Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:51, 16 January 2012

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

• WP:VPP

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

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

For large contributors

i believe that large contributors would be greatly appreciative of a program on their computer which self help learning environment which teaches you about things you are interested in from wikipedia by reading articles to you and asking what you are interested in learning more about and whatnot. i would if i were to contribute like to receive something out of it a mass produced downloadable wikipedia tool program would be REALLY cool though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.239.45 (talk • contribs)

Growth by forking

One thing that has bothered me for some time is that we're experiencing a proliferation of "cheap" text - text is just copied from one article to another, such as this, while other text that may provide more information grows at a much smaller rate. Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages is silent on this. To me, there are several problems with this:

1. Readability: Texts become TLDR.
2. Cost of redundancy: We, as a community, need to care for twice the number of text in different locations.
3. Hidden forks: If one occurrence gets changed, and the change is a good one, then it is likely that it gets missed in the other copy, since there is nothing in the article that informs of that other occurrence. (If the change is a bad one, then it's probably a wash since the likelihood for it to occur may decrease at a similar rate as the rate for it to be caught.)
4. Maintenance: Even if some editor notices it, it will require some time from that editor to assess how similar the occurrences are, and what part of the change should be carried over.

Am I the only one seeing that as a problem? — Sebastian 23:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

To alleviate some of this, I wonder if a mechanism using Transclusion can be put in place to bring fragments from one article to another when appropriate, yet maintain it in one place. On the other hand, I think it is important to use a summary section in a "parent" article and point for the rest in the {{main}} article. Inevitably, some information will always be repeated among related articles who reference each other. This always should happen since you never know where in the graph of articles the WP users start to read. It is not an easy problem, but ultimately it is a balancing act. Of course, copy-pasting large chunks of test among articles is not a good idea. There are also some suggested procedures for splitting. Also, it should be technically feasible to have bots who look for duplicated chunks of text across multiple articles. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Latitude and Longitude coordinates

Most articles now have the map coordinates of a relevant location in the upper right. Usually, a couple of clicks on that link will take you to a detailed Google satellite map of the location. The problem: when studying landing spots of my recent trip to Antarctica, I find these links sometimes miss the mark by miles. Example: Almirante Brown Antarctic Base. The cited location of 64°51' S, 62°54' W, or 64.85° S, 62.9° W, is three and a half miles northwest of the Google satellite map location where the buildings are located: 64.895° S, 62.870° W. You would have a difficult time finding the buildings using the cited location. I went ahead and fixed the link, but I wonder if the Google coordinate system is always reliable, especially at extreme latitudes.

Thanks for any comments. HowardMorland (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really a policy issue. If the problem is not with the coordinates on the article (and I get the distinct impression that you've checked and fixed them), it's likely to be with the way that calculations are applied to those coordinates. Strictly speaking, you should bring the matter up at the discussiontalk page for the template which performs those calculations. The template used in the External links section of Almirante Brown Antarctic Base is {{coord}} (for which the discussiontalk page is Template talk:Coord), but that template is not necessarily buggy in itself - it could be a bug in one of the external mapping services. I think the best place to ask is at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates where there are specialists in such matters. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Mass transferring of files to commons by bot

At first I was not bothered by the process. However, it has become disruptive, it is being done with a complete lack of judgment and no human error checking, and it is not productive to me, the uploader, in any way. Recently, bots have started massively transferring files to Commons. This is often done abruptly and the images are then deleted from wiki. Unfortunately the bots tag EVERYTHING. Every single file, unless you manually add a template to block bots, will be tagged. This is disruptive, and a waste of my time to keep my eye out for vagrant bots.

I want this to stop. Files should be transferred manually by a human who has used their brain to determine that the file indeed serves a purpose on Commons.

I upload my files here. I do not care for commons and the flaming blockades shoved in front of photographers kind enough to offer their material. I do not want my files transferred. I do not want my watchlist to suddenly be missing the items I'm tracking because of some drive to propagate the lesser used site with material. I do not want to be chasing files that are clearly for use on wikiprojects, because the system blocks files being uploaded here with the same name as a commons file. The lack of a csd author on Commons means it takes whatever arbitrary length of time deletion discussions there last.

