Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.
What does "international" mean?
Is it WP policy to use the term "international" to mean "not-US" (or perhaps "not-US-or-Canadian")? This is how the term is used in e.g. the "Comprehensive charts" section of The Trouble with Love Is. Previously there was a division between "USA" and "International" (the latter referring only to the UK and Australia, though perhaps allowing for additions about Moldova, Guinea-Bissau, etc. etc.). I changed "International" to "Elsewhere", as neither the UK nor Australia seemed more international to me than the US did; but another editor has changed it back to "International" with the comment "International is a more appropriate term for the other charts of other countries I think". -- Hoary 14:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't country-centric, so yes, putting "other countries" or "elsewhere" does make more sense. In fact, I think that in this case merging the two tables into one would be more useful, possibly restructuring the "chart" column to start with the country name. --fvw* 14:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Obviously the correct response is to relabel the one section UK & Australia and to title the other "International", since that is an equally valid perspective. :-) Yes, I'm just being silly, don't listen to me. Fvw has some good ideas though. Dragons flight 15:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- fvw's suggestion is good - use just one table. That said, "International" here could be understood to mean "Not the song's country of origin" - so if this were an article about a Moldovan song, two sections, we'd have "Moldova" and "International" sections. But the distinction is unnecessary - one chart is better. CDC (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- The hitch with elsewhere is that it's about as "centric" as one can get :) Wyss 19:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't agree in this case, since the table above is labelled "USA", and so it is clear what the "Elsewhere" means. This is reasonable, since there are 6 entries that are in the USA and 2 that are not. In general, that's not a bad way to divide things up, whenever there is a phenomenon that is almost entirely in a single country/region/whatever, with occasional occurrences in other places. — Nowhither 19:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- In any case, to the original poster: No, it is not Wikipedia policy to use "international" to mean "non-USA". But many Americans have a hard time getting such things through their heads. The solution, I think, it to be patient with them, and edit their work accordingly. — Nowhither 19:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- How about worldwide then? Wyss 19:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Given that the USA is part of the world (although there may be some Americans who don't grasp this or find it objectionable) and so worldwide includes America. Thus if there was 6 entries from teh USA and 2 from countries that are not the USA there would be 8 entries in a worldwide section. Thryduulf 19:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- How about worldwide then? Wyss 19:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments. I've merged the two tables, more or less as fvw suggested (though without bothering to create a new column for "nation"). -- Hoary 01:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- American music, movie, and video games companies always say "international" to mean "foreign" in the context of sales territories. A press release will use the word correctly when it says "Devo is an international success", but within the company they'll always talk about "USA" and "international" sales. I believe the reason is that the word "foreign" sounds a little negative to many people, and this was an attempt to come up with a politically correct synonym. You're absolutely in the right to resist this, of course. Tempshill 17:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I bet that's where it comes from. Similarly, American universities now talk about "international students" rather than "foreign students". — Nowhither 00:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Then I'll go ahead and resist. Though I fear that this US-centric and bizarre use of "international" is widespread in WP. -- Hoary 04:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Foreign is also not very exact. As has been clearly stated by a wise Hungarian; foreign means not from the UK. Use "non-US" vs US or something similar if that's what you mean. Mozzerati 06:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC) ( :-)
Village pump (policy)
The title of this thread is that of this page: I'm seeking to ascertain and identify what is current concensus on some policy that many seem to think needs to be changed -based on recent actions in contravention of policy: Featured Article policy and RfA policy, but people just want to run their mouths -instead of helping define what exactly the current concensus is, so I can know what policy is supported, and what policy is ignored as "outdated."--GordonWatts 17:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Would you care to indicate what policy issue you have in mind, exactly? DES (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- (DES: follow the links, the issues are described in the linked pages). These two policies have been working quite well so far. You will need a a large enough group of editors to support your proposed changes. ≈ jossi ≈ 17:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Clarification: While I don't like all the policies currently here, I was not trying to change policy, but ascertain or identify it: I am (was) seeking to identify what the consensus is on the unclear issues: I think that sometimes policy says one thing and we have editors doing another, and this is, while well-meaning, and well-intended, still wrong. (Having policy say one thing and editors doing another makes it unclear what policy is in some cases.) Then, once we are clear on what consensus actually is, it will be easier for all to follow it -applied to all fairly, and without bias. OK, I'm going on a Wiki-break. I hope that has been helpful. Take care,--GordonWatts 20:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- When wikipedians do one thing while a guideline says another thing, and it's important enough, I do either of these two things:
- When I like the guideline more than what the wikipedian did, I point him/her to the guideline;
- When I like more what the wikipedian did than what's in the guideline, maybe the guideline is up for some updating, and I work on that.
- The second option also when two guidelines contradict (of course, I take the guideline I like most as a model for the other in that case).
- The only thing I never do is starting with a vote (claiming to be "neutral" myself, which would be an illusion), while, you see, that's against a guideline I particularly like, the wikipedia:consensus guideline, or as it is, for instance, in the intro of this guideline: Wikipedia:How to hold a consensus vote#First choice: Don't vote, just discuss. So, now I'm pointing you to these guidelines, if you get the message. --Francis Schonken 00:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- When wikipedians do one thing while a guideline says another thing, and it's important enough, I do either of these two things:
- I tried discussing it, but apparently didn't understand what people meant and inadvertently followed this suggestion, which is part of current policy: "If you go on past this section and decide to hold a vote, it most likely should be because a discussion was already tried and was inconclusive." Thx for the suggestion though.--GordonWatts 14:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, but I think the problem was that the topic you proposed for discussion was simply not important enough (that's why I bolded that part in my previous contribution to this topic) - a month delay time for two consecutive Fac attempts simply follows from experience: trying the same, after it has been rejected by the wikipedia community, too soon after the first time, seldom leads to a more successful result. It's in several guidelines that trying nonetheless is usually contraproductive. So the people working in Fac know that, by intuition, or by analogy to these other guidelines, and know the discussion you proposed is futile, so you had better waited a few weeks while improving the article before trying to re-introduce it in Fac.
- Stating the month delay in the template is even more futile, and not important or relevant enough to the Fac procedure. Having a vote over that unimportant feature is even more futile, if not belligerent.
- Stating you had no opinion on the issue is ridiculous. You better had defended your opinion by talk than triggering a vote with an alleged "neutrality" that was apparently fake.
