirement to do so in policy. Such is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's basic philosophy and I'm horrified that people are seriously considering it. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The UPEs must love you... [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 05:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I agree with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#c-Tryptofish-20250816221400-Tryptofish-20250813230800 Tryptofish's comment here] on the matter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you see LLMs and generative AI as a valid tool that can be misused; I, and many others, I think, see it as a tool that is fundamentally not appropriate for editing an encyclopedia. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 16:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{Tpq|I think you see LLMs and generative AI as a valid tool that can be misused...}} yes and no. The current generation of LLMs are unsuitable for making edits to the text of articles without full human review (AI-generated images are not really relevant to this particular discussion and are best treated separately anyway); whether LLM+human review is more or less "efficient" than a fully-human edit is a matter of personal opinion that is likely to be impacted by the nature of the specific edit. In most, but importantly not all, cases unreviewed LLM-based contributions to talk pages are not a net benefit. However this misses the fundamental reasons I disagree with you, which is that you see any use of LLMs as automatically meaning that the person using the LLM is contributing here in bad faith whereas I see evidence of people using LLMs here in both good and bad faith. Specifically there are many people who make LLM-based comments with a sincere desire to improve the encyclopaedia without knowing that there are many editors here whose views regarding AI are so blinkered that they cannot or will not consider that someone can do such a thing.
::::::::::::My response to Tryptofish's comments are similar: we do not BITE those who are incompetent or NOTHERE because we give them a chance to demonstrate that they can contribute constructively before blocking them, and when we do block them we do so on the basis that they either cannot or will not do so. That is fundamentally different to someone who currently is not contributing in a manner we approve of but who may (or may not) be capable and willing to when they learn what that means - if it turns out that they cannot or will not ''then'' it is appropriate to deal with them in the same manner we treat those who are incompetent or NOTHERE but who do not use LLMs. Simply using an LLM is not evidence, on its own, of bad faith, incompetence or of not being here to improve the encyclopaedia.
::::::::::::UPE is also similar in this regard - while there are unarguably many undisclosed paid editors who are here in bad faith there are also such editors who are here in good faith but simply do not know our rules and do comply when they learn that they need to (and how to do that). There are additionally an unknowable number of undisclosed paid editors who exclusively make good quality contributions to unquestionably notable topics such that nobody even suspects they are paid editors and they never learn they should disclose. So again, simply being an undisclosed paid editor is not evidence, on it's own, that one is here in good or bad faith.
::::::::::::Separate from the issue of faith is that, as multiple other people have also pointed out, is that contributions that are actually bad, whether LLM-generated or not, can already be dealt with under existing policies and guidelines so there is simply no need for a policy/guideline specific to LLMs. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It is not a question of whether an LLM comment is necessarily bad and therefore should be removed. The point being made is that nearly all LLM comments are disruptive because of their length and thrown-at-the-wall details (and the fact that they are rarely helpful). Replying to such comments would require significant effort. Further, there is a good chance that replies will be ignored by the editor concerned. Debating LLMs would lead to their normalization which could easily overwhelm talk pages and noticeboards. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 10:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Comments that ''are'' disruptive can already be hatted/removed regardless of why they are disruptive and regardless of whether they are LLM-generated or not. Comments that are LLM-generated but not disruptive (which you acknowledge exist) should not be removed. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::{{tq|Comments that are LLM-generated but not disruptive (which you acknowledge exist) should not be removed.}} I disagree. I think it is not too much to ask to communicate with actual human beings. Talking with an actual user as opposed to through the screen of an LLM makes communication a lot easier. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 14:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Then you are in luck, an actual person will be the one that posted the content and the one you are talking with. LLMs do not post on their own, they all require human thought and input. Thats how they work. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 14:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::That’s not entirely accurate. While it’s true that an LLM doesn’t autonomously log in and hit “submit,” it’s misleading to suggest that posts generated by an LLM are purely human in origin. In practice, many edits and comments across platforms are authored almost entirely by machine output, with minimal or even no meaningful human oversight. The “input” may just be a short prompt, but the bulk of the content—including the structure, wording, and even factual framing—comes from the model.
:::::::::::::::::Equating that to “human thought” risks blurring the distinction between genuine human authorship and machine-assisted or machine-generated text. Saying “an actual person posted it” ignores that the human role might be closer to pressing a button than actually creating the content. That distinction matters if we care about originality, accountability, and reliability of information. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 15:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::And if we know that they did not check what they are submitting you would be correct. But we cannot know that. Its just assuming bad faith at that point. So we go off the assumption that when someone hits submit they checked what they are posting. There is no other option. So yeah, I am going to ignore the distinction because it has no value and does not matter. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 16:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::That’s not entirely accurate. It’s misleading to suggest that posts generated by an LLM are human in origin simply because a human hit the submit button. In practice, many edits and comments across platforms are authored almost entirely by machine output, with minimal or even no meaningful human oversight. The “input” may just be a short prompt, but the bulk of the content—including the structure, wording, and even factual framing—comes from the model.
:::::::::::::::::::Equating that to “human thought” risks blurring the distinction between genuine human authorship and machine-assisted or machine-generated text. Saying “an actual person posted it” ignores that the human role might be closer to pressing a button than actually creating the content. That distinction matters if we care about originality, accountability, and reliability of information. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 17:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::{{tpq|Equating that to “human thought” risks blurring the distinction between genuine human authorship and machine-assisted or machine-generated text.}} firstly there is a strong community consensus that machine-assisted and machine-generated text are not the same. There is a strong community consensus that the former is not inherently problematic, and a lesser consensus that only ''unreviewed'' LLM-generated text is.
::::::::::::::::::Regardless, there is no benefit to making any of these distinctions because if the text is disruptive it can already be removed regardless of which of the three types it is. Nobody has given any justification for removing text (of any origin) that is not disruptive. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::LLM-generated content, and even comments with a significant LLM assist, are disruptive because they are not written by a real human being. Is it too much to ask to communicate with people as opposed to having users export their minds to an AI? Is that really so radical? I simply cannot understand your perspective on LLMs. How is using an LLM to communicate ever appropriate? [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 18:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::@[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] I agree with you that there is a distinction between machine-assisted and machine-generated text, and that the former is not inherently disruptive. I also agree with the strong community consensus (against which you appear to be one of the few dissenting voices) that ''unreviewed'' LLM-generated text is inherently disruptive and is unacceptable on this wiki (though I share your concerns about feasibility and enforcement of some of the countermeasures that have been proposed).
:::::::::::::::::::I think where we differ is in our view of text that falls between the extremes. I think your insistence on ignoring source and judging text entirely on content disregards the fact that a large part of the meaning of any text is its surrounding context. The same text can be disruptive if it comes from one source in one context while being fine from a different source in a different context. One of the most essential pieces of context in any communicative act is ''who is the speaker''. We already have firm rules here that it is totally unacceptable for editors to outsource their writing to a hired human, so I see no reason why we should tolerate outsourcing to a [[Software as a service|SaaS]] that does the same work. Likewise, we consider that any editor who copy/pastes content from an external website has an obligation to disclose where they copy/pasted the content from and their rationale in doing so, and I see no reason why we should tolerate undisclosed copy/pasting from an external website that dynamically generates the content on demand. I recognize that there's fuzzy space in the middle and I recognize that we should be cautious when making new rules, but I think your treatment of the issue is incomplete. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 18:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree with Thrydulf. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 21:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Another consideration is copyright. If an editor posts an article that they did not write, that would seem to violate the existing copyright rules of Wikipedia. I was going to dig into the legal side of it, but got stuck on the answer that Google's AI came up with: "Copyright protection requires human authorship; works generated solely by AI are not copyrightable, but works that are assisted by AI can be if a human exercises sufficient creative control over the final output." I though this was actually a good starting point for policy, that is, the concept of "sufficient creative control". [[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] ([[User talk:Rublamb|talk]]) 20:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' (kind of): I support the idea in theory. But the linked move request would have been [[WP:SNOW]] closed as oppose anyway. What happens if someone posts a LLM-generated RfC that people support (which will likely happen)? Or if someone posts a LLM-generated RfC on a perpetual source of drama, and people respond to it before the LLM use is noticed (which will also, maybe even more likely, happen)? [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 06:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:Current practice for discuassions that don't need closing seems to be someone asks if llm was used, and then either it is rather unbelievably denied, or there is some pivot to "you should focus on the argument rather than the method" which I'm pretty sure llms must be offering as a reply given how consistent it is. After that the discussion tails off. For those that do need closing and would otherwise linger wasting everyone's time, I would agree with the proposal that the guidelines should allow someone to quick close them, while not making it mandatory. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 07:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::Broad '''support''' as a guideline, given this has moved towards bolded !votes below. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 11:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:If LLMs are to be allowed to generate such requests then simply ask an LLM to generate a reply based on your position, make sure to ask it to give detailed explanations now all the points it raises. If it's the case then maybe someone could create a script to autogenerate comments, or even the whole discussion. Editors shouldn't be expected to put more effort into replies than the original poster put into theirs. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 09:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::I admire your good sense to troll back basically. =) —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 03:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::If generating the original comment using an LLM isn't trolling then neither is the reply. If the reply would be trolling then the original comment should be hatted. If people think that editors should be allowed to use LLMs, then streamlining the process so everyone can use them is surely desirable. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 14:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:I would tend to support this, although with two caveats. Firstly, that AI detection software, while useful, isn't perfectly accurate and shouldn't be exclusively relied on for that purpose. And, secondly, that proposals getting reasonable support shouldn't be closed just because the original proposal was AI-generated, while those with no support can be immediately closed based on that.{{pb}}The main issue for me (and the reason why I believe this is not comparable to existing human-written discussions) is that it is trivially easy to generate long proposals with AI, and that it comparatively takes a much larger amount of volunteer time to analyze (and usually dismiss) these proposals. This imbalance is simply not fair to our volunteers, and having to repeatedly deal with AI-generated proposals will just slow down community discussions and divert precious resources from more well-thought proposals. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 13:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - To address the concerns about good proposals written with AI being closed, if it's so obvious a good idea, it would certainly be proposed quickly anyway. I don't think the benefit of a theoretical wonderful AI-written proposal that wouldn't be suggested anyway is worth the massive downside of giving any kind of additional foothold to LLMs. LLMs are an existential threat to Wikipedia as a useful project, and I see it as our mission to stop it wherever it is possible to do so.{{pb
}}[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 17:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support speedy-closes of formal discussions created primarily/entirely by chatbot''' - It's [[Brandolini's law|highly unlikely]] the people using the chatbots are willing (assuming [[WP:CIR|they're able]]) to make coherent arguments based on policy and a reading of the available sources, but if they are there's no reason to bring in a fallible script that's [[Hallucination (artificial intelligence)|huffing nutmeg]]. Even the most perfunctory human-written discussion is better than a long AI-written post simply because the human is far better at source critique and rebutting opposing arguments. As Enby says above, I wouldn't support speedy-closing any discussion which has already attracted some amount of commentary before its provenance was discovered. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 17:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|It's highly unlikely the people using the chatbots are willing (assuming they're able) to make coherent arguments based on policy and a reading of the available sources, but if they are there's no reason to bring in a fallible script that's huffing nutmeg.}}{{snd}}Yes, this is another excellent point. I believe our attitude should be that use of AI to generate either article text, or discussion text, is ipso facto proof of incompetence as an editor -- because no competent person would think that AI-generated text is a useful contribution -- and should result in an immediate indef. I am not kidding about this. Shoot to kill. (Unblock only after a clear statement that they now understand the issue, but a second offense should be another indef, with a minimum 12 months before unblock may be re-requested).{{pb}}As for the [[wikt:bleeding heart]]s who worry about people who would not be able to contribute without relying on AI to write for them: well, if you can't write it yourself, neither can you review what AI wrote for you, so I'm afraid we can't use you on the project. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I'm frankly astounded and appalled by this attitude. Whatever happened to [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:BITE]] and the other half dozen or so things you've tossed by the wayside in your haste to hate? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Questioning someone's competence is not questioning their good faith, but stupid sincerity is not enough. And I do not apologize for BITE-ing a robot, even if it speaks through a ventriloquist's dummy in human form. To paraphrase someone that I'm not likely to quote ever again: {{tq|Extremism in defense of Wikipedia is no vice. Moderation in tracking down and stamping out AI-generated crap posted by [[script kiddie]]s is no virtue.}} [https://www.niskanencenter.org/on-the-saying-that-extremism-in-defense-of-liberty-is-no-vice/].{{pb}}If we don't take dramatic action immediately, our cherished Neutral Point of View will soon give way to the Neural Point of View. (You can use that quip free of charge.) [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::P.S. I dare anyone to take a gander at this [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1305669496#User:JoseyWales019_creating_AI-generated_mainspace_articles] ANI discussion and not be angry at the time wasted by competent editors who are forced to wade through the AI slop being posted -- and defended! -- by this one incompetent. And I have no problem calling him incompetent, since he obviously lacks common sense. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 02:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::Dare accepted. I'm more angry at the people who are choosing to insult editors on a project page while yapping about how we "must take dramatic action immediately," instead of [[:Category:Articles containing suspected AI-generated texts from August 2025|taking dramatic action immediately]]. Be the change you wish to see in the world. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 04:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Boy, [[Special:Diff/1299531392|you're not kidding]]. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 04:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Yeah, I don't people realize how bad the problem has ''already gotten''. A lot of the AI slop has gone undetected despite being blatant; you can't really say anyone's being "forced to wade through the AI slop" considering how few people are actually wading through it. I haven't even really done much to ''fix'' it myself -- my main skill is tracking down and identifying problems, and I'm OK with that. (Maybe I should have been an auditor.)