This bot transferring is not being down correctly, and it should never have begun in the first place. Takes me back to the days of BetaCommandBot. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 14:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're talking about BotMultichill (talk · contribs)? I raised the issue on their talk page but they seem to care about moving them all rather then getting it right the first time. I'm not going to be helping cleaning up the mess on Commons. But if you freely upload photographs onto Misplaced Pages, you must expect that it will be transferred to Wikimedia Commons. Bidgee (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In my case it was User:Fbot, but essentially the same things seem to fly with that one as well. Normally I expect my photos to be transferred if I don't tag them with {{keep local}}, but some files are just blatantly meant for wikipedia alone, such as this one. Some human discretion is needed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 15:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"Why is this one not appropriate for Commons? It is licensed appropriately, and while it is not used on any Misplaced Pages pages, the "Description = A map showing the current status of The Ontario roads WikiProject, indicating the highest status article by county." indicates it would probably be appropriate for use on other language wiki's. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing, that file looks perfectly acceptable for moving to commons. All images that meet commons standards should eventually move there. There really shouldn't be any images that meet commons standards that aren't moved. -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Occasionally Fair Use is appropriate on a wiki, though very seldom on Commons. Other then these I agree no reason to keep on Misplaced Pages if it can be hosted on Commons. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons do not accept fair use images under any circumstances. All images on commons must be free use. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that {{keep local}} doesn't prevent the copying to commons, but to prevent the deletion of the en.wiki version. As soon as you have put that CC license on the work, copying to commons can be done by anyone (as long as attribution is provided); that's the whole point of the CC license. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are my image uploads to English Misplaced Pages. Although all of them have commons-compatible licenses (they are CC-BY-SA 3.0), I am certain that none of them are useful anywhere other than on en.wp, because they are used on discussion pages to illustrate a problem, which is why I uploaded them here. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see why you think those images are useless outside of en.wiki. One identifies a feature on a horizontal scrollbar: couldn't that be useful for anyone trying to explain the concept of a scrollbar? Another shows what a diff looks like. Couldn't that be useful to anyone running MediaWiki software and trying to write a Help:Diff kind of page? I think you are underestimating the value of the images you have created. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between screenshots posted to illustrate a problem and images uploaded to illustrate a subject. One is often copy-pasted into Paint and saved as a low-quality jpeg. The other is designed to illustrate the subject effectively. Only the latter is meant for community use; the former to help with a specific discussion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 21:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your doubt that anyone besides WP:ONRD would find File:ONRD status by division.svg useful. But there are some users who think that every single image that can possibly be moved to Commons should be, even images where any use anywhere outside of enwiki or discussions of enwiki is extremely unlikely. Some of these same users like to claim that a free image is "orphaned" when it would meet the WP:CSD#F5 criteria were it non-free, leading to ridiculousness like Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2012 January 9#File:Unicode 2400 Chrome Ubuntu.png. But it seems pointless to try to argue with them. I just place {{KeepLocal}} on such images so we won't be harmed if Commons decides to agree with us and deletes them without warning (I, for one, don't trust claims that Commons would never delete something that was in use on another project).

If they transfer an image to Commons and F8 it that you would rather be kept here, go ahead and request undeletion so {{KeepLocal}} can be placed on it. And if they refuse or ignore you, feel free to ask me. Anomie⚔ 17:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 21:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I sympathize. When I first started uploading images here, I was only interested in contributing to Misplaced Pages. I didn't want to have to learn and keep tabs on a watchlist on a whole other site for images that I added to articles here. Took me at least a couple years to get over that, and to see the benefit of not only having a database of images far larger than those currently in use in articles, but also of me being the one to upload them to Commons instead of a bot.