- So no, you probably never tried discussion, hiding behind "neutrality", which is not used in that sense in wikipedia. Votes are only intended as a last resource for solving differences of opinion that could not be solved by talk. Vote procedures are never triggered as a consequence of an "excess of neutrality", it is in the guidelines that vote procedures have proven to work contraproductive if something like that is attempted. So you can always try that, but you see, here we are, you're at the end of a lot of procedure (which must have cost a lot of energy), but I don't see any distinghuisable "improvement" resulting from that. Better check importance first. --Francis Schonken 15:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- "a month delay time for two consecutive Fac attempts" I actually had concerns on both the RfA process and the Featured Article process, not just one or the other --also, surprisingly, a third consecutive attempt to get Terri Schiavo looks like it may be a success: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo. I am making an honest effort -and getting help. "the topic you proposed for discussion" as I said, I proposed two topics in two forums, but -yes, maybe people didn't think policy needed changing. "while improving the article" I did wait a few weeks between each nomination, and worked (with the help of many others) very hard to address the problems others have raised. "Having a vote over that unimportant feature is even more futile, if not belligerent." I asked peoples' opinions and got little coherent answers, so I asked for a vote. It's not going to kill anybody to vote once in a while, lol. I stated that I was not seeking to change policy, but merely to ascertain what it actually was: I felt that mores and conventions and "the way we do things" was in opposition to policy (like the waiting period thing; If it is not in policy then maybe it's not supposed to be followed), so asking for clarification is reasonable and logical. I can't read minds. "Stating you had no opinion on the issue..." No! I did express an opinion, and I voted in each of my polls. I didn't ask others to vote and then run from voting myself. That would have been a rude double standard, this hypocritical. Thus, I didn't do it. "So no, you probably never tried discussion, hiding behind "neutrality"..." Obviously you don't know me; If you had participated in any of the talk pages where I visit, you'd know I try to work for concensus, but vigorously defend my point. Sometimes I win, and sometimes I loses, but in the end, I have never failed to accept consensus. My RfA is a good example: I accepted the vote like a man and withdrew my nomination. Do you need a link to that page? "but I don't see any distinguishable "improvement" resulting from that." Yes, much was gained; I learned a little from the community, and several guidelines were slightly changed by others as a result of my involvement: "in good standing" was clarified in the RfA process and "ongoing edit wars" was added as a consideration for FA-candidates. I may not have liked the changes, but I am glad things were clarified -in a positive way. You too should look for the positives and not focus myopically on the negatives. Both are there, but a balanced life requires effort to achieve a balanced view. All the same, thank you for analysis.--GordonWatts 16:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- PS: I'm on Wiki break due to overwork; I don't mind answering questions and clarifying points, but I am not going to go overboard here -and maybe other people are over-extending themselves here in the (unpaid) Wiki environment too? "So no, you probably never tried discussion, hiding behind "neutrality"..." Oh, one more thing: I'm not perfect, I admit, bit, if you look in Archive 4 of my talk page, you'll see a bunch of barnstars, which indicates that I do get along with people; Also, on my current talk page, someone thanked me for helping him clarify some personal problems. My point? I'm not saying I always do everything right; Yet, I just want you to understand that all is not as it appears to you. Again, thank you for the feedback, but I shall not spend too much time here on wiki.--GordonWatts 16:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
How long has NPOV been negotiable?
I've been subjected to weeks of harassment, including an RfC based on a objectively false statement, for disputing the inclusion of an obvious NPOV violation as a factual statement. The intervening admin, who's already stated that the disputed statements are inappropriate, nevertheless declared that my deletion of them was "misbehavior" in violation of "consensus," and protected the page with the violations in place. Have I missed something? Is NPOV-violation now OK? Are editors supposed to simply ignore it rather than following guidelines? (And when did 2 of 4 users become a recognized consensus, anyway?) Is there any way to return the relevant page to rational discussion rather than the current circus? Monicasdude 03:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Could you please point to the actual dispute? Without any facts, it isn't possible to make a judgement. --Carnildo 06:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The dispute involves the Bob Dylan page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dylan
The specific matter at issue -- the interpretations of a group of songs as "religious" or "secular" involves these alternative texts: [1] and I took the position that, if the article was going to present lyrics interpretations, whether summarily or in detail, it should report the range of interpretations rather than one set, as required by NPOV policy.
The intervening admin stated that unsourced lyrics interpretations/characterizations weren't allowed as original research [2] but has indicated that my opposition to inserting such comments is inappropriate behavior [3] (even though, by that time, a clear majority of those commenting on the talk page and the RfC opposed the text I'd deleted, and at the time of the original intervention comments were evenly divided.)
The RfC is here: [4] Please note that the description of events, especially as presented on the summary page, is objectively false. Monicasdude 16:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's always the wrong version which gets protected. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- I know, I know. I just thought it unusual for an admin to declare that a particular edit was inappropriate and protect it. Monicasdude 16:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
We are too lax in allowing copyrighted image uploading.
Fellow editors,
I had thought we had a blanket policy saying that copyrighted images that do not fall under fair use will be deleted, whether the copyright owner gives permission or not. As stated on the upload page:
- Please do not upload files under a "non-commercial use only" or "copyrighted, used by permission" licence. Such files may be deleted right away. Images uploaded without source or licensing information will also be deleted if this information is not supplied within seven days.
Contradicting this wise policy is, on the copyright tags page, the very existence of the tags "permission", "copyright", "noncommercial", "noncommercialprovided", and "CopyrightedNotForProfitUseProvidedThat". The page mentions that users shouldn't upload pictures that fall into this category, but people continue to do so (see black triangles); I believe that the existence of the tags will be seen as permission to upload these copyrighted images to Wikipedia. This is because people do not read instructions, and will never do so no matter how lengthily we exhort them.
And then there is the "permissionandfairuse" tag, which will always be subject to abuse.
I propose that each of the above tags include a message in the template saying that new images must not be uploaded with that tag, and newly uploaded images with the tag will be deleted in 24 hours. The downside of course is that many uploaders may simply change the tag to "fair use". We can warn against that in the template, too, and I think it's worthwhile. Tempshill 17:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- You say "I had thought we had a blanket policy saying that copyrighted images that do not fall under fair use will be deleted, whether the copyright owner gives permission or not." That isn't quite correct -- if the copyright owner givees permission in the form of a GFDL release, then the image is fine -- in fact far better than fair use. And it is often a good idea to ask the sorce of an image with debatable status if a release can be executed -- not infrequently the answer is yes, particualrly if the source is not a commercial organization. There is a new speesy criterion decreed by jimbo for unsourced images -- take a look at WP:CSD. Let';s see how that works for a while before proposing additional criteria. DES (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, of course you're right about the GFDL, I assumed everyone would know that, sorry for not explicitly mentioning it above. The onus for asking permission is on the uploader and not other editors who happen to notice the pic, nor on admins. The new speedy criterion over on that page is only for text, now, by the way; you might want to look at it again ... I am rather shocked that images are not explicitly stated there. Tempshill 22:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- I was referring to the new I4, which says Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status" which have been in the category for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded. this is efective now, unlike the text-only proposal I suspect you are refrering to. (look at the talk page on that proposal for soem discussion of related issues.) I don't fully agree with you on this. While the uploader ought to get a GFDL release before uploading, in a significant number of cases when that doesn't happen we get oen later as part of the copyvio verification process. These would be lost by your proposal. In a significant further number of cases the uplaoder had permission but didn't understand how to indicate this correctly. I have learned that on copyright and license issues it is very unsafe to rely on what "everyone knows", so I spell things out. many people don't know, and many others think they do, but have it somewhat wrong. DES (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, of course you're right about the GFDL, I assumed everyone would know that, sorry for not explicitly mentioning it above. The onus for asking permission is on the uploader and not other editors who happen to notice the pic, nor on admins. The new speedy criterion over on that page is only for text, now, by the way; you might want to look at it again ... I am rather shocked that images are not explicitly stated there. Tempshill 22:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- I just added a bullet at Special:Upload warning against uploading images from the internet without verifying their copyright status. If indeed very few people read instructions this won't help much, but I figure it can't hurt. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, thanks. Tempshill 22:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Can someone post an article about someone not famous?
Hello,
Can someone post an article about someone not famous, like a relative or friend? Or does the person have to be famous somewhere in a meaningful context? What if I wanted to post an article about myself (or themselves)?
Please e-mail me at [edited out] with an answer at your convience. Wikipedia is one of my favorite websites, and I enjoy reading it everyday.
Senor Boogie Woogie
- Short answer, "No". Long answer: In theory Wikipedia articles have to be encyclopedic and verifiable, and avoid original research. In practice, this leads to an effective requirement that subjects be notable. See also Wikipedia:Vanity, Wikipedia:Vanity page, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. If you're feeling especially brave, then have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. But feel free to write your autobiography on your user page. Bovlb 07:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- To elaborate on "fame" (we use "notability" here), someone either has to be famous to the general public notwithstanding a lack of concrete accomplishment (such as Paris Hilton), or have accomplished something significant so that they are highly regarded within their profession and/or studied within a particular academic field (such as Alexei Abrikosov). A few achieve both. Some may have once had both but lost one. And others don't have either, though we can always dream. Postdlf 08:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Also past fame suffices (Ira Aldridge, for example, or Aimee Semple McPherson), but we don't place any bets on future fame.