*::::::But the AI cleanup backlog jumped from ~100 AI articles to ~400 in a couple of days, not due to a sudden influx of slop, but because I singlehandedly found 300 instances of slop that was already there. This isn't me being self-aggrandizing, just stating the facts. I didn't use any special tools besides a few simple targeted regexes -- I typed phrases [[Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing|we already know about]] into the Wikipedia search box and investigated the obvious cases. Anyone else could have done the same thing anytime in the past 2 years, rather than insulting people who often really do genuinely think they are helping the encyclopedia, sometimes because they've been encouraged to do so through edit-a-thons, Wiki Ed courses, or [https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/04/30/our-new-ai-strategy-puts-wikipedias-humans-first/ the Wikimedia Foundation itself.] Their edit summaries often mention "improving the encyclopedia," "rewriting for a neutral tone," etc.
*::::::(Also, for what it's worth: [[WP:CHATGPT]] is ''not actually policy'', although arguably it should be. [[WP:CIVIL]] is.) [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 17:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I've literally been tracking down hundreds of AI-generated articles for the past several days. Please don't tell me what I do and don't worry about. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 23:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::If you're addressing me: I didn't tell you or anyone else what they worry about. I addressed any editors who happen to harbor a particular worry which I specified, and discussed that worry. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*::{{+1}} to everything EEng has said. AI contributions have no value, and I'm tired of people tip-toeing politely around AI slop and pretending it's something other than a steaming garbage heap. Quite frankly it smells of appeasement. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 13:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Except we're not {{tpq|tip-toeing politely around AI slop}} we're pointing out that AI slop can be dealt with under existing policies and guidelines because ''all'' slop can be dealt with under existing policies and guidelines regardless of whether it is human slop or AI slop. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Irrelevant''' - given that the actual proposal at an RM is simply “[[current title]] —> [[proposed title]]”, I don’t think it matters if someone uses an LLM to generate it. Similarly, an RFC question/proposal is supposed to be brief and neutral (example: “'''Should the article say ABC instead of XYZ?'''”) and, again, I don’t think it matters how that basic question is generated (In fact, I would love to train LLMs so they generate RFC questions this way).{{pb
}}What I think is actually being objected to is using an LLM to generate the proposer’s ''opening statement'' (explaining ''why'' they think the move should take place, or ''why'' ABC should be replaced with XYZ) … but ''that'' is commentary on the proposal, not the proposal itself… and commentary is already covered by HATGPT. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 19:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*:That is correct, and it's because the opening statement is ''essentially the proposer's argument for why XYZ should happen''. It isn't something an LLM actually has the capacity to summarise or explain in most cases, especially if offline sources are being used for the argument (as LLMs generally cannot access those); using one for the purpose basically forces the proposer to waste time clarifying whatever the LLM said than actually defending their proposal, and that's ''outright ignoring'' the LLM's [[Hallucination (artificial intelligence)|divinorum addiction]]. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 21:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*::But HATGPT ''already'' says we should discount comments generated by LLMs. So what is the point of this proposal? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::[[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2/Proposed decision#Editor time is our most valuable resource|To prevent people from wasting time clarifying or arguing over whatever the LLM said instead of defending their position.]] —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 00:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::But HATGPT ''already'' covers this. We can discount comments generated by an LLM… It doesn’t matter whether that comment is the initial comment (by the proposer) or a subsequent comment (by an editor responding to the proposal). [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 12:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::But, if someone opens a proposal and their original comment gets collapsed, should other volunteers have to spend their time opposing the proposal? That's the question this new policy tries to answer – they shouldn't. From what I understand, HATGPT would leave the proposal open (and taking volunteer time from more relevant proposals), just without the opening comment. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 13:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::@[[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]]: That's the wrong question. At present, without any change to any guideline or policy, editors already do not have to spend their time opposing any struck/collapsed proposal, even if a human had written it. We already ''can'' speedily close; a guideline saying "you can" when a policy already suggests "you should" (that policy being [[WP:NOTBURO]]) would be a bad guideline. If there is no driving rationale for a change from the status quo in the discussion, and everyone is supporting the status quo—and there is therefore no controversy—the formal process is a waste. Editors can keep talking about how they all agree that something is okay "in their spare time", not using resources of venues such as AfD, RM, etc.: The scaffolding of "7+ days' listed specifically-formatted discussion that must be closed" is not needed. Such processes are closed with a speedy endorsement of the status quo (such as [[Wikipedia:Speedy keep]]—an existing guideline about this). NOTBURO says: "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedure". So, yes, some constraints of "rules and procedure" may help consensus-formation develop more harmoniously ''because'' there is disagreement (which may be accompanied by a little bit of tension and a human tendency to stonewall or overstep, especially when advanced tools with limited access are involved) ... but if there is no disagreement, why ''any'' rules, and why ''any'' procedure? The driving rationale for a change can evaporate in any discussion, turning a (seemingly or truly) controversial issue into a non-controversial one, and this can happen in a variety of ways. One such way is withdrawal/reversal of a !vote. Another is the nomination/comment being struck: ban/ARBECR violation, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, trolling, ''and AI content''—already in [[WP:AITALK]]. So the only change might be: Should AI use be ''exempt'' from this general logic, and should editors ''become'' obligated to treat struck AI content as nominations/comments that are not struck. So this is fundamentally a relitigation of AITALK: If they are struck, but editors must begin to behave as if they were not, the striking of AI comments becomes striking in name only (just a visual change, no functional difference) and AITALK is effectively abrogated. So the proposal in this discussion is to overturn AITALK with the detail of leaving functionally meaningless striking-in-name-only in place. {{u|Blueboar}} is entirely correct. This discussion is badly framed and its no consensus outcome could improperly undermine AITALK.{{pb}}... and the oppose !votes reflect this, as they intuitively understand the stakes. So, for example, below, opponents say: {{tqq|Unless a detection method is found that is consistently accurate I don't really trust others vibes to remove users votes in something}}, {{tqq|I think any procedure such as hatting suspected LLM-produced material has the potential of encouraging the biting of newcomers}}, and similar. So, comments should not be struck/collapsed ("removed"). That is just a !vote to abrogate AITALK, indistinguishable from a comment opposing adoption of AITALK in a discussion on ''whether to adopt'' AITALK ... but AITALK has already been adopted. Now, editors are building consensus for AITALK again, trying to persuade opponents of AITALK that it should be understood to mean what it already means. As these opponents oppose AITALK to begin with (because of a total skepsis toward the possibility of doing something about the AI problem / deeply-held view that it is not a problem), they will of course never be persuaded about some particularity regarding the application of this thing that should not be a thing and will embrace the premise that the thing is toothless and that a consensus is needed to give it teeth. At the same time, supporters of AITALK will not !vote in favor of AITALK-as-AITALK (aware or unaware of its practical implications) believing that their support is not needed because it has already been adopted. Therefore, this time, acceptance of AITALK will fail. The starter of this discussion wanted to make AITALK "stronger", but instead caused it to be undone. This is why RfC questions need to be neutral and need to contain a proposal to change the status quo without misrepresenting the status quo. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 23:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::This also gives AI comments extra priority and durability over human comments: While a human comment being struck could cause a discussion to be closed, an AI comment the same as that human comment being struck cannot cause a discussion to be closed, because showing this RfC to the errant speedy closer should lead that closer to concede that they acted in error, against community consensus, because treating struck AI votes the same as struck human votes is a rejected proposal: namely, policies and guidelines do <u>''not''</u> {{tqq|allow for the closure of discussions seeking community input (RFC/VPR/CENT/RFAR/AFD/RM/TFD/RFD/FFD/etc) that are started utilizing content that registers as being majority written by AI}}—the accepted status-quo premise of this discussion. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 00:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::[[WP:CCC]], as to {{tqq| The starter of this discussion wanted to make AITALK "stronger", but instead caused it to be undone}}, it was not my intent to undermine AITALK whatsoever. The language at AITALK definitely could have been written better to make clear there was already a consensus for this. And the only reason this was turned into an RFC was because of the constant bolded !votes. I had a feeling I didn't understand the full history of AITALK/HATGPT, hence why I explicitly said I was looking for feedback in advance of a proposal. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 00:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::A panel will be needed to fix the mess. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 00:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I do agree with your analysis, although I don't think [[WP:NOTBURO]] says "we should" to anything. But yes, if anything, AITALK should be at least retained: the current discussion is not specific enough to find a consensus to revert it in part or as a whole.{{pb}}However, as the example that started this whole discussion showed, I don't think AITALK made it explicit enough that hatted AI content was to be treated as a struck nomination and explicitly allowed for an instant closure. The spirit of the policy certainly did, but the letter didn't, thus this discussion. Mostly because "the spirit" is something vague and, ultimately, a bit subjective. And having the policy itself make it explicit would remove this disagreement. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 10:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I'm pretty sure the LLM generated the ''entire request''. If you go back to the diff I posted, go look at that page as it looked during the first edits: they inserted it into the wrong place on the page, and I get the impression it didn't know how to fill in certain fields so it left some blank. But if it makes any difference, I also object to the "opening statement" being majority-written by an LLM. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 03:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*::By "entire request", you mean only the first of the 10 comments posted in that RM by the newbie, but none of the significant and substantive arguing you and the OP did over (a) the actual question and (b) whether an LLM was used in the first comment, right?
*::I'm somehow getting a different feeling about which part was the waste of time. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' — Blueboar presents a convincing enough argument in favor of this proposal. I consider this to be an extension of existing policy. Talking about discussions over whether a proposal is AI-generated should be conducted in criticisms of the existing HATGPT rule. <span style="font-family: monospace;">[[User talk:ElijahPepe|elijahpepe@wikipedia]] (he/him)</span> 03:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*{{strikethrough|Support clarifying existing policy}}{{small|this wasn't a formal RFC when I initially commented and as of now it's unclear what exactly people are !Voting on}} to make it clear that using an LLM to generate opening statements of discussions is just as unacceptable as using an LLM to generate replies. As Cryptic alluded to above, using LLM to generate substantive content in discussions (as opposed to minor copyediting/formatting) is essentially the same or [[WP:NOSHARE|allowing someone else to log in and edit using your account]]. If we do not allow editors to direct their (human) personal secretary to edit on their behalf, why would we tolerate the same conduct when the secretary is replaced by an LLM? Or, from a different angle, content that is substantively copy/pasted from LLM output should be treated like [[WP:COPYPASTE|content that is copy/pasted from other sources]], which if not attributed goes against [[WP:PLAGIARISM]]. Policy aside, I believe any editor who generates content wholesale with an LLM should as a matter of courtesy/transparency indicate that they have done so, and indicate the model and prompt used. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 18:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|why would we tolerate the same conduct when the secretary is replaced by an LLM}}{{snd}}What we're seeing in AI use is way worse than that. It's less a human using an AI secretary to generate content, and more an AI entity using a human (or ventriloquist dummy in human form) to post ''its'' content. It's not a human using AI -- it's AI using humans. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 19:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC) P.S. BTW, indicating {{tq|the model and prompt used}} isn't enough, since in general an LLM's response to whatever you just asked it is shaped by the entirety of one's prior interactions with it.