Do you know what would be nice? A unified cross-project watchlist. postdlf (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that would certainly be a nice feature. It's actually been requested since 2005. Meanwhile there are some external tools (, ) that can be used to maintain a crosswiki watchlist. Jafeluv (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Would it be useful if the Misplaced Pages Upload file page, had an option to upload a file to either Misplaced Pages or Commons, with a short guideline? What makes a file suitable for Misplaced Pages or Commons? --Iantresman (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, images should be uploaded to commons, unless they fall outside their project scope. Fair-use images are among the images prohibited at Commons, and these should be uploaded to Misplaced Pages instead. Copyrighted images for which the fair use criteria do not apply cannot be uploaded to either Commons or Misplaced Pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, some images that I uploaded to Commons were intended for use in a single en-WP article, but you might be surprised at who finds images in Commons useful. I will admit to feeling a bit of a thrill to see my name credited on a photo in the online Britannica. :) If you don't want images you create available outside of en-WP, don't upload them. -- Donald Albury 15:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Bold Revert Discuss

Next to WP:POINT, I figure WP:BRD is the most mis-quoted policy/guideline/essay page on wikipedia. People often quote it to mean the exact opposite of what it means!

1. Discuss, Discuss, Discuss is not productive. Don't do that!
2. Bold, Bold, Bold is productive. Do that!
3. In Bold, Revert, Discuss; "Discuss" doesn't mean Discuss the topic, your feelings, or the unseasonably cool weather in hell this year. It means: hold a focused discussion on how to get back to being Bold! (and conclude that discussion as quickly as practical)

More detail: Wikipedia_talk:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#This_seems_overly_complicated

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You tagged on to a discussion from February of 2011. I'd suggest starting a new discussion on that page instead, though I disagree with your premise. (Addendum): I've archived the old discussions on that page (from 2008 – 2010), so feel free to start a new discussion there and link it here. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You (correctly, imho :) left that discussion in-tact. I disagree on starting a new discussion, when the old one is just fine. That'd be silly bureaucratism! --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, apparently I didn't archive the 2011 stuff like I meant to. Regardless, it's not "silly bureaucratism," it's trying to keep discussions on-topic and relevant. It also means discussions start at the bottom of the page, where people look for them, rather than constantly rehashing old topics.

As to your topic, I disagree. BRD was meant to deal with a problem, namely edit-warring. The point is to stop reverting, and start discussing why there is a disagreement, rather than getting into a pointless revert-war. "Bold" isn't the point, stopping a revert-war is. — The Hand That Feeds You: 23:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, the page needs some editing again. The point I was originally trying to get across is that you're trying to find the right people to talk to by exploiting a property of the consensus system (to wit: the procedures used when reverting, which are documented in other places (currently the page seems to redundantly rehash some aspects of those procedures, this could be trimmed)).

The point of starting the discussion is to get to a situation where everyone trusts each other enough again to be able to resume regular editing.

You're supposed to get around to making that new edit as quickly as possible (though no quicker than possible, of course). Because having everyone edit in good faith happens to be what a wiki is all about. ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This is all valid observation, though only up to a point, I think - there are some situations (a minority, but still) where things have to be hashed out between multiple editors on the talk page, and further editing on the contentious point (particularly editing simply in order to find out who reverts you) would be considered unhelpful and even disruptive. (Though on the other hand, an innovative edit might be just what it takes to break the impasse.) This is why I would like to deal with all these points - boldness, reverting, (not) edit warring, discussion, consensus,... - all together on one or two pages; because having separate pages for each of them makes them seem like separate topics, when in fact (as we can see from the amount of stuff that currently gets duplicated) they are all interconnected and essentially inseparable aspects of one, not particularly complex, "process".--Kotniski (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean something like this? ->

Now, PRECISELY at the point, in such a minority of situations, when you have to hash out things between multiple editors on the talk page, your objective is still, remains, and must only be to *get back to making an edit*. (although the route might be tortuous, and involve un-ruffling feathers, philosophical discussions, mediation, and/or drawing people a picture. )

And yes you have to do some things which appear slightly unhelpful, because they are unintuitive. And yes people might accuse you of WP:POINTyness. (But WP:POINT only applies if you are causing a netto disruption. If it's a disruption, but at the end of the day people are editing more prodcutively than they were before, then it wasn't a disruption ;-) )

Hence the warning, and need for diplomacy when applying this particular process. ;-)

Why is making an edit the objective? Well, because that's the mission. at the end of the day, we are wiki pedia. A wiki (a place where anyone can edit), to create an encyclopedia.

Especially when things get really really complex (and on wikipedia, they can get really complex really fast), you have to keep your eyes on the objective you started the day, week, or month with (which was to make that now-not-so-WP:BOLD edit. ;-) ) , else you're REALLY going to get lost.