Personal details of notable people
Other than the general guidelines of WP:V, WP:NOR and similar pages, are there any specific guidelines dealing with the publication of a notable person's personal information? After a rather icky episode in which someone posted a former porn star's real name and current work address (See: WP:AN/I under Jordi Capri and Tawnee Stone), I am thinking about writing up some specific guidelines collecting all the reasons it is bad to publish unverifiable & unencyclopedic personal information, so that there will be an easy page to reference next time something like this happens. However, I don't want to duplicate material if a similar page already exists somewhere? Dragons flight 17:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- This is also valuable for non-notable people mentioned in articles. SchmuckyTheCat 18:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see what's wrong with posting the real names of notable people -- even porn stars. The address should immediatley be removed, however. --Quasipalm 18:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- A porn star's real name generally has serious questions of verifiablity and original research attached as the real name is unlikely to have been used by the publisher in relation to any of the work. And I am generally against including information based on what someone who claims to have gone to high school with someone else happens to post on some web forum. I would argue there are other reasons attached to personal safety for not including it as well, but NOR and V are two of the biggest problems that attach in most cases. Dragons flight 18:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- There's Wikipedia:Divulging personal details, which is presently inactive and was written for one specific case anyway. However, this comes up often enough that perhaps the page should be reactivated and made more prominent: linked to from the Manual of Style for biographies, the verifiability guidelines, etc. Wikipedia talk:Divulging personal details awaits. . . —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I've archived the old discussion and written up something new on the subject. Edit away. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The Simpsons episodes
The cruftier among you may (or, indeed, may not) want to know that a large number of The Simpsons episodes articles are presently listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 September 21. They thus fall to the axe somtime after the 28th. If anyone wants them rescued they should either a)get WP-compatible permission or b)re-write the articles on their /temp subpages (please write them there; it makes life easier for the clearing admin who does not have search the diffs for the versions to restore). -Splashtalk 00:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Mirror licences?
Ok, I don't understand the intricacies of copyright. If I come across a site that uses Wikipedia articles (even if it says "partly derived from") but then licenses under CC-BY-SA 2.0, and not the GFDL, are they infringing? The particular site also "partly derive[s]" from Wikitravel which is where I suppose they draw their license from. -Splashtalk 04:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- If they are claiming that Wikipedia content is available under CC-BY-SA then yes. Presently GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses are incompatible (even though they accomplish basically the same thing). I have been led to understand that there have been some high level discussions about making these compatible in future versions of each. Dragons flight 05:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Disambiguation of personal names
Is there a guideline on how to apply disambiguating phrases (clarifiers) to articles on peopple with common names? For example, Bill White is a common name. Right now we have three subjects with that name, disambiguated as (baseball), (mayor), and (activist). The last of those is being questioned, but I can't find the general guideline for how to proceed. Any suggestions? -Willmcw 22:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- PS - I posted that to Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict, but can't find any better page that addresses similar issues. Wikipedia:Disambiguation says:
- For more on which word or phrase to insert in the parentheses, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions.
- However "Naming conventions" does not have a section on disambiguation. There are brief mention of "clarifiers" at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), but only in regarding to how they should be handled. Does anybody here know if there is an existing guideline? Thanks, -Willmcw 07:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you want a cop-out, you could always use (1977)... Shimgray 11:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- I have recently moved a couple of pages that disambiguated a name by birth year to ones that did so by profession. IMO birth year is not a helpful tag fro soemone to identify which Bill Foo is which. I haven't read this particualr article, so i don't know what other term besides "activist" might be applicable --- and IMO "activist is a bit generic anyway. How about Anti-X activist or Pro-Y activist? Whatever is chosen it should be specific, clear, and of course NPOV. DES (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you want a cop-out, you could always use (1977)... Shimgray 11:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Indirectly the topic has come up on wikipedia talk:Easy navigation; as a consequence I had already added something to the wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifier between brackets or parentheses guideline proposal. But that's not "version 1.0" of that proposal yet, so you can always have a look and try to improve (or cummunicate what you think about it on wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)) --Francis Schonken 16:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a numbers problem!
All over Wikipedia small numbers are written in numerals! Wikipedia is replete with 7's and 4's and 3's. Names of centuries are written as "16th century", rather than as "sixteenth century"! It goes without saying that numbers between ten and ninety-nine are almost invariably written with numerals. None of this is acceptable. Basic style for magazines and books (and certainly encyclopedias) is that numbers under one hundred are spelled out, as are round numbers beyond that. There are exceptions for articles on mathematical topics, or ones that are thick with numbers, as well as some other circumstances, but in general, numbers under one hundred must be spelled out! Is there an existing wikiguideline stating this, or not?? Babajobu 00:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am partly to blame for this -I am a very experienced Wikipedian, and good in grammar, etc., but this was one area in which I was novice. I can't speak for all of Wikipedia, but I have probably violated this Style of Manuel in the interests of shortening an article. I shall look at it. Thank you for the heads up!--GordonWatts 01:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers -- the "numbers in words" section. Jonathunder 00:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- You mean this: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Numbers_in_words. Thank you for the info.--GordonWatts 01:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- ...which only says (on this point) that usage should be consistant within the article. Anyway I must agree with Babajobu. In my own (non WP) writing I always spell out numbers under 100 (except in math or scientific expressions), although on WP I've followed the unwritten "small number" convention ever since someone "corrected" a number I'd spelled out by changing it into a numeral. Wyss 00:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, the "just be consistent" requirement is hopelessly inadequate. That means an article may use numerals for all numbers (including one and two!) as long as it does so consistently! That's crap! Not even a throwaway tabloid newspaper would do that! We should at least have the self-respect of a decent magazine...all numbers under one hundred spelled out. Babajobu 00:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- This is so standard, I'm wondering how this could be proposed as a policy... now? Wyss 00:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- I seem to remember something about spelling out small numbers having been part of the guideline. Perhaps it was removed at some point. I don't entirely oppose adding it back, but some consideration should be given to math articles, where numerals seem to be the convention, even for small numbers. I suggest opening a discussion on the talk page of the relevant style guide page cited above. Jonathunder 00:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well this is supposed to be the place for policy proposals, so I hereby propose it as policy. With the standard exceptions (math-related articles, et cetera), numbers under one hundred should be spelled out. Jimbo, whaddya say? Babajobu 00:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's rare for policy to come from Jimbo, but this is a question of style, not policy. On this kind of stylistic question his opinion would count for no more or less than any other thoughtful and respected editor. Why not be bold and add something to the relevant style page. Jonathunder 01:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- I say you're out of your gourd if you think that getting consensus for a policy change would be easier than getting consensus for a non-policy guideline in the Manual of Style. Several of us will oppose your screwball notion that all numbers less than 101 should be spelled out. Gene Nygaard 01:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Please explain to us why the industry standard Chicago Manual of Style guideline for representing numbers in books is a "screwball notion". Babajobu 01:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Part of the reasoning is that a distinction needs to be made between measured quantities and counting numbers.
- The reasoning behind the rule stated by NIST, the U.S. national standards laboratory, in its Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI)[5] is every bit as applicable to Wikipedia usage in general as it is to scientific usage, with the same language-independence advantages spelled out in section 7.6:[6]
- This Guide takes the position that the key elements of a scientific or technical paper, particularly the results of measurements and the values of quantities that influence the measurements, should be presented in a way that is as independent of language as possible. This will allow the paper to be understood by as broad an audience as possible, including readers with limited knowledge of English. Thus, to promote the comprehension of quantitative information in general and its broad understandability in particular, values of quantities should be expressed in acceptable units using
- the Arabic symbols for numbers, that is, the Arabic numerals, not the spelled-out names of the Arabic numerals; and
- the symbols for the units, not the spelled-out names of the units.