:I think you'd be fully within your rights to close that discussion per existing consensus. If anything, the text at [[WP:HATGPT]] is too watered down from [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_199#LLM/chatbot_comments_in_discussions|the RfC closure]], which said that "if a comment is written entirely by an LLM, it is (in principle) not appropriate". IMO, something to that effect should be added to the policy text. <span class="nowrap">—[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="color:#004080">python</span><span style="color:olive">coder</span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]])</span> 21:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*I'm not sure if we could assume that dictionary definitions from a real dictionary are always NPOV -- there may be some bad dictionaries out there, and dictionaries don't always reflect actual usage of a word. Personally, I don't think citing dictionaries ever adds anything to an encyclopedia, and imagine it might be a bad practice to get into. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 14:47, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::I also agree with making that change to the text. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 11:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
**Further note -- older dictionaries were often not even remotely POV -- I've looked at some older ones from the early 1900s, and they're hilariously POV. Even newer ones, for reason of historical conservativism or lack of agreement with us about what NPOV is about, are often not POV. I therefore don't think being part of a dictionary necessarily contributes ''at all'' to NPOV, and therefore think your proposal, while well-intentioned, is based on bad premises. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 17:36, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Whether or not we need to expand HATGPT, I'm all in favor (aka '''support''' in a broad sense) of shutting down any discussion that wastes the community's time, and anything that resulted from some software "thinking" about it, rather than a human thinking about it, falls in the category of shut-it-down. Base it on IAR, or base it on common sense. I see some pearl-clutching about BITE and AGF, but that strikes me as ''so'' 2024. We are facing something that can scale to a magnitude that we will be unable to deal with it, unless we are realistic about the need to deal with it assertively. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*** But wouldn't those older dictionaries validate for sure that those old hilarious POVs actually ''were'' part of history? :) ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 17:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*:Just to add to my previous comments… If it is felt that HATGPT needs to specify that it applies to the explanatory language of a proposal as well as subsequent comments, I don’t object to amending HATGPT. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 00:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
****It might be notable that some people thought that, but wouldn't necessarily be notable as to what other points of view were common at the time. We might expect, say, French dictionaries during colonial times to be very much for reporting the French government POV, and we might intuit a nationalist POV to oppose them, but that wouldn't necessarily tell us about the differing tribal POVs, the Communist POV, the early liberal POVs, the ... Basically I'm saying is that it can't be a very good rule of thumb. I don't see the utility in quoting dictionaries at all on Wikipedia. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 20:09, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*:Seeing the ongoing disagreements about BITE, something additional that occurs to me is that the community has long been at least reasonably comfortable with [[WP:Competence is required]]. It seems to me that editors who feel like the only way that they can participate in the community is by letting LLMs do their writing for them are running afoul of competence. (I'm referring here to LLMs, not assistive technologies such as screen readers.) We don't regard it as a BITE situation when we issue a [[WP:NOTHERE]] block, and I think that a user who equates LLM-generated content with encyclopedic content is likely to be not-here. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*****I agree totally--no utility in quoting dictionaries. However, if a POV is expressed in a dictionary, then that POV is ''per se'' and necessarily a valid POV to document on Wikipedia, is it not? There would be no rational justification for cutting one dictionary definition among others from a Wikipedia page simply because of the POV in the dictionary definition that was cut, would you agree? ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 21:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[WP:AITALK]] already allows for the collapsing and striking of LLM-generated proposals, since they are a [[subset]] of LLM-generated comments, but this particular bullet point does not yet comment on whether the ensuing discussion should be closed. Discussions that lead with LLM-generated comments are often unconstructive, and frequently devolve into arguments about LLM use or [[WP:BLUD|bludgeoning]] with additional LLM-generated comments. Since there appears to be some uncertainty about whether LLM-led discussions can be closed, [[WP:AITALK]] should be amended to clarify that they can be, per a combination of the existing [[WP:AITALK]] text and this portion of the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Marking a closed discussion|Marking a closed discussion]] section: {{xt|"If a discussion has been so disruptive or pointless that it is better for editors to waste no further time even looking at it, the alternative templates {{tlx|Hidden archive top}} and {{tlx|Hidden archive bottom}} can be used instead, to produces a similar 'closure box' around it, but collapsed to hide the content, as with [[#Off-topic posts|off-topic threads]]"}}, although any collapsible template would work. An editor who posts an LLM-generated proposal can resubmit the proposal if they manually write it in their own words.{{pb}}I also support Pythoncoder's suggestion to have [[WP:AITALK]] explicitly designate LLM-generated comments as inappropriate, in line with the consensus at {{slink|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 199#LLM/chatbot comments in discussions}}. In practice, LLM-generated comments are already recognized as [[WP:DE|disruptive]], especially when [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE|undisclosed]]. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 07:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Unless a detection method is found that is consistently accurate I don't really trust others vibes to remove users votes in something. It is important to remember the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_199#LLM/chatbot_comments_in_discussions previous] consensus on the topic, specifically {{tq|The word "generative" is very, very important here, though. This consensus does not apply to comments where the reasoning is the editor's own, but an LLM has been used to refine their meaning. Editors who are non-fluent speakers, or have developmental or learning disabilities, are welcome to edit here as long as they can follow our policies and guidelines; this consensus should not be taken to deny them the option of using assistive technologies to improve their comments. In practice, this sets a good lower bound for obviousness, as any comment that could conceivably be LLM-assisted is, by definition, not obviously LLM-generated.}} In practice most LLM-assisted comments are not noticed because it does not actually matter. Anything else can be dealt with existing policy. I am similarly not convinced by the pearl clutching on wasting editors time, Wikipedia editors have been able to do that for decades without using LLMs and the addition of them has not been a noticeable uptick in it that I can tell. This is not some crazy crisis that will doom the pedia, it is a tool, nothing more. The usual garbage in garbage out applies in most issues with using the tool. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 00:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] This quote and archive link might be what you were asking about on my talk page. @[[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]], you might consider what @[[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] has shared above, the amount of LLM content being found in articles has increased significantly, and usage of it on talk pages is only going to get worse. You call it {{tqq|pearl clutching}}, but if the scale of LLM use increases then it will be a significantly bigger time sink for Wikipedia editors. At what point do we all just shut off our browsers and just let LLM's argue back and forth on our behalf with a sentence or two to get them started? I edit and comment on talk pages because I want to interact with other editors, not people running chatbots and copying/pasting their responses or proposals in bad faith with little actual time investment on their part. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 00:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::If you don't want to interact with a comment/user then don't interact with that comment/user, nobody is forcing you to do that. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 02:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::What a lame cop-out. You could say the same thing about anyone who stirs the pot in nonproductive ways -- "Well, no one's forcing ''you''." But ''someone'' has to deal with AI-generated vapid crap proposals, discussion posts, and so on. No matter who grits their teeth to do it, it's time that could have been productively spent elsewhere. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 03:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::{{tpq|But ''someone'' has to deal with AI-generated vapid crap proposals, discussion posts, and so on.}} firstly no they don't - such posts can be simply ignored by everyone, but secondly if someone ''does'' choose to deal with them then can do so under current policy without needing this proposal. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::If everyone ignores it because of AI crap, then the clueless (or malicious) AI user declares [[WP:SILENCE]] and makes a misguided change. Then someone has to deal with it, if only by reverting. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 12:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Eh probably not though right? Could that happen? Sure, just the same as someone making a terrible proposal, but is it likely to get no push back? Almost certainly not, this is the internet amd the need to be right is far too strong. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 13:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Thryduulf was suggesting everyone can ignore the proposal. I followed that idea to a logical conclusion. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 21:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::You can claim SILENCE, but the next editor can revert you, which is proof that there's no silent agreement. Additionally, some proposals (e.g., "Let's have a new guideline") require active support, not just the absence of objections. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::Yes. And then the LLM-user throws a fit because they were reverted without discussion, and people have to engage further. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 00:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::I can attest that this is in fact how these things go. I recently dealt with a user who, when reverted, just asked his LLM to formulate an argument contesting the reversion and proceeded to bludgeon talk pages with multiple AI-generated sections per day. They were ultimately indeffed as [[WP:NOT HERE]] and [[WP:CIR]], but not before me and other editors wasted tens of thousands of bytes refuting the disjointed and incoherent logic of his bot and tracking down fabricated references. Even after the block it took me multiple hours (all my wiki time for several days) to go through all the articles this user has edited and reverse the damage. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 05:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::No Wikipedian should be forced to interact with LLM generated proposals. '''Period.''' If I had my druthers, WMF would reallocate all development resources to at minimum a way to tag edits automatically as containing LLM content, and at best, flat out rejecting LLM edits from new/unverified users (and then tagging anything allowed through so people can know what they're dealing with). One discussion provided by @[[User:EEng|EEng]] above is [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1305669496#User:JoseyWales019_creating_AI-generated_mainspace_articles here], which has wasted how many hours of editor time? One of the remedies currently at [[WP:ARBATC2]] is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation_2/Proposed_decision#Editor_time_is_our_most_valuable_resource|this remedy]] which is currently passing 10-0. It states {{tqq|Wikipedia relies on the input of volunteer editors to maintain and produce its content, including managing its dispute mechanisms. The time editors can commit to this is one of its most precious resources. This resource should not be wasted pointlessly}}. LLM edits are a time sink.
*:::Why are you supporting wasting editor time, a {{tqq|precious resource}}, replying to and dealing with LLM generated AI-slop? —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 03:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::{{tpq|No Wikipedian should be forced to interact with LLM generated proposals. Period.}} No Wikipedian ''is'', even without this proposal. If a comment is a disruptive waste of time, it can already be hatted/removed as a disruptive waste of time under current policy, regardless of whether it is or isn't LLM-generated meaning that whether it is or isn't LLM-generated is completely irrelevant meaning that this proposal, which encourages arguing about whether something is or is not LLM-generated, is the waste of time. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 03:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::That's like arguing that a particular speedy deletion is completely irrelevant if something can be deleted through AfD. We can and do approach issues through multiple ways which can involve different but overlapping considerations. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::No. To use your speedy deletion analogy this proposal is the equivalent of saying we need a speedy deletion criterion specifically for articles written primarily by editors who are or appear to be male that do not indicate importance. That's wholly redundant to the existing criterion that allows us to speedy delete articles that do not indicate importance regardless of who wrote them, but with added irrelevant, time wasting and disruptive arguing about whether or not the editor is or is not male. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 03:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I don't think tech choices are equivalent to demographic attributes, and find that a very poor comparison to make. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Then you have misunderstood what I've written. I'm not saying the two inputs are equivalent, I'm saying that the interactions of the proposed and theoretical policies with existing policies and community behaviour are the same. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::I understood. It was a terrible analogy that also doesn't work. There's no need to obscure the discussion by asserting there are only proposed and theoretical polices, we already have existing guidelines around this topic that do not work in a way similar to weird assertions about gender. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 11:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::Your comment makes it clear that you have either not actually understood or are not listening to anything that contradicts your opinion. Current policies and guidelines allow for anything that is disruptive to be closed/hatted regardless of whether it is LLM-generated or not. So the only things that are not covered are things which are not disruptive, and we should not be speedily closing things that are not disruptive. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::My opinion is that we shouldn't treat llm use like an inherent demographic characteristic. We have specific guidelines to hat LLM-generated text already, so your assertion is incorrect. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::@[[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] Unfortunately, it kind of is relevant, although maybe for a different reason. For unsurprising reasons finding reliable sources for this is a nightmare, but many surveys suggest [https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-which-countries-use-chatgpt-most-1950639 AI use is arguably more common in non-Western countries], and this is consistent with what I've seen on Wikipedia both in articlespace and on talk pages. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 14:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::There will be trends of llm use that correlate with different demographic aspects, but that does not make llm use a demographic aspect itself, similar to other trends that correlate with demographics. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::I think we're on the same page then. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 17:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::I talked to someone yesterday who uses LLMs regularly. Part of her job is responding to customer complaints. She has pretty severe dyslexia. What used to be an hour of carefully checking her spelling, grammar, and punctuation is now 30 seconds of explaining the problem to her phone, 60 seconds of reading the response out loud to make sure it's correct, and then sending it to the customer. I'm honestly not seeing much difference between this and the https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-bedbug-letter/ of bygone years, but I do think that "people with dyslexia" should be counted as "a demographic". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I don't know why I've been tagged here to be perfectly honest but my point seems to have been missed. Dealing with LLM slop is a direct way of improving the encyclopedia, whether you like it or not. Complaining about being "forced to" deal with LLM slop -- something that, again, you clearly are not being forced to do -- is not.
*::My other point seems to have been missed too, although that's probably on me for poorly communicating it: {{tq|the amount of LLM content being found in articles has increased significantly}} refers to ''pre-existing'' LLM content -- stuff that's been around since 2023-2024. We're past the point where we can worry about the "increasing scale" of LLM use (and I wish the recent news articles were more clear about this). The scale has already increased. Our options now are to deal with it or not. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 14:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::{{tqq|I don't know why I've been tagged here to be perfectly honest}} I always feel rude referring to another editor's comments in larger discussions like this when given it's size they might miss it. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 17:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::No worries, that's what I figured. I probably would have missed it. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 18:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:"garbage in garbage out" does not apply to this tool at all. The close is a bit tricky in that respect, llms are inherently generative in how they operate, they cannot not generate. You can put great stuff in and get garbage out (and the reverse, sometimes). Treating it as a garbage in garbage out tool completely misunderstands what llms are. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 02:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::No, that is pretty much how they operate. Like most tools, even good input has the possibility to generate undesirable results. Being a good yser of the tool lets you recognize that and adjuts. That is garbage in garbage out, it still comes down to poor tool use. LLMs are not special in that regard I'm afraid. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 13:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Garbage in garbage out means that flawed inputs result in flawed outputs. If you have good input then the idiom doesn't apply at all. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::Eh, if the input did not produce the desired result but anotherone did, it was a flawed input. Thats how that works. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 18:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Any loss at [[craps]] is also due to flawed input. [[Special:Contributions/fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]] ([[User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|talk]]) 19:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*This discussion just got reformatted as an RFC (for which I am partly responsible as I am one of the people who used bold !votey formatting in my comment), but on reflection it's unclear to me what the formal question being discussed is. Many people here seem to be rehashing prior discussions about the harm/lack of harm/current trends of LLM use on Wikipedia, which is unnecessary as prior discussions have already established a strong consensus that types of LLM use people are complaining about here are disruptive and should be hatted/removed. As far as I can tell, the only real question posed here is whether a proposal whose opening statement is hattable/removable under existing consensus may also be closed without further discussion. The answer is obviously yes, no RFC required. From [[WP:CLOSE]]: {{tqq|In addition to formal closes that analyze the consensus of a discussion, discussions may also be closed where someone, usually an administrator, decides that the discussion is irrelevant or disruptive.