Hmm, in the end I guess it doesn't matter what process you use precisely, as long as you objectively, solidly, work towards making that edit, step by step. BRD is one process which I've gotten to work rather often. Other people might have other approaches that also work. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You're starting from a false premise. "Making an edit" is not the goal of Misplaced Pages. Sometimes, the article needs to stay as-is. Don't edit for the sake of editing. — The Hand That Feeds You: 23:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Kim is speaking from the point of view of an editor who wants to change something. (If you don't want to change something, then the obvious course of action is to do nothing - I don't think we need an advice page to tell people that...)--Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've seen several editors stating that WP:BRD is an essay and not policy. Far as I'm concerned, if a bold edit (i.e. one that hasn't been agreed on the talk page first) is reverted, that edit doesn't have consensus and should be discussed on the talk page before being reinstated. At the very least that would be common courtesy. Anyone know why is BRD not policy? Daicaregos (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to consider the community involvement in the article, when considering WP:BOLD, making a comments on talk page about editing a specific article is only helpful if anyone is watching the talk page. Bold does not apply where there is an ongoing discussion about some part of an article. If you see something that needs fixed be bold and fix it, if a discussion is started by the bold edit, contribute to the discussion. An uninvolved editor though is under no obligation to check for discussion before making a change. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In a way, BRD is policy; it just happens to be described on the policy page called WP:Consensus. Part of the reason why I would like to combine all these disparate pages into a one-stop shop.--Kotniski (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

BRD is not an officially recognized policy because (AFAIK) nobody has ever made a WP:PROPOSAL that it be so declared and thereby established that there is a community consensus for calling it a policy.

I don't think that such a consensus will be found. Although BRD is a popular and often effective process, there are times when it is inappropriate (e.g., you aren't able to make a bold edit, so you can't start the BRD cycle). There are also an unfortunate number of people who have invoked BRD as a tool for POV pushing (e.g., "You aren't allowed to change the article because it violates BRD"). In the hands of an experienced, good-faith editor, BRD is a valuable process. In other circumstances, it is difficult. IMO we are better off keeping it as a "strictly optional" approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you check my history, you'll find that I feel that PROPOSALs is what you do to kill something, not to promote it.(this is also why WP:ATT failed: someone decided to run a vote on it, oops!)

Even then though, BRD is itself not policy, it's just a further clarification and application of Misplaced Pages:Consensus. So BRD is not a policy, but you'd better be aware that everything in there is policy. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of people here are saying "if you make a bold edit that gets reverted, you need to discuss" ... errr.... sort of. You do need to discuss as quickly as possible. But at the same time: once/if you're discussing, you need to get to the point where you can make a bold edit as quickly as possible!

If you want some deep background: It's all part of a set of feedback loops. The faster the loop runs, the more quickly you converge on consensus, and the quicker the article gains in quality and becomes more reliable. If you run the loop too slow, you might never converge on consensus.

And that brings us to the other thing: When working on consensus; you're supposed to converge on a particular point, not revert back and forth, or make greater and greater changes. Try to answer an edit with another edit.

Which brings us to a third thing, which is that making edits to the page is an essential part of the consensus process. That's how the software is set up (with watchlists and diffs and everything). Make maximal use of the software, by incorporating editing in your consensus gathering. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC) These are all short points, but I could give an entire lecture on each, if I wanted ;-)

I get the feeling that if these are the points that you want to emphasize, you might be better choosing another title for your essay (WP:Discussion is a waste of time or something). With it being called (or at least abbreviated) BRD, it's natural that people assume it means that after a revert (R), the remainder of the process must consist purely of discussion (D), which actually seems to be the viewpoint that you're arguing against.--Kotniski (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course discussion is not a waste of time, but it's not the end of the process either. It's a *cyclic* process. You're supposed to go back to editing!

In practice: If you look at edit history+talk on a particular wiki-page, one very typical pattern you'll see is a bit like this: bold->bold->bold->bold->revert->discuss->bold->revert->discuss->bold->bold->bold->bold->bold->revert->discuss->bold->revert->discuss->bold->bold->bold->bold->bold

But all that is not even the point of the essay on the BRD page.