- This Guide takes the position that the key elements of a scientific or technical paper, particularly the results of measurements and the values of quantities that influence the measurements, should be presented in a way that is as independent of language as possible. This will allow the paper to be understood by as broad an audience as possible, including readers with limited knowledge of English. Thus, to promote the comprehension of quantitative information in general and its broad understandability in particular, values of quantities should be expressed in acceptable units using
- Furthermore, while many would accept spelling out counting numbers less than ten, and even other one-word numbers such as fifty, the notion of requiring spelling out of "forty-three" and "eighty-seven" is nonsense--especially when these are measurements such as "forty-three kilometers" or "eighty-seven degrees Fahrenheit" (and using symbols for those units in conjunction with the spelled-out numbers would also be unacceptable to many of us, so you are also tying in a requirement to spell out the symbols for units of measure. Gene Nygaard 02:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm fending off heresy from multiple directions now, so let me take each person in their turn. Mr. Nygaard, I'd be happy to defer to the NIST guidelines for scientific articles. The Chicago guidelines do as much by essentially saying, "in mathematical or scientific articles and books, use numerals wherever suitable or customary". But in non-scientific work it is absolutely standard in the American publishing industry to spell out numbers under one hundred, including the hyphenated numbers you find so objectionable. You may find it "nonsense". Virtually everyone who does this professionally disagrees with you. On the other hand, you have some wiggle room. Numbers are never spelled out as parts of measurements that use abbreviations or symbols. Thus, you can happily write "8 km", if you prefer, rather than "eight kilometers". And--I emphasize this again--you can use all the 1s and 2s and 3s you want in scientific articles. Babajobu 02:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- U.S. specific rules are not necessarily going to be generally accepted by the Wikipedia community.
- The "American publishing industry" often has little regard for "readers with a limited knowledge of English" as NIST puts it in explaining the reason for its rule. Wikipedia, OTOH, should be very much aware of that problem, and do what it can to alleviate it.
- What is a "scientific article"?
- Are the recipes in a cookbook a "scientific article" in the "American publishing industry"?
- Does the reporting of average temperature and rainfall and the like in an article about some small town make it a "scientific article"?
- If you are talking about goats, is it a scientific article? Or a farming article? a pets article?
- How about iron and steel, common materials used in our houses and industry? Scientific? Gene Nygaard 02:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think the English Wikipedia generally takes much account of the needs of people with limited knowledge of English. In fact, many articles assume a higher level of knowledge and a larger vocabulary than the equivalent articles in Encarta or Brittanica. I think it's fanciful to suppose that a non-fluent reader who shows up at the English Wikipedia is going to successfully navigate the substantive content, but get tripped up by spelled-out numbers. As for defining a "scientific article", that's something that has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. In practice I think any article with lots of numbers is often treated as a scientific article, though that's not a very systematic way of doing it. But in Wikipedia we have hordes of articles that are very clearly not scientific using numerals for small numbers. Babajobu 02:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Here's a recent article from Reuters:
I see plenty of numbers below 100 written as numerals. So what's the problem? -- ran (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Newspaper style is not necessarily the best style for Wikipedia. Newspaper style guides evolved under the pressure of always conserving space. Jonathunder 01:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, you see plenty of number below one hundred written as numerals because that is newspaper style. An encyclopedia is not a newspaper. But Wikipedia doesn't even hold to newspaper style...numbers below ten are spelled as numerals all over Wikipedia. It's a disgrace. Anyway, Wikipedia should hold to book & magazine style, spelling out numbers under one hundred. Babajobu 01:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well obviously we've discovered your pet peeve. :-) I think it is reasonable to spell out small numbers in many contexts (articles of history and literature for example), but I would strongly oppose any attempt to mandate such a standard for scientific and mathematical topics. Conventions in scientific publishing aren't the same as in literature and writing even single digit numerals can be accepted in contexts where many numbers must appear. Insisting that some numbers should be written out alongside many that aren't ends up making things appear haphazard in those contexts. For example, a phrase like "Our samples were divided into lots of twenty, 115, and 256 specimens each", just looks dumb. Dragons flight 01:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- First of all, I've said several times that mathematic and scientific articles need not spell out numbers under one hundred. Again, that's as per standard Chicago style. As for the other example you mention--a sentence with mixed numbers, some over a hundred, some under--there is again a standard practice for this: keep it consistent within individual sentences. If the numbers deal with similar or analogous units, then use numerals for all of them. If the units are very different--say, "the shark swam twelve feet before smashing out 146 of its teeth on an iron bar"--than it's okay to mix numerals with spelled out numbers. That's too complex for the guidelines. Just "In general, spell out numbers under 100 in non-scientific articles" is enough. Babajobu 02:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Since you are finally seeing the light a little bit, how about going out and fixing all the things you've screwed up already, such as Barren Ground Shrew (I've taken care of that one, but there are likely a lot more like it). Gene Nygaard 03:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's got nothing to do with "seeing the light"; everything I've said from beginning to end has been consistent with Chicago style. And Barren Ground Shrew was not "screwed up", as you so inelegantly put it; I used the preferred method of spelling out both the small numbers and the units. Using numerals with abbreviations is acceptable, but not preferable. Regardless, God knows how many articles you've tortured with inappropriate numerals. One shudders to think of it. Babajobu 03:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Come on, now. Let's be honest about what you said: " Numbers are never spelled out as parts of measurements that use abbreviations or symbols. Thus, you can happily write "8 km", if you prefer, rather than "eight kilometers". And--I emphasize this again--you can use all the 1s and 2s and 3s you want in scientific articles."
- In another message you said, "I'd be happy to defer to the NIST guidelines for scientific articles."
- In yet aother message you claimed (though I doubt the truth of the statement at the time it was made, though you did say it a few times later on), " I've said several times that mathematic and scientific articles need not spell out numbers under one hundred."
- So why were you changing those in this particular scientific article?
- BTW, regarding your shuddering—I've spelled out more numerals than I have changed spelled out words to numerals, even counting a few reversions of your inappropriate changes yesterday. Gene Nygaard 07:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, okay then, here's an encyclopedia article from Encarta:
I quote:
In the United States, tornadoes occur in all 50 states.
The Tri-State Outbreak of March 18, 1925, had the highest death toll: 740 people died in 7 tornadoes that struck Illinois, Missouri, and Indiana.
Perhaps "Tornado" should be considered a scientific article: after all, there are many occurrences of one- and two-digit numerals occurring together with units. But what about the two examples above? The numbers are not used in a mathematical or scientific context. -- ran (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, units that are identified with a symbol or an abbreviation always go with a numeral: hence, "8 km" or "5 m", even in a non-scientific article ("eight kilometers" or "five meters" would generally be preferred, but not mandated). As for the two examples above, the "7 tornadoes" could be the result of not wanting to mix numerals and spelled-out numbers in a sentence, though considering the units are very much different a non-scientific article would be likely to spell it out. As for "50 states", that's the giveaway that this is considered a scientific article. You would never see that in numerals in a non-scientific (industry term is "humanistic") article. Babajobu 02:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- However, Encarta also uses almost exclusively numerals in their Bill Clinton, including, "42nd", "20th century", "12 years", "age 32", "52 percent", and "26 years". Nevertheless, I believe we should follow the Chicago standard on this one. Superm401 | Talk 02:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Really? Wow. Well, percentages always use numerals, but the rest of those examples make abundantly clear that Encarta does not follow Chicago style. Hmm. I wonder what they use. Regardless, I obviously agree with you that we should go with Chicago. Babajobu 02:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I think what Encarta illustrates is this: this isn't a rule that's consistently followed at all. To give an analogy: some rules of grammar of standard written English should always be followed (e.g., subject-verb agreement), but other rules are less commonly followed, though they still exist (e.g. don't end a relative clause with a preposition). The numbers rule that you present seems to be of the latter category.