}} The community has already [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_199#LLM/chatbot_comments_in_discussions|decided]] that certain types of LLM use are disruptive, and proposals that are disruptive are already subject to closure. What else is there to discuss? -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 18:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:The question put forth here is should content generated by LLMs automatically be hatted/closed if certain tools register it as highly condident its AI generated. The previous discussion was based around bad or disruptive content vs all content in general. Which the previous RFC makes a distinction at. That is why this is a problem, its an expansion past and opposed to the previous RFC. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 18:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Since that RM was disruptive (and in fact all the !votes were Oppose anyway) my understanding is that under current community norms it could and should have been closed at any point. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 19:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:As was done at the example provided by me at the start, we ''did in fact'' HAT the proposal, but the discussion remained open (and !voting occurred). This RFC is further clarifying that for proposals of any type (RFC, xFD, etc), the discussion can simply be closed (perhaps with a closure note of '''No action taken''' and a reference to [[WP:HATGPT]]), sparing concerned editors from having to monitor such conversations for a week or longer. There's also the lingering question of how to handle such a situation after !voting has commenced. Void the discussion and leave it to anyone invested in the idea to start a new discussion (not utilizing LLM)? —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 18:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::If there is productive ongoing discussion, closing it would be counter-productive (and in some cases disruptive). If there is ongoing discussion that is not productive, then existing policies and guidelines allow it to be closed. There is no need for anything else. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*I think fighting against AI/LLM is a losing battle (we'll see AI-generated textbooks,[https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/learning-assessment/2024/12/13/ai-assisted-textbook-ucla-has-some-academics] AI-generated books/novels,[https://authorsguild.org/news/ai-driving-new-surge-of-sham-books-on-amazon/] AI-generated encyclopedias (?), etc. sooner or later). But I '''support''' this proposal in general. I would add an exception, though, and say that if the editor prefaces their AI-generated proposal with something along the lines of: "I've used AI/a chatbot to help me generate this proposal", then I would be fine with letting the proposal stand. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 15:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Some1|Some1]] We do indeed have an AI-generated encyclopedia[https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-worlds-second-largest-wikipedia-is-written-almost-entirely-by-one-bot/], although it precedes llms. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 17:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Thanks, and I just learned that there's something called [https://www.wikigen.ai/ wikigen.ai]... [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 17:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::That thing seems to just make summaries of our articles for people who are lazy, as well as occasionally making up some nonsense. I tried on ''[[Macrobdella decora]]'', a topic I'm very familiar with, and it told me "The leech's closest relative is believed to be the European medicinal leech, ''[[Hirudo medicinalis]]''." which is quite a doozy given that that species is in a different family altogether. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 19:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*::A simple fill-in-the-blank boilerplate form, using technology simpler than the [[Mail merge]] word processing button in the 1980s, is not "AI-generated" content. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::That very much depends on what you mean by "AI-generated". Some editors have previously noted that their definition of that term includes essentially anything touched by anything that can be called an "AI", others use a definition closer to "has no human input after the prompt". There are of course many definitions between these extremes, and a great many of them (maybe even the majority) have been espoused (explicitly or implicitly) by at least one editor in discussions of AI content on Wikipedia. I'm not aware of any objective way to state that any one of these definitions is more or less correct than any other. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:We do have [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]]. It isn't enforced because it isn't policy, but it probably should be. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 19:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*That mention just above, of [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]], hits upon the same thing that I have been starting to think. It might be a very good idea, and even something where we might find agreement between editors who oppose all LLM content, and editors who argue that the content should be judged on its merits, if we were to make disclosure a matter of policy, and enforceable. I'm not making a formal proposal – yet. Just floating the idea. We have, in the past, felt like paid editing had the potential to overwhelm Wikipedia with unacceptable content. But requiring disclosure has been working reasonably well, all things considered. I think the same principle could apply here – at least as a start, pending on what develops in the future if the scale of AI reaches a level where we would have to consider more. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' as stated per PackMecEng. I don't think there is any clear way to differentiate between LLM-generated proposals and human-generated proposals as of right now: I don't trust so-called AI-detecting websites and I ''definitely'' don't trust editors to do this based on vibes. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 23:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I believe that adding policies restricting the use of LLMs is unnecessary [[WP:CREEP]], and that any problems arising from the use of LLMs can be handled with previously existing policies, guidelines, and customary usage. In addition, given the uncertainties of correctly identifying LLM-produced material, I think any procedure such as hatting suspected LLM-produced material has the potential of encouraging the biting of newcomers. - [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 00:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Already covered by [[WP:AITALK]]'''. If editors engage on the substance by supporting the AI-generated proposal, the discussion cannot be closed. If they only oppose the proposal, which is then struck according to AITALK, [[WP:SK#1]] applies, in the deletion process, and by analogy in other processes (absence of a driving rationale for a change from the status quo). If the nomination is struck, its rationale becomes formally absent. If there are support !votes, they take the place of the nominator, as a rationale or rationales is present in them.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 14:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' The move proposal cited by the OP seemed reasonably coherent and to the point. Its only fault seemed to be that it was rather prolix. But this discussion here demonstrates that humans are quite capable of generating lots of bloviation without AI assistance. For such general problems then you need general procedural rules such as arbcom's 500 word limit. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 20:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Request panel close of this discussion'''. Because there is a problem with the question (the problem is discussed at length in the discussion itself), this discussion is very unfocused, and correctly interpreting it will require a panel. Otherwise, findings could be absurd, uninentionally ironic, could distort existing policy, etc. Three administrators will be needed to assess the {{tq|quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy}}, and they need to reality-check amongst themselves on what current Wikipedia policy actually says to do that correctly. A single (well-intentioned and responsible) closer could make an error, but a panel is unlikely to.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 00:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:If those who volunteer to evaluate consensus wish to do so in a group, by all means. I disagree, though, with mandating that it be done by a group. There are numerous experienced evaluators of consensus who I feel have established their reliability in producing considered evaluations. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 00:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*::* '''Support LLM generated commets''' helps enhance efficiency by synthesizing complex information into digestible forms
*::[[User:Umar Halid|Umar Halid]] ([[User talk:Umar Halid|talk]]) 11:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. It's clear that there isn't consensus support for the given proposal, but I do think there needs to be some sort of guide on the [[WP:Deletion]], [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:CFD]], [[WP:MERGEPROP]], etc. pages articulating what to do with AI/LLM generated proposals and how to respond. Most editors aren't going to be aware of [[WP:HATGPT]] so their is a need to formulate some sort of guideline language on the various pages. Best.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 17:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
===Alternative approach: make transparency policy===
An idea that came up in passing, above, is to make [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]], or something similar, a policy. Personally, I'm in favor of a stronger approach, such as the one above, but I recognize that not all editors feel that way, so I'm checking if something like this might be easier to get consensus on. What I'm hearing is that some editors feel that the use of LLMs should not be regarded as inherently disruptive. I actually think it is, but I can understand the disagreement, and I think that requiring disclosure would be better than nothing.
What I'm thinking of is to take wording similar to what is currently at LLMDISCLOSE, and put it on a standalone page, which would then be presented to the community as a proposed policy. I see this as somewhat analogous to what we currently do with COI and paid editing. Don't forbid it, but ask editors who use LLMs to be transparent about it. This would make it easier to track, and avoid confusion.
*A dictionary definition is an opinion, though often an expert opinion. So it should be fine to quote it as long as you attribute it and as long as it's relevant to the article. In an article about a word you might quote the OED to show what scholars believe about the etymology or use of that word. But in a dispute about ''ownership of a word'' (e.g. "is America a democracy or a republic?" "is atheism a religion?" "is communism the same as totalitarianism?") quoting the dictionary doesn't help. Both sides of the dispute know that the word has more than one meaning. [[User:Gdr|Gdr]] 15:56, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
** Those examples are helpful. I am folding your comment and everybody's else comments into the following "Digesting the suggestions" section. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 21:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
**I agree with what you say, but I don't think we should have articles about words in the first place. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. For example, [[evolutionism]] should be about [[evolutionism]], not about the word evolutionism. I think it's somewhat rare that an article benefits from quoting general dictionary definitions. If the meaning of a word is that non-obvious, we should probably be using a disambiguation page and pointing to other pages with more clearly defined terms. If the term is a specialty term, then we'd be better off using a specialty dictionary or other specialty source. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|警告]] 21:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*** That many dictionaries state a POV should qualify that POV for representation in a NPOV Wikipedia page--no matter what POV the dictionaries state--whether the POV opposes my, your, or anybody's else POV. Is it not true that in Wikipedia, opinion is turned into fact by saying accurately who states the quoted opinion? Of course, summarizing any POV in a Wikipedia NPOV page does not settle the controversies among POVs. Our job in Wikipedia is to quote and cite the varying POVs and let the readers decide. Would you agree? ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 21:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
=== Digesting the suggestions: I plan to edit this section as we go along :) ===
:: Thanks for helping me clarify the "algebra" of NPOV. For example, I changed the heading on this section to clarify the idea here. After thinking about your comments, I find the following.
::# Likely the final page should not cite dictionaries. That is, artful editing generally would make the page flow better than just quoting dictionary definitions.
::# Many times a particular dictionary definition may not provide encyclopedic interest. In that case, editors would agree readily that the particular POV in that dictionary definition was non-interesting.
::# Dictionary definitions will not resolve ''which'' POV is right--merely validate that the POVs in the dictionary definitions are appropriate POVs to detail in Wikipedia somewhere. For example, dictionary definitions will not resolve whether "America is a republic or a democracy"--merely validate at most that there are two opposing POVs that are both appropriate POVs to detail in Wikipedia somewhere.
::#* Older dictionaries illustrate the point. Older dictionaries serve to validate that the hilariously old-fashioned ideas in them were actual POVs back in time. And hence, those POVs in older dictionaries serve to validate those old-fashioned ideas as appropriate for detailing in Wikipedia pages as part of the history of ideas. But neither the older or the newer dictionaries can settle which POV is right.
::# However, in constructing pages, including associated disambiguation pages, for a controversial area, dictionary definitions always would serve one important function, namely validating that the POVs in the dictionary would NPOV qualify for representation in some page. This would apply in any situation where there was disagreement among editors whether the POV in the dictionary definition was to be allowed "print space" on the page. (Typos are readily identified by the publisher.)
::# '''Hypothesis.''' Hence, NPOV could always be achieved by detailing the POVs in the dictionary definitions together with detailing the opposing POVs of experts.
:: It appears to me that the above states a falsifiable hypothesis on all dictionary definitions. That is, one counter-example that would falsify the above hypothesis would be from the following:
::* Find a word W in a dictionary D such that the D definitions for W together with opposing expert opinions would NOT make a NPOV page.
:: An example in ''support'' of the above hypothesis would be the word ''work'' for which the dictionary definitions state the following two POVs together with others.
::# POV 1. ''Work'' is the transfer of energy from one physical system to another, especially the transfer of energy to a body by the application of a force that moves the body in the direction of the force. (There would be several alternative statements of this POV.)
::# POV 2. ''Work'' is one's place of employment.
:: According to the hypothesis, an NPOV report on the concept of ''work'' could always be achieved by constructing a set of pages, together with appropriate disambiguation pages, of the POVs in the dictionary definitions of ''work'' surrounded by the POVs of the experts on ''work'' that differ from the POVs in the dictionary definitions of ''work.''
::* In particular, NPOV would require that the non-scientific POV 2 on ''work'' would not get cut from a disambiguation page on ''work.'' ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 17:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Reputable dictionaries are exactly as citable as any other reputable sources, no more, no less. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 19:10, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
** I would have thought so ''a priori''--before encountering a real situation. :( But then, when in an actual situation of having an exact quote from the American Heritage Dictionary cut by an editor as at this [[Talk:Evolutionism_%28disambiguation%29|link]], when I thought about it, there seems to be a lack of general understanding--including my own--about how citable a dictionary really should be. For example, I would have reverted the cut and argued much more strongly if the cited quotation had been from Darwin's ''Origin of Species''--because I could say "Darwin said that." But who knows who wrote the dictionary definition? Thanks for helping me think this through--because I think a section in the [[NPOV]] documentation is required. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 20:04, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*** To put it briefly: dictionary definitions are not special, nor is any particular source. Any text exhibiting a point of view is POV, without exception, although you could certainly contend whether a piece of text is POV or not. I can't help but see this whole argument as a way of drawing attention to and justifying a single tiny edit. I'd seriously consider just moving on. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 21:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
**** Thanks for the advice. :)) ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 22:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== How to handle stale NPOV disputes ==
This is a question on the existing NPOV policy, regarding the detail how to handle articles which are listed as ''NPOV dispute'' but no activity is seen. The typical ''NPOV dispute'' article sees rather hectic activity, hopefully in the discussion, but sometimes escalating to edit wars in the article.
But there are some articles which are ''NPOV dispute'' listed, but no activity is seen. Except when trying to remove the ''NPOV dispute'' warning. So I wonder whether it is OK to use the dispute tag to stigmatize an article forever.
I've also asked at [[Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute]], but that page seems to have few watchers.
[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 21:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I've previously gone through NPOV-disputed pages a few times to clean out old ones like that. What I usually did was ask on the talk page if the NPOV dispute was still ongoing, wait a week, and if there was no reply then either nobody's got it watchlisted any more or nobody cares about the old dispute. Of course I also check to see if there's any NPOV problem that's obvious to me as a total outsider, but if there isn't one and nobody seems to care I just remove the NPOV header. If there's still a problem someone will put it back someday. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 21:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Yes, that would be the easy case. But I'm referring to the case, that when asked, or when trying to remove the dispute notice, there is opposition. But still no changes to the content. To make the case less abstract, my primary problem is [[Open Directory]]. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 22:42, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::Heh. Yeah, I ran into one of those myself; [[Talk:Thealogy#NPOV still in dispute?]]. I tried using the threat of resolving the NPOV myself despite not knowing anything about the subject, through the "use a dull axe on any parts that seem POV and maybe also on the parts adjacent to those just to be sure" strategy, hoping it'd spark some effort to fix things before I got busy. It didn't work, so I used an axe on any chunks that seemed POV. Surprisingly, that ''did'' work. My axe was sharper than I thought. :) Anyway, you could try that; warn everyone that you're about to solve their dispute for them. One way or the other it'll shake things loose. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 23:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: You might also consider the tag <nowiki>{{controversial}}</nowiki>, which indicates that the topic is controversial without saying that there is necessarily a dispute in progress. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 22:43, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
== Copyrights ==
See [[User:AaronSw/Song lyrics]]. What is the policy of having copyright violations in User pages? [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 08:41, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
:Same as for any other page. Everything published on Wikipedia is supposed to be under the GFDL; if these lyrics are copyrighted, a case might be made for fair use in a proper context (i.e. an article about the song) but I doubt that a user page qualifies. If they are copyrighted, AaronSw should tag the page for speedy deletion; if he refuses to do so it should be sent through [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]]. [[User:Mirv|—No-One]][[User talk:Mirv| ''Jones'']] [[Special:Emailuser/Mirv|<sup>(m)</sup>]] 09:22, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I've left a note about it on [[User:AaronSw|AaronSw]]'s talk page. [[User:Mirv|—No-One]][[User talk:Mirv| ''Jones'']] [[Special:Emailuser/Mirv|<sup>(m)</sup>]] 09:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Transliteration ==
Discussion archived to [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/diacritics]].
See my proposal here: [[Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Proposal]] (should maybe be copied here?)
[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 15:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== As of CURRENTYEAR ==
See [[Talk:As of CURRENTYEAR]]. --[[User:Sgeo|Sgeo]] | [[User talk:Sgeo|Talk]] 23:40, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
== Countdown deletion ==
I'm a complete newbie when it comes to policies, so any help (in suggestions as well as merciless editing) is appreciated. I think [[Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion|Preliminary Deletion]] isn't going to work. I've blathered up a suggestion of my own (after all, we can never have ''too much'' deletion policies :-) tentatively called "[[User:JRM/Countdown deletion|countdown deletion]]". It's on a personal subpage; check it out, mull it over and tear it to pieces if necessary. Thanks in advance for giving a damn. [[User:JRM|JRM]] 00:55, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
== Use of the word terrorism ==
It seems, from [[Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks]], that people are in favour of trying to develop a sitewide set of guidelines for the use of the word terrorist. In view of its likely length, the discussion has been moved to a separate page: [[Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development)]]. Please go to that page if you wish to be involved in developing this policy, and publicise this page as appropriate to fellow Wikipedians who may be interested. [[User:Jongarrettuk|jguk]] 22:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Johns Hopkins faculty==
Quite a number of pages created recently have been copied directly from web page of [[Johns Hopkins University]]. While this may not be so serious as copyvio, I think the simple copying of CV-type material about faculty members and courses into WP is not a great precedent. See for example [[User:128.220.30.161]]. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 10:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:This is actually strong copy violation, unless it's the author posting the content, and more than likely it's a student. However, I'm sure we could get permission from some appropriate authority to use the content. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 15:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I doubt we'd want the material, though, as one of the things "Wikipedia is not" is a place for resumes or CV's. N.b. someone just put up a silly joke article on a member of the comedy improv troupe at Hopkins, as well. Hopkins students are supposed to be clever, but apparently someone there isn't reading our policies. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 18:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:It's not just CVs, though — they're fairly good concise descriptions of the people's background and work in prose form, and that's about as much as we have in most researchers' articles. Here's an example (from [[Meredith Williams]]):
::Meredith Williams, Professor of Philosophy at Johns Hopkins University, received her B.A. and Ph.D. from New York University. She taught at Wesleyan University (Connecticut) and Northwestern University before joining the Hopkins Department in 2000. Her areas of research are [ . . . ]
:They might be considered non-notable, but well, they are faculty at a well-known university, and I am an inclusionist. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 23:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Oh, great, now the copyvio is on this page, too. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 22:12, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
==Suggestion on PROT, NPOV and edit/revert war articles==
In most cases, disputed articles are resolved by means of the Talk page. But often they arent. In some cases the article is locked, and development stalls, in other cases there is a valid NPOV point but no progress is made until one or other contributor gives up and goes away, which is fair but not the best version of neutrality (see stale NPOV discussion above).
Ideally the handling of disputed articles should:
* Where possible not freeze development of the article as a whole (edit wars imply an individual in breach wiki policy, and hence represent a problem with some individual(s), not the article)
* Not encourage articles to become locked (except in cases of actual vandalism)
* Not encourage articles to become described as disputed overall if the actual issue is in reality small scale (eg section or word use)
* Minimise the time that articles are in dispute
A way that might work is to refine the use of tags so that heavy handed measures (NPOV or PROT on a whole article is quite heavy) are much less needed and mostly reserved for dealing with pollicy breach not article disagreement. Compare two articles:
* In [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] the entire article was NPOV'd at one point with the main reason being a debate basically whether "terrorism" was right or not. But that tag arose not because the article as a whole was in dispute, just one term used in it.
* In the [[Pursuit_of_Nazi_collaborators]] article an NPOV tag was added because the title was possibly NPOV, and there was debate what the scope of the article should be. But that labelled the entirety of the article and all facts as disputed, where they actually weren't.
* In [[Paraphilia]] there was an argument that the ''entire article's approach'' was not neutral. In such a case a NPOV tag is more appropriate.
In fact, on [[Paraphilia]], I chose <nowiki>{{POVCheck}}</nowiki> and not <nowiki>{{NPOV}}</nowiki>, meaning ''"This article may need to be reworded to conform to a neutral point of view; however, the neutrality of this article is not necessarily disputed"'', which was more accurate, so as not to mislead readers of the present article that there was more doubt than was the case. Because I didnt want visitors to be faced with an article that was 70% right and yet be told at the top, "this is all disputed".
What comes across clearly to me is,
* There need to be some more appropriate tags which are more applicable to smaller scale dispute
* In case of dispute, use of minimal tags where reasonable are so preferable this should be wiki policy
** (A minimal tag can be left longer as it doesn't lock or cast doubt on the whole article)
* The tags applicable to disputed words/sections/articles need to be made much easier to find (maybe a link on the edit page?)
* Once a disputed aspect of an article is tagged, revert and edit wars on that point are not permitted. Sysops may select what they feel is a fairly balanced wording for the time being, and provided it's tagged as "disputed", the rest is kept to the talk page until agreed.
* Major tags such as NPOV which affect entire articles should by policy only be appropriate if the ''entire'' article or major parts of it are disputed
* Tages such as PROT should only be needed to prevent vandalism and/or revert/edits against wiki policy, by users who do not respect sysop decision.
** (But any article content dispute can be resolved as above so PROT shouldn't be as necessary)
* PROT especially should be used slightly differently. If an article needs protecting from one user, then that user is the person who must be blocked or asked to stick to the talk page, not the article. Only if the article is subject to anarchic major editing from multiple sources should PROT be needed.
Examples of new small scale tags I'd suggest (ok they arent perfect but its an idea someone else could develop upon):
:* "This section is being developed or reviewed. Some statements may not be neutral or may be disputed at present. Please see Talk page before editing"
:* "There is dispute over the usage of the following words, which may not be neutral or may be disputed. Please see the talk page. This article retains the existing words until consensus is reached"
:* "This is a fast changing article and many areas are being developed at a time. Lesser disputes such as posisble individual NPOV words have been left to a side while the article as a whole is developed. These should be discused on the Talk page rather than allowed to override the development of the article as a whole."
:* "This article is subject to regular edit and revert wars, and the administrators of Wikipedia have agreed a wording which they feel comfortable is not unreasonable for the time being. The article is left open for development, but these aspects should not be changed until a better consensus is reached and the matters on the Talk page are resolved."
:* "The following words are not considered neutral by some, and are actively being discussed on the Talk page"
In summary, the changes would be:
* Specifying that users should wherever possible use the most appropriate tag (not just "NPOV")
* Encouraging lesser levers of dispute,
* <u>Requiring</u> proper tagging, not just NPOV for everything, possibly by a "tags help" next to the "editing help" on the edit page
* Allowing sysops to specify a relatively neutral wording until a better consensus is reached<br>
wiki can keep more articles open and reduce the number where the whole article is marked as disputed, without in any way reducing people's power to contribute individually.
Its a raw suggestion with many holes in right now, but the heart of it - better use of tags disputing a word or section without casting the whole article into doubt, ways to say "yes we disagree on X but lets come back to it" and ways for a sysop to say "use that wording until you get a better consensus", could help free up many locked and stalled articles, allow faster ways to resolve edit wars, and that would benefit everybody.
[[User:FT2|FT2]] 21:21, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
== VfD follow-up? ==
I have always assumed that there was some process to ensure articles that have spent 5 days on VfD are acted upon based on the voting. I had also assumed that the specific process is that they only get removed from VfD if they have been acted upon. Apparently that may not the case, as the 10/26 entries were removed en masse 11/1, and put on /old, even tho' [[Black Templars]], at least, hadn't been acted on, and still hasn't weeks later. Was I correct and this article just unintentionally slipped thru the cracks? Or are they just moved to old and it is just ''hoped'' that someone will do something with them some day? If so, how can one tell if there are articles that still need to be acted on on /old--Black Templars' 'What links here'doesn't reveal any sort of tracking page. [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 03:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Maybe they get removed from /old when acted on one way or another? Are we really that far behind (10/24)? [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 04:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Maybe they get removed from /old when acted on one way or another? Are we really that far behind (10/24)? [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 04:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::OK. After several red herrings, I finally found [[Wikipedia:Deletion process]], and we are that far behind. I guess I'll start trying to help. [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 04:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Dude, if you can figure out the prose of the deletion procedures, you move to the head of the class. It was about as thick as a whale omlette, which is why I haven't been lending a spade to the effort. I'd like to, though, and I don't even mind going after the "controversial" debates. (I don't count nonce accounts.) [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 02:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Upcoming Arbitration Committee election ==
Based on some preliminary discussions, a proposal has been formulated for the next [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|Arbitration Committee election]], to be held in December. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 04:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Contributions from the associate director of ACSH on the ACSH article ==
For several years now there's been a ''very'' low-intensity edit war over on the [[DDT]] article over how much funding the American Council on Science and Health gets from industry sources and whether that has an impact on their impartiality. An anonymous user - it seems to have been the same one throughout, the wording he's used is consistent - has kept trying to play down industry connections, and other users have found sources showing they're more significant than he lets on. I finally split out that material into the article [[American Council on Science and Health]] so that DDT could remain more stable from now on and the anonymous user came in and made his changes again over there, but this time he announced that he was Jeff Stier (the Associate Director of ACSH, in charge of external affairs among other things). Assuming this is true, how do we handle contributions from "involved" people like this? On the one hand he's got access to a great deal of information, but on the other hand it just gives weight to my perception that he's been rather partisan. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 16:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) (small update: I emailed Jeff Stier to confirm that it is him, and he responded that it was.)
:He should be encouraged to provide any and all ''information'' that he is willing to(maybe on the Talk page), but should be gently reminded that it is Wikipedia policy for involved people not to directly edit articles on subjects they are involved in. Basically, he should post on the Talk page, not the article. [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 01:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Splitting the VfD page won't help one of the current problems with it (big processing backlog)==
There is currently a week-long backlog of VfD processing (IE there's been no action at all on most of the nominations whose 5-day voting period expired in the past 7 days), because not enough people are spending enough time doing it. Splitting the VfD page does nothing to help with this. The problem also seems to be increasing, I checked a random recent 5-day period, and 132 nominations were added to VfD, and a bit less than half (59) were processed and removed from the VfD "old" page (where the processing happens). VfDs "old" page is huge and growing, and usually takes a minute or two (literally) to save, further slowing down VfD processing. I just discovered this; it makes me all the more convinced we need alternatives to VfD.<br>
I don't know if most people are aware of this, but you do NOT have to be an admin to help with VfD processing--I did about 80 this morning, and didn't have to delete a single article (I did cheat a bit by focusing on the easiest ones, but that was to shrink the page as fast as possible--I got the number of listings down by about 20%, although the handful of VERY long debates means that doesn't truly reflect page size reduction). (re-posted from prelim. del. vote page) [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 00:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Well, I would help if I don't have to judge consensus; i.e. if a decision has been reached. I understand the reasons for having a somewhat vague standard for judging consensus, but at least in my case, and I think in many other's, that's what keeps us from helping out at VfD. [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 01:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Well -- as someone who has originated his share of VfD's, I hereby commit to to try to clear at least two old VfD's each time I add a new one. Anyone else wanna take the pledge? --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]{[[User talk:Jpgordon|gab}]] 01:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::Also -- I'd like to propose that VfD/Old be modified so that instead of <nowiki>{{Votes for deletion/article name}}</nowiki>, it read <nowiki>[[Votes for deletion/article name]]</nowiki> so that the silly thing loads more quickly. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]{[[User talk:Jpgordon|gab}]] 07:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::For a few months I was clearing VfD/Old each day, but on October 23 I was asked to stop. Due to a recent uptick in deletionism I no longer agree with all VfD decisions, and I thus do not have much interest in renewing my involvement. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 07:23, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
:::Just as a matter of interest, who asked you to stop and why? -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 12:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Vfd processing backlog is back down to 2 days--great work people (mostly [[User:Francs2000|Francs2000]])! [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 02:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I'm a little confused... I'd like to help with the VfD "backlog", but I looked for some explicit backlog and read some instructions and so on and can't figure it out. Does this just mean deleting articles with a consensus to delete that are older than 5 days? [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 05:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Never mind, I found it ([[Wikipedia: Deletion process]]). [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 05:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::: After 15 minutes of doing this, it seems like a 7 step process with 5 windows open per article is a bit tedious. Perhaps there should be a script for this. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 06:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Can we get a similar catch-up effort on the trans-wiki backlog on 'old', dating back to April! [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 20:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Keeping In The News neutral and relevant==
I've proposed a new criterion for the [[:Template:In the news]] guidelines with the aim of keeping ITN focused on widely reported stories covered by multiple major news outlets, and ensuring that [[NPOV]] is maintained. Please take a look at the proposal and add feedback at [[Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page#Added new criterion to ITN guidelines|Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page]]. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 18:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Moveable Feasts on the Main Page ==
I have just found out that today is [[Eid ul-Fitr]] and have added it to today's current events. Like [[Easter]] and many other days - some non-religious - it's a [[moveable feast]]. What is the policy about puting these moveable feasts on the main page?