Here's another example, from the Britannica this time: [9]. You see "25 countries" and "13 English-speaking countries". And here's the World Book: [10]. You see "48th among all the states". I believe that many writers here on Wikipedia are consciously and subconsciously influenced by existing, established encyclopedias. If three of the most influential English-language encyclopedias in the world don't consistently follow the rule you're proposing, then you're probably going to encounter a lot of resistance in trying to promote your proposal.
Also, I would go on to suggest that if the Bill Clinton article in Encarta switched all of its <100 numbers to spelled out numerals, it would actually decrease readability. Compare "42nd president of the United States" and "forty-second president of the United States", for instance. This may be a matter of pure habit on my part, of course, but this habit exists precisely because it is enforced by existing, established encyclopedias. -- ran (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, these rules are followed pretty consistently in the vast majority of non-scientific book publishing, but apparently there are different guidelines in encyclopedia publishing. So yes, that will scupper any efforts to get Wikipedia to conform to Chicago Manual of Style guidelines. However, I disagree with your assessment of why Wikipedia editors (or at least some Wikipedia editors) are so numeral-happy. My evidence for this is that so many non-scientific Wikipedia articles use numerals for numbers under ten. Even the trashiest tabloid in the world does not do this. In these cases Wikipedia editors are just in error. Even if I can't get Chicago style as a guideline, at the very least there should be a guideline suggesting that numbers under ten be spelled out in non-scientific articles. Babajobu 03:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I understand completely your frustration with substandard spelling, grammar and style that sometimes pop up on Wikipedia. Some people here write as if they're chatting on MSN. =) So yes, guidelines will definitely be helpful. -- ran (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
We read: That's crap! Not even a throwaway tabloid newspaper would do that! . . . Even the trashiest tabloid in the world does not do this. What a throwaway tabloid newspaper (let alone the trashiest tabloid in the world) wouldn't do must have something going for it, surely. Why get so excited? While WP is indeed littered with mistakes (here is one of last night's discoveries), "42" for "forty-two" or vice versa is not wrong and causes no misunderstanding. One may be preferable to the other, but rather than getting steamed up about how Chicago says this or that, note that that estimable book is written for intelligent people to use as guidelines, most if not all of which may be broken for good reason. Now, stripped of exclamation points, etc., what is it that you are advocating? -- Hoary 08:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
For me, "16th century" is much easier to read than "sixteenth century". When I'm looking for something in encyclopedia I want raw data, not brilliant prose. It's much easier to extract data from numbers than from words. Grue 09:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hoary, I agree with you that Chicago guidelines are to be employed as guidelines and not enforced with fascist zeal. However, you will find that editors of literate publications allow for fairly few exceptions. The real issue here is the extent to which Chicago is suitable for an encyclopedia. Regardless, I pointed out that the trashiest, most abominable issue of the worst throwaway tabloid in the history of human civilization (TTMAITWTTITHHC) would not use numerals for numbers under ten because, generally, the more literate a non-scientific publication, the more numbers it spells out (though for practical purposes the cap for spelled-out numbers is "all numbers under one hundred, and all larger numbers that can be spelled in two words, with hyphenated words counting as one word"). Thus, if TTMAITWTTITHHC spells out numerals under ten, but Wikipedia does not, then we are being bested by an abomination. We should hold to a higher standard than that. Stripped of exclamation points, my request is just what I've stated before: that in non-scientific articles we have a guideline of spelling out numbers under one hundred. That's it. Very simple. Chicago is strewn with qualifications and exceptions, but we needn't get into them any more than we already have because we are just discussing a guideline, rather than a Party Diktat. Babajobu 11:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, and Grue: "It's much easier to extract data from numbers than from words" is subjective and not true in my case. I blanch every time I see a century represented with numerals, rather than spelled out. Chicago prescribes spelling it out, but I don't know what the more vulgar style guides (AP, et cetera) suggest. Babajobu 11:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- UPDATE, turns out Wikipedia already has a guideline on this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Looks like User:Grue will be quickly extracting data, while I'm blanching: wikistyle is to use numerals to render centuries, a la "14th century". Yikes. Babajobu 15:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, and Grue: "It's much easier to extract data from numbers than from words" is subjective and not true in my case. I blanch every time I see a century represented with numerals, rather than spelled out. Chicago prescribes spelling it out, but I don't know what the more vulgar style guides (AP, et cetera) suggest. Babajobu 11:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Now you are singing a different tune again. At first, you insisted the discussion belonged here on the policy subpage of the village pump, rather than at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), because you were discussing a policy rather than a guideline. Do you understand the distinction Wikipedia makes between policy and guidelines? Gene Nygaard 12:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- This discussion should be moved to that MoS talk page, and continued there. Gene Nygaard 12:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Your confusion knows no boundaries. You are now mixing me up we with User:Jonathunder. It was he and you who argued over the distinction between policy and guidelines, not you and me. Babajobu 15:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Can't you ever stick to the truth? It was you who said, "Well this is supposed to be the place for policy proposals, so I hereby propose it as policy," wasn't it? That was at the tail end of the policy/guidelines discussion, so you cannot credibly claim ignorance of that. Gene Nygaard 15:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but it was you and User:Jonathunder who had a sissyfight over what was more attainable, a guideline change or a policy change. Regardless, the opposition to standard Chicago style among Wikipedians is astonishingly strong. People here clearly enjoy seeing numbers rendered as such: "2 of Dostoevsky's novels were published posthumously, 1 of which was incomplete." Ugh. Yuk. Worse than a tabloid, not supported by any style guide in the world. But it's the wikiway. Congratz, you win. Babajobu 15:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- I was replying to you in my first posting in this thread, making the distinction between policy and guidelines.[11] Admittedly, that may not have been clear; we don't have the advantage of threaded discussions such as those on forums such as Usenet.