I know they don't really fit into the ''In the news'' or ''Today's Featured article'' boxes, but I am of the opinion that the main page should relect that we are aware that certain days are observed. I'm suggesting a box that would say (for example) Today is Diwali/Easter/Martin Luther King Day/Eid ul-Fitr/Mardi Gras etc. -- [[User:Martin TB|Martin TB]] 20:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:also astronomical events, solstice, equinox, eclipses, etc.; mabe even a permanent little box giveng the moon phase (although that may be a bit too much clutter) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 20:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On a sidenote, I have no idea that the word "movable" contained two Es. ;-) Agree that they should be mentioned somewhere on the day. [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] 07:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:See [[American and British English differences#Common_suffixes]]. In fact, even most American dictionaries consider "moveable" an acceptable variant of "movable" [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=movable]. And, of course, [[movable feast]] is a redirect. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 07:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think the current solution of having these days under "Selected Anniversaries" is ideal, even though it's technically not an anniversary in some sense (well, it's an anniversary according to a different calendar...) [[User:Mpolo|Mpolo]] 08:50, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
:I removed the item from the Current Events page because I didn't feel that it was a 'Current Event'. To me the page is where news items are posted. If something had happened because of [[Eid ul-Fitr]] then yes it would go there along with the reference to the news site it was found on. Also the person who posted it had put it on the wrong day anyway.--[[User:Enceladus|enceladus]] 00:07, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
::Actually I hadn't posted it on th wrong day. It was celebrated in the UK on Saturday, in the US and the Middle east on Sunday and in Morocco and some other territories today. It's a moveable feast! [[User:Martin TB|Martin TB]] 07:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::I assume what is happening is that each group of Muslims require an actual sighting of the cresent moon by their group. --[[User:Enceladus|enceladus]] 21:41, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
==Two articles on the same man - what's the policy?==
Is there a policy on when it's ok to have two articles on the same man (but under different names)? Some people seem to say are ok to be merged, others stay for ages. [[User:Jongarrettuk|jguk]] 20:47, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Almost always should be merged (assuming that one person is actually the ''subject'' of both articles: for example, we could have both a biographical article about an author and any number of articles about his or her books). -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 20:56, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
I've just seen [[Jesus]] and [[Isa]]. Should these be merged then? [[User:Jongarrettuk|jguk]] 21:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Probably not. [[Isa]] specifically discusses the concept of Jesus when used by that name and differences from other Jesuses. There isn't significant duplication of content. As long as the articles don't cover or aim to cover about the same material, merging isn't usually warranted. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 21:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Don't forget [[Yeshu]]... but no, probably these articles should not be merged. [[User:Gadykozma|Gady]] 22:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::Those do all interlink, and [[Isa]] is even explicitly in the "Jesus" template, while [[Yeshu]] is linked several times. They're not merged because [[Jesus]] is far too long as it is! [[User:Mpolo|Mpolo]] 08:47, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
Well that's a different point Mpolo. The Jesus article needs shortening, but that doesn't mean the others shouldn't be merged with it. I'm still puzzled as to why we want 3 biographies of the same man. Wouldn't one merged one be better? [[User:Jongarrettuk|jguk]] 15:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:To be honest I don't think it would, it is better to treat the three articles as different entities. If the three are merged religously important details could be accidentlily cut, and precedent will almost certainly be given to a particular image of Jesus/Yeshu/Isa. I think merging them just isn't worth the inevitable arguaments. [[User:Rje|Rje]] 06:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Arbitration policy amendment vote ==
I proposed [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposed amendment|a streamlining]] of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]'s [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy|policy]] in August, and, given that it is now 3 months on, I have just opened [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposed amendment ratification vote|a ratification vote]] about it. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 03:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Proposal to enforce the Three Revert Rule==
There is a vote and discussion on whether and how to enforce the [[Wikipedia:Three revert rule]] on [[Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Three revert rule enforcement]]. Please come and contribute your comments/votes. [[User:Jongarrettuk|jguk]] 14:16, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Stub sorting ==
I think the evaluation of stub sorting needs some kind of restriction or review... There are some creation of categories and stub templates which are completely useless... --[[User:AllyUnion|[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]]]] 09:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Right Floating TOC ==
I have been advised to post here to draw peoples attention to a discussion about [[WP:MOS]] and the TOC. I am suggesting that it is more aesthetically appealing to have the TOC floating on the right. My suggestion can be found at [[Wikipedia talk:TOC#Right floating TOC]] Please comment -- [[User:Martin TB|Martin TB]] 19:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== the cost of vandalism ==
I blocked an annoying vandal, last night, for the duration of 24h. ([[User:24.71.223.141]]). I shouldn't have done so, as it's a proxy, and a few minutes later, a legitimate user complained about the block. Technically, wouldn't it be easy to allow unblocked, logged-in users (with an account creation predating the block) to edit even when on a blocked IP? This would solve the annoying problem of 'unblockable' proxy IPs (we would just have to kindly ask editors on vandal-prone IPs to get an account).
A more general thought I had recently was that, the larger WP will grow, the greater the percentage of time spent reverting worthless edits will become. The singularly low threshold to contributing is a major feature of WP, and clearly a big advantage on an encyclopedia that consists mainly of stubs. The more accomplished an article, however, the less likely an anonymous edit is to be useful. I would therefore propose:
*the introduction of a 'protected from anon edits' status as a measure less drastic than 'protection' for frequently vandalised articles
*automatic 'protection from anon edits' for featured articles
*at some point in the future maybe even a 'good faith' tag for users known to have made good faith edits, and protection of featured articles from edits by all but these
such a course would provide the more vulnerable articles some protection from the main brunt of casual vandals (while of course the determined ones will not be deterred), while it would not raise the threshold for quick creation of new articles, and edits to stubs. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 12:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: "...would not raise the threshold ''much''", I'd say. It does raise the threshold ''somewhat''. It's not completely hassle-free, or something. (If it were, there obviously wouldn't be any point.)
:*the introduction of a 'protected from anon edits' status as a measure less drastic than 'protection' for frequently vandalised articles
:*:Sounds good in theory, but I'm pretty sure there will be a heap of vandals who have no qualms about registering bogus accounts when it comes to frequently vandalised articles, just to have the opportunity for ranting on controversial ones. It might indeed keep "undetermined" vandals out, but those are easy to revert.
:*automatic 'protection from anon edits' for featured articles
:*:That sounds topsy-turvy. "We consider this article to be the best example of what collaboration in zero-threshold editing can achieve. Now, buzz off or get an account. This article is ''ours''".
:*at some point in the future maybe even a 'good faith' tag for users known to have made good faith edits, and protection of featured articles from edits by all but these
:*:Whereas I consider your other ideas just a bit extreme, but possibly justified for the future, this one would make me get up and leave. If that's an open encyclopedia, then kindly fork the whole Wiki to where the edits still roam free, and I'll gladly serve the RC patrol there. Are you then going to trade in vandal patrolling for good faith stamping? Any reason to assume branding someone a non-vandal is easier than identifying a vandal? Any reason to assume this won't just be an enormous incentive for trolls to try their hand at "coming in under the radar"?
:*:That's not to say your idea is bad! Maybe an encyclopedia (maybe a future Wikipedia) under that regime might do even better than vanilla Wikipedia. Maybe. Just not my cup of tea.
:Summarized: the price of Wikipedia is eternal vigilance. A community that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither. Give me anonymous edits, or give me death! Ask not what Wikipedia can do for you... OK, I'll stop now. I'm starting to sound ranty. :-) Just my $0.02, no bad feelings or mere semblance of knowledgeable authority intended. [[User:JRM|JRM]] 15:54, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
::I thought the reply might sound something like this. And you are right, I think. Of course, at some point one could ''fork'' "WP 1.0" into a more sheltered environment, but this will not be feasible for quite a few years. Eternal vigilance it is, then :) but, any comments on the "logged-in users may edit from blocked IPs" proposal? [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 16:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::* The "logged-in users may edit from blocked IPs" proposal sounds right to me. I guess the question is one of "practicality," is it not? How easy would be the system implementation? Is it not true that the only reason the "logged-in users" get blocked is because the TCP/IP module is "ignorant" of logged-in users? So it is a "cost of development" question, yes? ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 16:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:This has come up on the Pump on multiple occasions in the past. We all believe that the current privilege levels are too rough-grained, and as Wikipedia evolves they might need to change, but I think they do alright in most cases, for now. Don't forget that complexity is also itself a barrier to participation. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 00:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This has probably been proposed before, but since I've been spending some time on Recent Changes lately, it's become overwhelmingly apparent to me that the vast majority of vandalism is done by unregistered users. I suggest that we allow a maximum of 5 article edits (but unlimited talk page edits would be ok) for unregistered accounts, after which users must register for a user name before they can edit further. It's far easier to track changes and vandalism by accounts with unique user names than for accounts that are strings of numbers. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] 21:52, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
:Don't forget about the push-pull effect though. Anons can create and throw away accounts even more quickly than IPs — they don't do so because they can edit without doing so. Vandals will do just as much as they need to in order to vandalize, no matter what technical hurdles we place for them, and Nupedia demonstrated that pushing too far in the direction of content control is bad. Not that I necessarily disagree. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 00:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Edit flag for large changes? ==
Would it be possible to have an edit flag for large changes (i.e. more than 10% of article size changed, or more than 10% of text altered) for Recent Changes and the Watchlist? Perhaps just a '''!''' which would let us easily know that vandalism has most likely taken place? And perhaps a filter mode for Recent Changes to only show articles that have been massively changed? --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 17:23, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
:See: [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to extend Recent Changes flags|Proposal to extend Recent Changes flags]] [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] 04:46, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
==Sandbox threat==
Do we really need a threat as ... threatening as
:''DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES EDIT THIS LINE or ABOVE. YOU COULD BE BLOCKED''
in the sandbox, where people are ''encouraged'' to experiment, and likely make their first edit on WP? Wouldn't it be just as easy to have a script that replaces the <nowiki>{{sandbox}}</nowiki> template every 10 minutes or so, if it is removed? Just a consideration of not barking at the wrong people.
[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 17:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Totally agreed. This isn't just [[Wikipedia:Do not bite the newbies|biting the newbies]], it's chomping their heads off. No one will miss the template too much if it's missing for a few hours. I for one wouldn't ban an anon even for repeated removal of the template.[[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 00:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Is it possible to create some sort of daemon that will just check the sandbox periodically and restore the notice? If I were programming wiki*, I might allow for registering certain pages as permanently having certain headers (or perhaps allow for a certain number of inviolate lines.) --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]{[[User talk:Jpgordon|gab}]] 01:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::Another way to do it that would prevent them from editing the header altogether is to protect the main sandbox page and place nothing but two templates on it, <nowiki>{{sandboxheader}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{sandbox}}</nowiki>. The first would contain the header message and a link (an external link I guess) to the edit URL for the sandbox template. The idea is similar to the process of the Main Page. Again, though, I think the sandbox header message probably isn't important enough to justify this. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 21:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::reactions to the notice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3ASandbox&diff=0&oldid=7606071]. :-D — Of course, anyone can replace the notice, so it is almost impossible to tell if the notice is 'official' or has been placed there by a random visitor. At the moment, there is an official-looking notice that the sandbox is colsed, but it was placed there by an anon editor. I am replacing the note with a simple 'please do not edit', since the threat, if it has any effect at all, only dares people to mess with the notice. I like the <nowiki>{{sandboxheader}}</nowiki> proposal, though. this could be the solution. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 09:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== breaking news articles with unsafe information ==
(''Motivation:'' Since Yasser Arafat's death, many things have been said or written in the media, blogs, etc. about the causes of his death. On [[Death of Yasser Arafat]], there was some kind of policy (somewhat controversial) that probable speculations were not to be detailed in length: that is, the article would not give in detail what some presumably rather uninformed media would comment about the possible causes of his death. On the other hand, we have to draw a line somewhere; since we will very probably never get some authoritative source for his medical case, and the question attracts considerable attention, then I suggested we may add some bits from some investigative magazine who very probably had insider sources.)
I think we have a policy problem here. When we have authoritative, safe sources, we can probably just report them and ignore the non-authoritative ones. But what should we do in cases where the real information is hidden? Can we report somewhat detailed news from reputable newspapers who claim they got it from "insider sources"? [[User:David.Monniaux|David.Monniaux]] 08:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: I think it would be a mistake to try to push WP toward providing "Breaking News". I would say reporting what other news orgs decide to publish is borderline okay, but we should not do this just for the sake of being "up-to-date" or "satisfy the curious." Quality over quantity is the rule WP should follow. Just my two cents... [[User:Awolf002|Awolf002]] 14:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:we have very many articles where the truth is unknown. In these, we simply list the competing opinions of experts. Who is an expert in a given matter is of course a question of individual judgement, but a line between serious opinions and crackpot conspiracies needs to be drawn in all these cases. Let others do the research, and report what the major news sources came up with. If there is ever a PhD-thesis on the subject, draw on that ;) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 15:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:In cases where the source is in doubt, follow this handy 3-step process:
:# Talk about what the source says, but attributed to that source, and not as fact.
:# Cite the source specifically.
:# Briefly say that the source is in doubt and mention why.
:In short, if you don't think you can definitively choose what is true, give the reader the information they need to make the decision for themselves. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 18:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Still, if the reporting about the unverified source is widespread, we should discuss that reporting, even if the information itself can't be verified. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 07:07, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
==Standard GFDL licensing form for Non-Wikipedians==
I proposed this idea over at [[Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission]], which provides form letters to send to non-Wikipedians who have images, text, or data collections that might be useful for Wikipedia, and might potentially be willing to license them under the [[GFDL]]. Although I get many polite "no thank you" responses to this request, I've been somewhat at a loss when people say "sure, how do I do that?"
Most of these people do not edit Wikipedia themselves, nor are likely to jump through the hoops to upload and tag their own contributions.
Would it make sense to provide a simple licensing form/template at the bottom of requests for permission, for people to use to respond -- something that could then be pasted into the Talk page or Image Description page as evidence that the creator wishes to license their work? Something along the lines of this (please edit mercilessly):
IMAGES
''As the creator and copyright holder of the image currently named <TITLE.EXT>''
''(found at <URL> as of this date), I hereby licence said image under the [[GFDL]],''
''as a contribution to Wikimedia and its downstream users."''
''<NAME>, <DATE>
TEXT
''As the creator and copyright holder of the text found at <URL> as of this date,''
''I hereby licence said text under the [[GFDL]], as a contribution to Wikimedia and
''its downstream users."''
''<NAME>, <DATE>
''As the creator and copyright holder of the text found at <URL> as of this date,''
''I hereby licence that portion of the text included in this email (below) under the
'' [[GFDL]], as a contribution to Wikimedia and its downstream users."''
''<NAME>, <DATE>, <TEXT>
Most of my requests have been aimed at webmasters, not dead-tree authors, so these samples are geared toward that end -- other variants welcome. I don't know much about the [[Creative Commons]] licensing process either, so if there's a simple way to describe those options to potential contributors as well, I'm all ears.