- I agree that there are many numerals in Wikipedia which should be spelled out. The problems are that you have been overreaching, taking a simplistic view of a more complex situation, relying too heavily on one external guide, and not even following the rules of that one. Just stick to spelling out counted numbers (as opposed to measurements) of ten or less in running text (as opposed to tables including infoboxes and other lists), and a few others including even occasional rough measurements, and you won't run into much opposition. Spell out one of two numbers adjacent to each other, and don't start a sentence with numerals (either spell them out, or reword them to avoid overly clumsy spelled-out numbers). That will be enough to keep you busy for a few months, I'd guess. Gene Nygaard 15:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- No, I don't think most of us enjoy seeing numbers such as those you give in your Dostoyevsky examples; I'd change them without thinking twice about it, probably with a pained expression. And I suspect you're right that rendering numerals like that isn't supported by any style guide in the world: certainly, all the ones I can think of say single-digit numerals should be spelt out (general rule: there are always exceptions, but not Dostoyevsky). Most style manuals also agree on using numerals for three-digit numbers. Where the grey area crops up is wrt two-digit numbers: there's the spell-out school, ably represented by the CMS, and there's the numerals school: led by the AP and the other journos, but also covering a range of governments and international organisations. The grey area really runs from 10 to 99 (or should I say "from ten to ninety-nine"?): the [[WP MoS should probably be tweaked to reflect that. –Hajor 16:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, as I stated on the talk page for the Barren Ground Shrew, I think your perception that I have inconsistently applied Chicago style is a result of your misunderstanding what I said. But regardless, it's probably true that I should not have included measurements in my anti-numeral jihad. There's a lot of opposition here to spelling out any numbers at all in measurements. And Wikipedia has enough one-through-nine counting numbers rendered in numerals to keep me busy for a good while. Babajobu 16:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- From what I remember such a rule only exists for numbers between 1-20. Anyway, we should keep the reader in mind. I'm pretty sure there's non-natives out there who don't know whether to spell 67 with a dash or not. It would only create needless redirects and people who kind find stuff because of misspellings. Besides, typing 16th is easier than sixteenth and saves a lot of time when one's writing an article as well. Let's not make things needlessly complicated. - Mgm|(talk) 08:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, at least this doesn't involve French, where 95 (ninety-five) for example is written out as quatre-vingt-quinze... or four-twenty-fifteen :) Wyss 09:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Verifiable image source
A notice at the top of the My watchlist page now states that images lacking verifiable source and copyright information ... will be deleted. I think the use of verifiable here is a mistake. It is not supported by the policy page that is referenced. A very normal and good contribution of an image occurs when a user takes a photo with their own digital camera and uploads this to Wikimedia. But this would clearly not be verifiable, just as when I write about my first hand experience, this information is not verifiable. I suspect this is not the rigth place for this criticism. I would appreciate if someone forward it to the right place. We should not discourage people from contributing their photos. --Etxrge 08:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's been rephrased now to "identified source", which would include "I took this myself". Note also that the policy page isn't the key one, it's the criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD Images .4 and .5). It's not photos taken by a used we're worried about, it's the thousands upon thousands of unsourced - and almost certainly copyrighted - images used in articles, placing us at some risk of being sued. Shimgray 10:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Why are images worse than article text? Mozzerati 11:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Huh? ~~ N (t/c) 14:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- We already have a process in place for dealing with copyvio texts. It works (reasonably) well; it's a little overwhelmed, but it catches almost everything and it deals with them appropriately. Images, there isn't a working process; there's thousands upon thousands of these damn things kicking around, and we need to Do Something About Them. This seems to be that Something. Shimgray 14:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- I've often thought that it is a shame exceptions can't be made for pictures of Wikipedians placed only on their own user page or at the Wikipedia:Facebook. There is something unsettling about uploading an image of oneself either into the public ___domain or under GFDL. Admittedly, it has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, but it is a part of sharing with other members of the community, something which fosters good relations among editors. Func( t, c, @, ) 15:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- There has been some brief discussion about coming up with alternate licenses for userpages, but it never got anywhere... one rather elegant suggestion was, when single-login is finally rolled out, to have all userpages on a different "project", which would presumably allow interesting licensing tricks. Shimgray | talk | 12:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Format for citing sources?
How far should this be carried? I thought the guideline before was that attaching a website as an external link implied that it could have been used as a source for the article, but I see in Wikipedia:Cite sources that it says that policy has basically been discontinued. So that implies to me that almost every article would have a references section or use footnotes? That does not seem like a good idea, because it would cause excess clutter. Spalding 18:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Sometimes external links are the only references, so it's redundant to have a separate section for references and external links. Grue 19:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Copyright status of Mathematica created image
I recently created and uploaded Image:Cube_root_of_positive_X.png. I tagged it {{PD-self}} but did I really have the rights to such a mundane picture? It was graphed in Mathematica with the following instruction:
\!\(Plot[\@x\%3, \ {x, 0, 2}, \ AspectRatio \[Rule] Automatic, \
PlotPoints \[Rule] 20000]\)
— Ambush Commander(Talk) 19:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- This can be something of an ugly gray area of copyright law. The key question is whether such images incorporate copyrightable acts of creative expression attributable to the software vendor. On the one hand, there are programs like MS Paint, where you have full control over every pixel and the vendor's contribution is trivial and fully interchangable with many other similar programs. No copyright problems there. On the extreme there are professional visualization software packages that take a limited set of data from the user and render it in complex and non-obvious ways. In most cases, you can't claim ownership over those images, though fair use may apply. The more complicated and non-obvious the program's behavior, the more likely one is to have a problem. In this case, I think you are okay. One would have a hard time arguing that the idea of plotting axes with little labels is in any way an act of creativity derived from the software vendor. (One might argue about the choice of fonts and line widths, but since the software gives you control over those things, I would argue that simply using the default settings is too trivial a component to be protected.) Dragons flight 20:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, there's some deep magic going into the choice of scale of axis markings and range in Mathematica, but given that you manually specified the range and everything I'd say you're in the clear here. This might even be considered an uncopyrightable image depending on the plotting algorithms mathematica uses, but I'm no copyright lawyer or expert on the matter, so take that last bit with a grain of salt. --fvw* 20:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think I'll leave the tag as it is for now.
- As a side note... Mathematica plots points by selected a whole bunch of them, calculating the values, and then plotting them on (try plotting Sin[1/x]: the line wiggles infinitely often, so Mathematica doesn't get it right). — Ambush Commander(Talk) 01:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but how big a whole bunch of them, and at what points on the x-axis? This isn't an easy problem and quite a few papers have been written on the issue. --fvw* 01:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I am being stalked by Image copyright fanatics
These people have the nerve to delete an important image I uploaded (an early 1900s photo of downtown Jacksonville) without even notifying me, then go to MY talk page and tell me that basically they want to delete everything I have uploaded. Somebody tells me I can't use an image because the originator doesn't want it used for COMMERCIAL purposes, but yet I am NOT using it for commercial purposes. --Revolución (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- The founders of Wikipedia believe that all content should be truly free, which means that they require that content could even be used commercially if someone wanted to do so. For example, they wish that the content should be just as free for corporations as it is for educators. Images which are not licensed under terms that make commercial use possible are inconsistent with this ideal of having truly free content. Hence it has been Wikipedia's policy not to accept such images for some time and to delete them when they do occur. I am sorry if this is upsetting to you, and seems unfair. Dragons flight 03:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- If it is truly an early 1900s photo it is quite probably in the public ___domain via expired copyright. Re-uplaod and tag as {{pd-old}} or one of the related templates, if the facts justify this. DES (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, it might well not have been published until later. --fvw* 04:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Revolución, I don't know if you were notified -and I don't know if you should have been, but I went to bat -and advocated on your behalf -at Jimbo's talk page, FYI. Also, even if you were treated correctly, it is worth clarifying, so others don't have the same pain. However, Dragon's Flight is correct: Wikipedia's policy is for Fair Use images to be deleted except under extraordinary circumstances, because, as he said, we want to provide something that can be used for any purpose -including Commercial use.--GordonWatts 04:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Note thsi is not about fair use images, althogyh there are similar issues with them, but about issues used under a "no-commercial use" license. Some of wikipedia's existing mirrors are commercial sites, which may be expected to copy any article posted, so posting an article or image to wikipedia is, in effect, making a commercial use of it, or at least ensuring that others will do so. DES (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Revolución, I don't know if you were notified -and I don't know if you should have been, but I went to bat -and advocated on your behalf -at Jimbo's talk page, FYI. Also, even if you were treated correctly, it is worth clarifying, so others don't have the same pain. However, Dragon's Flight is correct: Wikipedia's policy is for Fair Use images to be deleted except under extraordinary circumstances, because, as he said, we want to provide something that can be used for any purpose -including Commercial use.--GordonWatts 04:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I just read your talk page, Revolución (talk), and it seems your reply to a simple notification shows that you don't fully understand the policy. I quote, "Are they being used for commercial purposes?! I ask you, am I selling the images? F*ck off whoever you are. This is clearly for informational purposes." I don't like strict copyright laws any more than you do, but Wikipedia has to follow them none-the-less. And going around telling other wikipedians to f-off is not a good way of getting any sympathy. --Quasipalm 13:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, it might well not have been published until later. --fvw* 04:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- If it is truly an early 1900s photo it is quite probably in the public ___domain via expired copyright. Re-uplaod and tag as {{pd-old}} or one of the related templates, if the facts justify this. DES (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
NPOV; not forum for commercial promotion or bashing
First, let me say how many times I have found great, concise, organized information here!!! This project is an inspirational example of human collaboration.
Second, let me point out for the record that I was the founder of a company mentioned below, but I no longer have financial interest or association with that field.
Third, I believe the issue I am raising here might be commonplace, so I hope this discussion will be helpful for the whole project. Or if it has already been addressed, please point or advise... but I didn't find anything in my search so far.
The issue relating to NPOV is this: articles that promote one company or it's products and fault another. Please see these examples taken as a set:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchpad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirque_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alps_Electric_Corporation
Am I correct thinking that statements like
- "Most other companies tend to use Synaptics for their better features and drivers."
are not appropriate?
I imagine great temptation by marketing departments to use thinly-disguised articles for promotion. This could result in endless edit-wars or other nonsense. Further, one "side" might bring significant commercial dollars and marketing agenda to bear, overwhelming volunteer efforts to set things straight. Has this issue been addressed?
What about detailed comparison of product features, customer-service anecdotes, and so on? They aren't likely to fit the NPOV criteria. Is there a blanket prohibition against such topics? Being a newbie, as well as a previously-related party, I didn't think it right to jump in and make massive edit changes. What is a general solution in such a situation?
Thanks and best regards for the work so far, 67.182.252.213 04:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC) George Gerpheide, founder, Cirque Corporation
...... minor formatting fix by Hoary 07:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm happy that you find WP generally worthwhile and sorry to read of this. Although I'm not familiar with these products, I too smell something very fishy indeed about the way in which the three articles are worded. (Any one of them smells a bit off; the combination of the three very much so.)
- Smaller companies certainly do use WP for their marketing purposes. Often they try to convince other editors that they're helping WP by giving it useful information. Perhaps some of them have been in their jobs so long they even convince themselves that this is so. I haven't noticed larger companies doing this; the tendency instead is for fans to act as unpaid PR agents and to gush on the larger companies' behalf.
- I'm sorry but I don't think there is a simple answer. You're right to raise the issue here, both the wider issue and the particular issue. Please don't add detailed comparisons of product features, let alone customer-service anecdotes (which would probably be dismissed as "original research"). Be patient for a few days while others contribute suggestions here or instead fix those pages. -- Hoary 07:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Chit-Chat Style Edits, "Disgusting Edits", etc.
I have ran into two instances where this one guy edited the Motorola i930 page by just inserting the words "SUCK A PENIS" and another guy just adding Chit-Chat to the article. I have had it with "Genital Edits" (i.e. Suck a Penis), which I call "Article Crapping" and Chit-Chat Style Edits (Adding personal comments and/or anything considered Chit-Chat) and I have made it clear on the Motorola i930 discussion page that all chit-chatting belongs to the Wikipedia Sandbox and that "Article Crapping" would be dealt with harshly. Can you make it policy that all chit-chat style edits can only be posted on the Sandbox AND that Article Crapping (i.e. writing either Penis, or some Genital Reference on an article, considered vandalism, but I call that "Article Crapping") will NOT be tolerated? Thanks. — Vesther 17:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- We already have policy against vandalism; repeated (or single acts of extreme) vandalism is a bannable offence. I'm not sure what else you think we should make policy... Shimgray | talk | 17:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
What's the policy on new articles like Nazi moon base? Are they so over the top and non-credible that we just leave them be in their own little wikipedian twilight? Does it seem true that even touching an article like that, to add a disclaimer or whatever, could damage WP's credibility more than ignoring it? Or should it be AfD'd or speedied as nonsense or patent nonsense? Wyss 18:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm.... well, it's obvious crackpottery. But then so are things like Aetherometry, which has been embroiled in an edit war for a long time over how to categorize it (i.e. pseudoscience), and other items. Not sure what the best tack is. Some folks think it's better to have these articles so that they can also be debunked within the text. This one seems particularly over the top, though. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think I have heard of this before and it is a real area of conspiracy theory. If so, it should be documented like everything else in an NPOV, NOR, verifiable fashion. ~~ N (t/c) 18:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure to laugh or cry, but this topic was previously deleted by consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazi moon base), and this appears to be a totally independent recreation. Dragons flight 18:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Can someone please explain????
I WAS SENT AN ARTICLE BY A FRIEND OF MINE, CLICKED ON THE LINK, THEN GOT THIS!
IN THE PAST, I HAVE USED WIKIP. FOR CHILDREN'S HOMEWORK BUT HAVE NEVER ALTERED ANY TEXT - CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN? THANKS PLEASE EMAIL <email address removed, see history if you want it>
User:195.93.21.65 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You have new messages. This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:195.93.21.65"
- You are seeing this message because you are browsing from the same dynamic IP address that another user used to edit from. See the purple box at User talk:195.93.21.65 -
This IP address, Village pump (policy), is registered to cache-los-ac01.proxy.aol.com and is shared by multiple users. Comments left on this page may be received by other users of this IP and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking.
If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that this need not necessarily be the IP address of your machine. In many cases, it turns out to be the IP address of a proxy server that communicates between your browser and the Wikimedia servers. Such proxies are shared among a huge number of users compared to the number of persons using your particular machine. If you are frustrated by irrelevant comments appearing here, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself.
.
- Even if you do not want to edit the encyclopaedia, there are many benefits of creating an account. Thryduulf 13:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Note also that leaving your email address on this site is a VERY bad idea, and most people will respond here rather than by email anyway. DES (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
can you have discussion on "discussion pages"?
i wrote something that was definitely opinionated on the discussion page of the Billie Joe Armstrong article. mind you this was on the discussion page, not the article. A zealous wikipedian soon thereafter reverted my edits on the discussion page to the previous version. In the edit summary, this wikipedian cited the policy of wikipedia not being a discussion forum (the exact edit summary read: Revert "sold out". WP:NOT a discussion forum.). Now wikipedia articles are obviously not to be used as discussion forums, i understand that very well, but am I right in saying that it is ok to have discussions and state opinions on the discussion page? if someone could tell me what the correct interpretation of policy is in this case, i would appreciate it. If i'm wrong, i will gladly admit it, but right now, I'm not sure.--Alhutch 18:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The answer is "yes, but. . ." (from Wikipedia:Talk page):
- On Wikipedia, the purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the main page, from an encyclopedic point of view. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play.
- Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into another H2G2 or Everything2. See also: Wikiquette
HTH. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thanks for the help. i was wrong.--Alhutch 19:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
What does "if it is disputed" mean for non-notable bios?
A couple months ago, the community approved adding:
- A7: An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. For details, see Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles.
to the criteria for speedy deletion.
There have been a number of problems with this, but for the moment, I would like to just focus on one. What does If the assertion is disputed or controversial actually mean? I can come up with at least three different situations where it might apply, and I would like to get a sense of what the community actually means/wants.
- Disputes over the factual validity of the notablity assertions.
- Disputes over whether the given assertions are sufficiently notable to be encyclopedic.
- Adjusted standards for undeletion and submitting to AFD.
In my experience, I think nearly everyone agrees with point #1. That is to say, nearly everyone agrees that questioning the truth of someone's biography is something that needs the discussion that AFD brings rather than speedy deletion. Points 2 and 3 are more uncertain. Some people, myself included, believe that any article which attempts to explain why the subject is significant or important deserves a hearing at AFD, even if someone might judge that the claims are not notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. The examples I would give are articles containing claims like: "John Smith is a star quarterback and three time MVP of his regional high school football league." and "Jane Doe is a regional supervisor for Big Time Pharmaceuticals responsible for 200 distributors and $24.5 million in product sales last year." In each case, I would say that articles like this are trying to assert notability, though in neither case do I generally believe such a person is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. In my opinion, since articles like these are trying to establish notability they deserve to be sent to AFD. Other admins simply judge that such persons are not sufficiently notable and speedy them, citing the criterion above. In my mind, disputes about how notable is notable, is one of the things that the criterion expected to be sent to AFD.