Please comment -- this ought to be legal and bulletproof, and I'm no copyright expert. [[User:CatherineMunro|[[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine]]\<sup>[[User_talk:CatherineMunro|talk]]</sup>]] 08:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am no copyright expert, but let me try.. I do similar things for Japanese Wikipedia. My comments are mainly based on that, not necessarily based on ongoing understanding/practice of these issues on english wikipedia.
*I think it is better to offer links to [[Wikipedia:Copyright]], warranty disclaimer, terms of use, etc. along with the license clearly, so that there is a better chance of the author clearly understands what GFDL is, and how Wikipedia interprets it.
*In case of images, it is safer to show examples of how an image is shown/used in wikipedia. From the text of the GFDL, a photographer may expect "so my name will clearly be shown in any work which contain my photo," which is not really the case. English Wikipedia follows the spirit of the GFDL, but not necessarily the letters. And showing typical exampes would prevent some unfortunate misunderstandings and potential troubles. Examples I think of are: how commons images are used in articles, how images in english wikipedia is used in articles, how the image information page looks like. An example of how you would record/report the authors name when you upload a picture is also good.
*If you are not confident, ask if all rights are cleared, or if the author knows any rightholder involved in the image or text.
[[User:Tomos|Tomos]] 14:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== GFDL Thoughts ==
The more I read about the [[GFDL]] license the more I think that Wikipedia should be duel licensed with a creative commons license.
After deciding which [[Creative Commons]] license to use (probably [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ CC by atribution ]) all the new materials added would be CC/GFDL but the old materials would still be GFDL unless people authorized their work to also be CC.
Overtime most of the GFDL only stuff would be replaced by CC/GFDL material. Mozilla Firefox is doing a similiar procedure [http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ converting their code from MPL to MPL/GPL/LGPL code] 'trilicense'.
:Update: I got some interesting information on a couple of project pages that have this same idea. [[M:Guide_to_the_CC_dual-license|Guide_to_the_CC_dual-license]] and [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]] are projects in which users can duel license their own content themselves.
----
Please sign your posts. We have no idea who you are. The problem is, that there have been thousands of editors who have released their material to the GFDL, who may object to re-releasing them to any other license. It is also impossible to recontact all of those editors to even see IF they agree to that release. That means the dual licensing would have to refer only to items released AFTER a particular point in time, and meaning dual versions of articles and of Wikipedia itself. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 07:04, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Does this idea have enough support to justify pursuing it further? --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
: Yes, this is a problem, but over time a large proportion of the GFDL only material could be relicensed or replaced, having, say, half of the 'pedia under a sensible license is better than none! [[User:Mark Richards|Mark Richards]] 15:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I would support this. Like you I prefer a strong approach, but I suspect that LLMs will end up like things such as COI and paid editing – strongly discouraged, disclosure required, but not actually banned. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 00:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
== Article about the problems of the GFDL released by Nathanael Nerode into the public ___domain ==
:To clarify, does your proposal include repealing the [[Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#LLM-generated|current guidance on hiding program-generated comments]]? [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 00:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::Good question. I'm still trying to feel out how other editors regard the idea, so I'm willing to go either way, but I would lean towards treating them as not being mutually exclusive. In other words, I would lean towards saying that the first editor, the one who posts an LLM-generated comment, is required by policy to disclose that it was LLM-generated, and that the second editor, the one who wants to hide that comment, is permitted to do so. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::In that case, the original question being posed still needs to be resolved. Does a proposal (minus any commentary) fall under the current guidance? If not, then is there consensus to hide proposals whose text was generated by a program? [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 21:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tqq|In that case, the original question being posed still needs to be resolved.}} Cool. You can do that above, this section is about Tryp's proposal. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 21:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Just clarifying this is a parallel proposal, rather than an alternative approach that replaces the existing approach. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 22:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Strictly speaking, I'm trying to assess what other editors think, so this isn't (yet) a proposal in the formal sense. But yes, I'm inclined to approach this as a parallel proposal, unless I get feedback here to formulate the proposal differently. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Your proposal is unrelated to AITALK, and making LLMDISCLOSE a policy is a stronger approach than having AITALK remain what it already is, as the non-approach above is an unintentional rehash of the AITALK RfC, which had already resolved with the adoption of the AITALK approach, about which you said that not everyone agrees, but it's already a consensus-settled matter from just several months ago, and [[WP:NOTUNANIMITY|consensus is not unanimity]]. That is why you should not have said {{tqq| I'm in favor of a stronger approach, such as the one above}} and should not have framed your proposal as a weaker alternative to AITALK. I am the original author of LLMDISCLOSE ([[Special:Diff/1134431809]]), but I refuse to !vote on it in a way that is premised on AITALK being effectively abrogated based on a confused rehash. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 03:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Oh, maybe we were just misunderstanding each other. It was never my intention to frame what I suggest here "as a weaker alternative to AITALK". Sorry if that's what you thought I was saying. I was trying to say that requiring disclosure is, well, in a sense, "weaker" than prohibiting LLM-generated proposals. And I was doing that in hopes of gaining support from editors who oppose the proposal above (which I, personally, support). But I don't want these issues to become a fight between us. You thought of LLMDISCLOSE. I like LLMDISCLOSE. I'm looking to promote something like LLMDISCLOSE from an essay to a policy. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:Not all editors feel that way but it already passed when [[WP:AITALK]] was adopted, and consensus is [[WP:NOTUNANIMITY]]. This l2 section is now a weakly and badly framed proposal to adopt again something that was already adopted very recently. It is all a bad misunderstanding. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 17:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::I must be confused, when I visit [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]] I don't see a {{tl|policy}} tag on it. I see the whole page tagged with {{tl|essay}}. Can you point to the ''existing'' consensus for [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]] to be tagged as policy? —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 17:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I was referring to {{tq|Personally, I'm in favor of a stronger approach, such as the one above, but I recognize that not all editors feel that way,}}. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 19:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::The way I understand it, [[WP:AITALK]] is part of the Talk page guideline, so it's a behavioral guideline rather than a policy. Although it has consensus, it also is written in terms of "may be struck or collapsed", rather than "must". [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]] is currently on an essay page. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::The same section of the same guideline says {{green|Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban}}. Naturally, that means that sock comments and nominations are ordinarily discounted, once detected. Do we need a VPP discussion to adopt a policy for the same? No. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::When I'm ready to make a formal proposal, I'm inclined to have a community discussion, on the theory that policies should be adopted in that way. If it turns out that support is so clear that it becomes a [[WP:SNOW]] kind of thing, that would be great, but I'm not going to presuppose that. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::The community discussion was had, just several months ago: [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_199#h-LLM/chatbot_comments_in_discussions-20241202001200|LLM/chatbot comments in discussions]] —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 03:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:Strong support, we need to stop with the mixed messages. Also, if enough people do disclose it gives us information/edit patterns that can be used to track/identify undisclosed AI edits. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 19:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Strong support''' making the [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]] section policy ({{tl|policy}} will need to be updated to have a {{para|section|yes}} option for this use case as {{tl|guideline}} already does). This should be uncontroversial. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 20:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. Undisclosed LLM use is already considered an aggravating factor in conduct disputes, and I support formalizing this to convey our expectations more clearly. Per Locke Cole, using {{tl|Policy section top}} on [[WP:LLM]] and {{tlg|Policy|type{{=}}section}} on [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]] would be a simple way to implement this. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 01:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' making [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]] policy in the way suggested by Locke Cole and Newslinger. I'm still confused by a lot of the discussion above, but it has been my position for a long time now that disclosure of LLM use (when the LLM is contributing substantive content) is necessary to avoid violation of of [[WP:PLAGIARISM]] and [[WP:NOSHARE]], and I would like to make that expectation clear in a way that can easily be explained to new editors. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 12:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' making [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]] policy, which is ''de facto'' how it is usually treated already. Making it clear upfront avoids leaving a minefield for new editors having to learn unwritten social norms about LLM use. We already require disclosure for paid editing, or for the use of multiple accounts, and it doesn't prevent us from having additional regulations. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 15:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' making [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]] policy. I also think editors who violate disclosure should be blocked from editing.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 17:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:It wouldn't break my heart if there were a [[WP:1LLM]] or [[WP:3LLM]] rule similar to [[WP:1RR]]/[[WP:3RR]]. But even without that, if this were policy, it would be textbook [[WP:DE]] (especially if done so after receiving a {{tl|uw-a1}} on up to {{tl|uw-ai4}} on their talk page with no sign of stopping). —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 17:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Regarding 1LLM/3LLM, I would say the problem is more quality than quantity? If people use LLMs to fix their spelling and nothing else, or as an advanced regex, then using them once or ten times isn't an issue. While someone pasting unreviewed LLM text in a discussion is problematic even if done only once (and can already been hatted). [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 18:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Since this is just a discussion about disclosure, it would do nothing to get in the way of any further kinds of actions (in other words, it won't say that admins are prevented from blocking someone who is disruptive). I agree that there is room for judgment in evaluating how the LLM has been used, and that admins have room for judgment in whether to block or warn someone. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::If 1/3LLM is specifically for undisclosed, blatant LLM output, and isn't a restriction on additional actions (like 3RR doesn't prevent blocks for other kinds of edit warring), then it could definitely work. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 22:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::This is interesting. My thinking up to this point was to go as far as proposing policy that, in effect, says something to the effect of "you are required to disclose". So if someone does not disclose, they would be violating the proposed policy. What you are saying is to institute a more formal process over how many chances an editor gets before crossing a "bright line". I'm interested in what other editors think about that. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::I don't know if a more formal process is really needed – despite the name, it feels more like a natural continuation of the warning process, rather than a per-article thing like 3RR. So maybe, instead of a bright line, it could be a guideline on how much someone should be warned before formal sanctions? 3LLM could also help avoid editors being blocked based on one person's hunch, if we require three different people to warn someone for undisclosed LLM use. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 22:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''': This would help editors make informed decisions about where to focus their efforts. [[Special:Contributions/fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]] ([[User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|talk]]) 20:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waterfox&diff=prev&oldid=1117934878 your first edit to a talk page] was only a couple of years ago. If we'd had an official {{tl|policy}} back then that said "No posting comments on the talk page using all lowercase" or "No using hyphens instead of asterisks for bullet points", would you have realistically been able to learn about that policy and comply with it before posting your comment?
*:How do you think you would have felt, if you came back the next day and found your comment hidden with a note saying something like "Collapsed violation of formatting rules"? Would you have felt welcomed and valued, or rejected and confused? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::WAID, I'm not sure from your question whether or not you have concerns about the proposal here, but I would welcome suggestions from you or anyone else about how to improve it. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::There is a vast gulf between petty rules about formatting issues and rules asking for original thought. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 22:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I'm unsure what relevance this has to my support for a policy requiring editors disclose when they use an LLM.
*::- {{tq|"would you have realistically been able to learn about that policy and comply with it before posting your comment?"}} – no
*::- {{tq|"How do you think you would have felt"}} – surprised
*::If someone collapsed my comment because it wasn't properly capitalized or precisely formatted I would have found that strange. If someone collapsed my comment because it wasn't my own original words, unfiltered by a predictive model, I would have found that deeply reasonable.
*::Some other editors would no doubt feel as you posited; however, the well-being of the project comes before editors' personal feelings. The community has decided that use of an LLM in discussions is disruptive enough to the functioning of the encyclopedia to warrant the option for removal from immediate view. I don't disagree.
*::Perhaps we could do more to inform editors who's comments have been collapsed. Currently {{tl|Collapse LLM top}} links to [[WP:AITALK]], which is accurate, but uninformative. It's the same as saying "this comment has been collapsed because there is a rule that says it can be collapsed". Maybe modifying WP:AITALK to provide a bit of the rationale behind why the policy exists could help. [[Special:Contributions/fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]] ([[User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|talk]]) 23:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::I think that's a very good point, so I just did this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATalk_page_guidelines&diff=1308001112&oldid=1305906440]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:I see that people are leaving ''support'' comments, but I'm confused by what they are supporting. Are they endorsing that you start a formal RfC, or that the policy actually change? If the second, I disagree, largely because I don't know what "incorporates LLM output" means. If we make LLMDISCLOSE policy, we should revise the text to make "incorporates" more specific. Cheers, [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 23:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
This article is a link in the [[GFDL]] article, and a lot of its ideas were incorporated into the GFDL article. Here is the article:
::I'm interpreting it as supporting having a formal RfC. I suspect that some editors think that they are supporting an actual policy, but that would mean that they likely would support having an RfC to do that. At this point, I'm assessing whether there is enough support to keep going with it, and it looks like there is. I'm also interested in feedback that I can use to make a proposed policy that improves on what the essay page currently says, so I'm taking note of every comment here that does that. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Great, looking forward to the RfC. One specific thing that LLMs are great for that you should think about whether it should/shouldn't be covered by a policy form of LLMDISCLOSE: translating random bibtex/ACM/MLA/Chicago references into the appropriate <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> template, for sources that lack a URL or that have a publisher URL that our Zotero-based connectors can't extract correct metadata for. Trivially, an edit I make in this way "incorporates LLM output", but it's functionally the same as using the Zotero connector: I input the URL/DOI/ISBN/citation, then correct the (often incorrect) wikitext output. It's not a ''problem'' to require disclosure in this case, but I do think it probably isn't ''helpful'' in the way this policy is intended to be.