The third point above relates to what "disputed or controversial" should mean after the fact. If admin BioKiller decides that Sally Somebody's biography is not notable and it gets deleted before anyone has a chance to protest, what happens now? Should VFU be the place for arguing that it is notable and to get it restored? If so, should it still require a consensus for undeletion even though there was never an established consensus for deleting it? What about cases of "Whoops, I can make her sound more notable if you allow me to expand the article"? AFD allows people time for improvments, but that is substantially harder to do at VFU. In the alternative, should articles speedied as non-notable bios be undeleted and sent to AFD whenever someone asks? (Or perhaps anyone other than the main author?)
Thanks to everyone is advance for giving feedback on these issues. Dragons flight 19:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion is meant as a shortcut, not a method of resolving disagreements. It basicly goes for all CSDs: If someone makes a good-faith remark that they disagree with the assessment as a speedy, you take it to AfD. --fvw* 19:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- That is a very interesting opinion, but obviouly not how the system presently works. I would offer as example the fact there are presently three speedy deletions being discussed on VFU each with a 15-0 undelete vote and yet some people say the process ought to continue for a full week. Dragons flight 19:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- I've seen people disagree with speedies that very clearly fit the definition, though. So while I agree with what fvw said as a general rule, it doesn't always work. An unrelated problem with the above is that it requires us to assume intent on the part of the author. We can speculate about whether the author intended to assert notability, but at the end of the day we have to base decisions on the actual content. Some people see "John Smith has been a plumber for 15 years" as an assertion of notability, as strange as that sounds to most of us. Friday (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, well how about a standard that if you can find any admin willing to undelete
ita speedy then it should be undeleted and sent to AFD? Dragons flight 19:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)- No. That suggestion was recently made at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#AfD challenge and shouted down. It's bad because it encourages admins to straightforwardly overrule one another. There is nothing wrong with waiting your 5 days at VfU. Patience is a virtue and discussion an antidote to feeling overruled and insulted. You'll find an admin who'll undelete most anything: asking one person's opinion is nowhere close to as good as asking the community's. I think this idea would lead to wheel wars that could be easily avoided. Additionally, it means that 'mere editors' must ask nicely to get something done, whilst 'admins' can do it because they feel like it. I can't think of any particularly good reason why that differentiation should be entrenched. -Splashtalk 22:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I was unaware of that thread, and am not surprised that it would get shouted down since it called for (among other things) abolishing VFU (at VFU talk, no less). I'm not suggesting that (though I realize my use of the pronoun "it" might have been confusing). I am only suggesting that speedies be subject to a rule that if any admin thinks it is worth discussion then they can undelete it and send it to AFD for a proper discussion. A suggestion that you seemed to be okay with a few days ago: "To a certain extent, I wouldn't mind so much if disputed speedies were taken to AfD instead ..." (your comment to that same thread you linked :-) ). Dragons flight 22:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- To a certain extent, yes, although my original version of the yellow box included speedies and that does remain my preference. Although by way of seeking compromise there, I was prepared to consider speedies out-of-scope. This is because the question of a valid speedy rests on content not process, whereas the question of a valid AfD is process not content (for the larger part). Note that the content of speedies is often provided as part of the VfU discussion anyway. But at least the article remains in the state rendered to it by one admin while we all have a to-and-fro about their actions. It doesn't require one admin to say "nope, you're wrong, and I'm right". The fact is, in the 600 admins you'll find one who'll undelete anything because they dislike all the speedy criteria, or are having a difficult day, or whatever. Saying "don't fight" has to be better than saying "only throw one punch". -Splashtalk 22:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I was unaware of that thread, and am not surprised that it would get shouted down since it called for (among other things) abolishing VFU (at VFU talk, no less). I'm not suggesting that (though I realize my use of the pronoun "it" might have been confusing). I am only suggesting that speedies be subject to a rule that if any admin thinks it is worth discussion then they can undelete it and send it to AFD for a proper discussion. A suggestion that you seemed to be okay with a few days ago: "To a certain extent, I wouldn't mind so much if disputed speedies were taken to AfD instead ..." (your comment to that same thread you linked :-) ). Dragons flight 22:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- No. That suggestion was recently made at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#AfD challenge and shouted down. It's bad because it encourages admins to straightforwardly overrule one another. There is nothing wrong with waiting your 5 days at VfU. Patience is a virtue and discussion an antidote to feeling overruled and insulted. You'll find an admin who'll undelete most anything: asking one person's opinion is nowhere close to as good as asking the community's. I think this idea would lead to wheel wars that could be easily avoided. Additionally, it means that 'mere editors' must ask nicely to get something done, whilst 'admins' can do it because they feel like it. I can't think of any particularly good reason why that differentiation should be entrenched. -Splashtalk 22:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, well how about a standard that if you can find any admin willing to undelete
"If it's disputed" means what it says. If someone disagrees. Remember that any administrator can undelete an article that was deleted out of process, and sending to AfD would be a good thing to do in the case of a serious dispute. There is a gray area where an administrator may want to let VFU decide, but in practice AfD is much better at this kind of decision, not only because VFU has tended to get bogged down in process, but because on AfD the article can always be seen and edited . fvw's comment is a correct statement of policy, although not all administrators follow, or are even aware, of policy. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that deletion and undeletion are seen as a "big deal". (Technically, only admins can do these things, so I assume that's part of the reason why.) What if these actions were viewed as being closer to "just another edit"? Granted, they're major fairly edits. Still, the worst that would happen is, one person deletes an article, then another person strongly disagrees and undeletes it. At this point, at least it's obvious that it's a controversial issue. If there's still disagreement, rather than engaging in an edit war, interested parties stop and talk it out. After all, everyone follows the one revert rule, right? Isn't this how normal content disputes should be handled? Why not handle delete/undelete disputes the same way? Friday (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Not suprisignly i disagree with both User:Tony Sidaway and User:Dragons flight here. I have always understood the "If" caluse to mean "If there is an assertion of notability but you disagree with its accuracy take the matter to VfD/AfD" as AfD is better suited to setter factual disputes. it is not always beter suited to settle policy issues, which is what the qusttion "What kind of statement constitutes a calim of notability" is. Dragons flight says that if anyone disagees with tagging a particualr article that makes the application of the tag "disputed" and the matter should go to AfD. I would say "not always". Insofar as there is a clear policy consensus, a single person objecting to the application of that consensus does not make the kind of dispute that AfD is needed for. "Joe is a really neat guy" is pretty close to the classic example of an nn-bio as described in the original proposal for A7. But soemone might claim that there are too few "neat guys" so being one is notable. IMO that "dispute need not go to AfD. DES (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC) IMO "Fred is a good plumber" or "Jane is a first rate professor of history" are no more claims of notability than is "Joe is a really neat guy", and no more create a need to go to AfD, even if soemone disputes this. I tried to lay out in considerable detail what i thought the implications of A7 are, and to get some general policy consenses on what is and waht is not a "claim of notability" at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Interpretation of WP:CSD A7 (non-notable bios). This discussion had slowed, but not IMO stopped, when it was recently archived. i have just restorted it from the archives, and i suggest that further discussion move there, as this may pe a larger and linger discussion than the pump easily supports, and should ultimately be archived alonge with WP:CSD in my view. I do hope this excahnge here at the pump will lead to greater participation in the discussion there, (I had announced that on the pump before, but not so well phrased to attract attention). I thank Dragons flight for calling renewed attention to this issue, which i agree is important, and i agree should be setteled by a wide consensus. DES (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)