:::Other edge cases that might be worth thinking about while drafting the RfC: using LLMs with web search to conduct a WP:BEFORE or to find sources I might have missed, using sources discovered in search engine AI summaries (e.g. Google's Gemini summary), making edits based on LLM critiques, using LLMs for template discovery ("I want to do X on English Wikipedia, is there a wikitext template that does that?"), or using LLMs for suggesting missing See Also links (this is a task that other ML models exist for already; it might be weird to require disclosure when an LLM is used to generate suggestions but not when other 3rd-party ML models are used). Cheers, [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 00:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
== [[:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations)]] has an [[WP:RFC|RfC]]==
[http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL]
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Information.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>'''[[:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations)]]''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the '''[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations#rfc C2A5694|discussion page]]'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. [[User:Tomiĉo|Tomiĉo]] ([[User talk:Tomiĉo|talk]]) 10:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
[copy of the above article removed - please see the external link if you want to read it]
:I, for one, can't seem to find this RfC. [[User:Dege31|Dege31]] ([[User talk:Dege31|talk]]) 12:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
== Why did you vote against [[Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion|Preliminary Deletion]]? ==
::It's at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations]]. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 13:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
== Annotated books: Should cite use the editor's name or the original author's name? ==
[[Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion|Preliminary Deletion]] has been rewritten, and now includes a section at the end answering some common questions/objections. I urge those who voted against this policy or had their doubts to please read [[Wikipedia:Preliminary_Deletion#Answers_to_common_objections.2Fquestions|the section in question]] and voice their concerns on the [[Wikipedia_talk:Preliminary_Deletion#Why_we_voted_no|proposal's talk page]]. Thanks in advance. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 11:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Does WP have a guideline governing the author that appears in a source such as the following:
== Plagiarism by any other name ==
* {{Cite book|last=Baring-Gould|first=William|author-link=William S. Baring-Gould|title=The Annotated Sherlock Holmes|publisher=Clarkson N. Potter|___location=New York|year=1967|isbn=0-517-50291-7}}
where the book has an original author (Doyle) and a famous editor/annotator (Baring-Gould)? This particular example (from the [[Sherlock Holmes]] article) seems wrong, since Doyle wrote more than half the words in the book, yet is not even named in the citation.
This must be a common issue: There are scores of books where famous editors add extensive commentary to books written by another famous author (Dante, Dickens, Conan Doyle, Shakespeare, Carrol, Twain, etc). In the situation where the editor is famous, and the edited/annotated books becomes famous, people typically refer to the book by the editor's name. Which explains how Doyle's book got attributed to Baring-Gould in the example above.
A question and a comment:
This is not an academic question, I'm trying to figure out how to display a source [https://archive.org/details/journalsofcaptai0001jcbe/ The Journals Of Captain James Cook] where the book is almost always referred to by the editor's name, not Cook's name.
Question: do we have a concise Wikipedia essay on what plagiarism is and isn't and is there a way to provide an internal link to it? If I deleted a plagiarized passage or entry and wanted to place a helpful note at a User's Talkpage like "please see Wikipedia policy here" or "for a definition of plagiarism, please click here" or some such. Can someone please advise?
Is there a guideline that says something like: '' "The named author should be the author of the original work; and the annotator/editor should be described as the editor"''? Or is WP silent on this, and it is handled on a case-by-case basis? I looked in the MOS and could not find anything. [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 03:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment: plagiarism is rife in articles about entertainers; for some reason people think it's fine to copy from e.g. the IMDB. I think this is aided by well-meaning responses on the HelpDesk that say things like, "if you retype in your own words, it's fine". Well, no, I don't think it is; we were taught that paraphrasing is still plagiarism.
:If you are citing the original author's text, you should be using the original work and not the annotated work. If the original text was only ever published in an annotated form, your text should make it clear whether the material is from the annotations or the original text but the actual book would still be cited to the editor/annotator. --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 12:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
[[User:Quill|Quill]] 23:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Thanks for the suggestion. For the source I'm interested in: '' The Journals Of Captain James Cook'' was never published (author Cook) as a stand-alone work. The first publication was the edited/annotated version (editor was Beaglehole). [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 13:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
{{od|1}}I cannot find any support in {{tl|cite book}} for listing both an editor and an author, except in the case of a book where each chapter is written by a different author. In the case where an editor produces an edited version of another author's work, ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'', 18th ed., ¶ 14.6, says to give both the editor's name and the author's name, and provides this example (showing both markup an as rendered):
:<nowiki>{{Hanging indent|Bonnefoy, Yves. ''New and Selected Poems''. Edited by John Naughton and Anthony Rudolf. University of Chicago Press, 1995.}}</nowiki>
:Paraphrasing sometimes violates copyright, but if a court could reasonably rule that the facts and ideas were duplicated but the selection and arrangement of those facts was not, then it's not plagiarism. The rule should not be to paraphrase but to ''summarize'': talk about what they said in less words and give the source. The line between a copyright workaround and a new work is admittedly fuzzy sometimes, but I think as long as a source is given the two can be compared and our version updated if necessary. As for a project page on plagiarism, that's a great idea; I'm not aware of any such page, but there is [[plagiarism]] and [[Wikipedia: Cite your sources]]. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 00:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:
:{{Hanging indent|Bonnefoy, Yves. ''New and Selected Poems''. Edited by John Naughton and Anthony Rudolf. University of Chicago Press, 1995.}}
[[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 21:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::I don't see anything in [[Template:Cite book]] to suggest that the examples cover all use cases. I would use something like:
::
::*{{Cite book
| title = The Annotated Sherlock Holmes
| first = Arthur Conan
| last = Doyle
| author-link = Arthur Conan Doyle
| contribution = Annotation
| contributor-first = William S.
| contributor-last = Baring-Gould
| contributor-link = William S. Baring-Gould
| publisher = Clarkson N. Potter
| ___location = New York
| year = 1967
| isbn = 0-517-50291-7
}}
::*{{Cite book
| title = The Annotated Sherlock Holmes
| first = Arthur Conan
| last = Doyle
| author-link = Arthur Conan Doyle
| others = Annotated by [[William S. Baring-Gould]]
| publisher = Clarkson N. Potter
| ___location = New York
| year = 1967
| isbn = 0-517-50291-7
}}
::
::using {{para|contribution|Annotation}} and {{para|others|Annotated by [[William S. Baring-Gould]]}} with a wikilink.
:: Is there a way to suppress the quotation marks for {{para|contribution|Annotation}}? -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 13:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:Interesting options ... using the "contribution" field could be a good approach. [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 13:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::Ah, yes, but I mean to speak to an ethical rather than a legal issue. Copyvio (legal) and plagiarism (ethical) are not always the same thing. Often go hand in hand, but not always the same.
::I would volunteer to help with a plagiarism page.
::[[User:Quill|Quill]] 00:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== MOS: prescriptive, descriptive, or both? ==
:::Ethics are quite a matter of debate, though; I would argue any properly credited statements are ethical, as well as any widely-known ones. Keep in mind that the role of an encyclopedia is quite different from that of a typical paper — there is no implication that any of our text is our own original idea. Also, to establish ethical standards for Wikipedia articles in general would be setting a very flammable sort of policy that I'd be surprised to see adopted, never mind maintained. All that said, I do frown on copying large bodies of text from public ___domain (or not-so-public ___domain) sources without any credit, especially since the result is often an obvious contast with other articles. I've only seen this done once, though. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 00:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 02:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1759197670}}
::::We snag stuff from the 1911 Britannica all the time. And while there is no legal requirement to credit it, there is certainly an ethical requirement, IMO. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 00:50, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
{{rfc|policy|rfcid=A84A0DF}}
The [[WP:MOS|Manual of Style]] varies in [[WP:CONLEVEL|levels of consensus]]. In [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation_2]] it was alleged for some parts of MOS: {{tq|some of those guidelines have fewer watchers than my talk page, and are largely written by parties to this case}} [[Special:Diff/1307322181|(see discussion)]]. Meanwhile, CONLEVELS states:
:::::At some point, hopefully when enough of the article has been rewritten, perhaps every single paragraph, and maybe the layout changed, we can remove such notices from the article itself (which can remain in the history, or perhaps the talk page. Actually, maybe they should always be just on the talk page). --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 04:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
{{tqb|Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.}}
:::::I agree, and we do with the <nowiki>{{1911}}</nowiki> template. I should do a hunt sometime for EB pages without it (they're surprisingly easy to find with a few searches for archaic language). Re Improv, I think we should definitely keep the 1911 EB listed eternally as a reference, even if the tag is removed. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 06:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that while some parts of MOS are the result of consensus with significant participation, there may be other parts that are indeed {{tq|consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time}}.
::::::Absolutely. No matter how far we have evolved the article, it remains a reference we used. Also, when people are using the <nowiki>{{1911}}</nowiki> tag, it should always be in the "References" section of the article, not just hanging there in the body of the text.
Also of note are the [[Special:Diff/1306799581|proposals]] by L235 that did not make principles for that case. Specifically,
Thanks for the responses, folks. Okay, that sorts things through WRT the 1911 EB, but how about the other stuff? [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]], I see it all the time because I spend a lot of time on actors and singers and the like. Pages lifted from IMDB, liner notes, websites--sometimes this is listed as a 'reference', sometimes not.
{{tqb|Policies and guidelines have a combination of prescriptive and descriptive characteristics. Policies and guidelines document community consensus as to {{tq|"standards [that] all users should normally follow"}} ([[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]), giving them some degree of prescriptive force. Simultaneously, policies and guidelines seek to describe {{tq|"behaviors practiced by most editors"}} ([[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]), and change with community practice, giving them a descriptive quality. Naturally, disagreements regarding the extent of a policy's consensus or prescriptive effect arise from this combination, and the text of a policy can sometimes diverge from or lag behind community consensus. These disagreements, like all disputes on Wikipedia, should be resolved by discussion and consensus.}}
I'll have to do some more thinking about it; can't quite reconcile this "Keep in mind that the role of an encyclopedia is quite different from that of a typical paper — there is no implication that any of our text is our own original idea." with this "By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public ___domain resources — this does not include most web pages."
'''Does MOS necessarily indicate community consensus on a wider scale?''' In other words, should closers examine the specific text for level of consensus before using it to overrule a (potentially larger) group of editors? <span style="font-family:Ink Free"> Good day—[[User:RetroCosmos|<span style="color:navy">RetroCosmos</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:RetroCosmos|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 01:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
I like your idea about a guideline page. Can something be done about this?
*'''Comment''' [[WP:MOS]] says at the top "''Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply.''" Not sure anything constructive will come of this rfc, but time will tell. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
[[User:Quill|Quill]] 20:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*I would agree with L235, and add that, ideally, policies and guidelines ''describe'' community consensus and ''prescribe'' editors to follow this consensus. Regarding the MoS, as a set of guidelines with various ranges, it is expected that not all of its pages will have the same level of consensus – a very specific topic will attract less interested editors, and thus naturally have a lower CONLEVEL. That in itself is not necessarily problematic. However, if it goes against a wider consensus, or only reflects a subset of the views of editors interested in that topic, then there is indeed a CONLEVEL issue and a broader discussion should be held. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 15:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*As a closer, I would not feel justified in going on an independent fact-finding mission to determine the level of consensus that supports a specific policy or guideline. I would support overturning closures that were based on such an independent mission. If participants in the discussion gave valid arguments based on their own analysis of the level of consensus, I would consider that when making my decision.{{pb
}}To put it another way, I presume that guidelines and policies have a higher level of consensus than any local discussion. A mass of editors who disagree with a guideline should be directed toward venues where guideline change can happen, not a local discussion. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
== Promoting [[WP:GNIS]] to guideline ==
==Internet trolls==
Hi all,<BR>
I am an administrator from he_Wiki. In a recent months we have been attacked by 2 internet trolls. The last one started to vandilise he_wiki during this week. I want to ask if you have any policy regarding internet trolls in en_wiki. If you do have, what are your suggestions dealing with this phenomena.
[[User:Gilgamesh he|Gilgamesh he]] 09:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[[Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data]] has been around as an essay for over five years now, spelling out the issues we have found with using this database (and now its successor, the National Map) as an authority. The short version: nobody disputes its authority w.r.t. names of places (which is what it was intended for); it's usually good for locations but there are some thing which have to be taken into consideration; its classification of places is problematic and cannot be relied on for several reasons, and it does not claim to be authoritative for that. In general people working on these geography article tend to accept this analysis, but many are unaware of it and we get the occasional argument that since it's an essay it can simply be dismissed as such; in any case [[WP:GEOLAND]] spells out that "The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation."
:It's not something which we deal with well. If the person is actually [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalising]], that's easier to [[Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism|deal with]] and they will usually be blocked eventually. However, you need to be clear whether they are a vandal or a troll (see [[Wikipedia:What is a troll|What is a troll]]). Various people have tried to set up policies about trolling, but they have never reached [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. See [[Wikipedia:Dealing with trolls]] and [[Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors]]. We have a formal [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] process that can be used for trolls or other problem users, which basically starts with [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment|asking the community to comment]] on the problem, and ends with the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] making a decision, but I don't know if [[:he:]] is yet large enough to go for something so complicated. If you know any other languages, asking at one of the smaller Wikipedias might get you more useful advice. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 10:01, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
I would like to propose elevating this essay to a guideline, with appropriate modifications. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 15:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:: Yes, I agree with Angela - it depends on what behavior you are talking about - a lot of people use the word troll to mean vandalism, if that is the case, then its easy to deal with. Personal attacks are likewise easy. If you mean someone editing from a point of view that you don't agree with, then that is more difficult - you will have to find some way to choose which point of view you will accept. [[User:Mark Richards|Mark Richards]] 15:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== PersonalCharts detailsand colors ==
There have been several changes where [[mw:Extension:graph]] graphs have been migrated to [[mw:Extension:Chart]] graphs. The graph extension is broken, hence the migration. Now, Chart does not allow specific colors, it does not support it. Sometimes, these graphs have legends outside of the graph. I figured it is best to ask before this gets too common. Is it ok to just change the legend to match the chart, or should the graph stay broken? [[User:Snævar|Snævar]] ([[User talk:Snævar|talk]]) 19:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
I've put up [[Wikipedia:Divulging personal details]] for discussion on when it is appropriate to include personal details in articles. In my particular case, I've identified a person who has been working under a pseudonym even though the legal name was not widely known (though verifiable). I've posted this at [[WP:RFC]], but as this is urgent (possibly the harm has already been done, if mirrors have scraped us since) I also want to bring it up on the pump. — [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 13:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
| 