I guess we could retitle the page to something like "A note on how to exploit aspects of the consensus process to mediate, moderate and repair itself" , or so. The idea of the essay on BRD is when a page starts to look like bold->revert->revert->revert->discuss->discuss->discuss->discuss->discuss->discuss.... (aka, things are a bit b0rked), you can fix things!

At the same time, I recognize that there is very little description of the short and long cycles anywhere at all, and we might want to write more about those.  :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Tagging

Is there any policy regarding fly-by tagging? I've observed a couple of anon IPs (same range, probably same person) zipping through a load of articles throwing in unref'd and cn's, sometimes carelessly, as they are often tagging leads and infoboxes where the main body will be cited instead. Not sure how to proceed? Ma®©usBritish  19:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Referred to ANI - reply no longer required. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish  23:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability Policy

New here, so please excuse if this is not the proper place to discuss concerns about Notability and related policies. Seeing as how every biography will face this question, what should be done when there seems to be so much room for interpretation on Notability? A recent deletion discussion came to "no Concensus." It was a heated debate. Both sides of the issue were quoting a lot of the same policies, interpreting them very differently. It wasn't just one or two; there were many who felt strongly that certain policies supported their opposite sides of the debate. I'm sure it is a huge process to rewrite Policies, but shouldn't this have a further look? Possibly, subcategories of Biographies need to be better defined and their notability requirements then made more clear? An important outcome of clarifying guidelines would be less time arguing and more time editing. Thanks. Petersontinam (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

First, notability is (and likely never will be) policy. It's a guideline, meaning that there's more interpretation and, at times WP:IAR-applications of it. It will always be subjective depending on the topic, the people you ask, and, in some cases, whether it's raining outside. You will likely never get the same answer twice regarding a topic's notability.

But as for using notability, if there is discussions that are split and come to "no consensus" on whether the topic is notable, we generally retain the article on that person; deletion is a very last resort, so unless consensus clearly supports that, we don't delete articles where the opinions on its notability are divided. A topic that is retained by "no consensus" can be challenged later, but editors are discouraged from doing this so blatantly after such a conclusion. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response. I understand how you are clarifying to me that notability is a guideline, and not a policy. I guess that in the discussion I was referencing, that particular word was mentioned so often it seemed the the only important gauge. Also, thank you for explaing further about "no concensus." Petersontinam (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is a policy, and anything that fails Misplaced Pages:Notability probably fails WP:V (there are of course exceptions). JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The exceptions are two: occasionally, a subject will pass WP:V but still fail Notability (="fail to qualify for its own, separate, standalone article") either because it is prohibited by WP:NOT (another major policy) or because it fails to meet the approval of editorial judgment (=editors decide that the subject is best off WP:MERGEd into some larger article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree with that analysis, I think that their scope and requirements are different. WP:ver says that all material must be verifiable, wp:notability requires that the subject receive a certain type of coverage in sources. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can't find sufficient sources to meet WP:V it makes it difficult to meet WP:N, there are no absolutes. As the requirements for WP:V sources are rather stringent. In general if an article fails one it will fail the other. In cases where it only fails one, the out come would be different, content that is notable but not verifiable should be removed (i.e. WP:BLP), while content that is verifiable but not notable, may be merged into an article on a notable parent topic. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

For notability more than just verifiability is required. The subject has to be discussed in some detail in a secondary source. Secondary sources where a third party talk about the subject are what gives notability. Dmcq (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• If it were possible to write up a bright-line rule for notability, I think we would have managed to do it by now. What we have is a speedy deletion criterion for articles that fail to even claim notability. For everything else we discuss it. I know it may seem like a pain sometimes, but there is just no way to codify specifically where the bar of notability lies. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Nor should we. There are certain subjects that we simply (and rightly, in my view) have decided we should cover so long as they are verifiable (named populated places, nationally-elected officials, species...) regardless of whether it can be demonstrated up front that they pass GNG, whether you characterize that as an assumption that the topic eventually will satisfy GNG; that its coverage in census records, election records, etc., effectively satisfies GNG, or whether you simply accept the honest fact that GNG is a guideline that is at best a rough proxy for ensuring that insignificant and unverifiable subjects are excluded and does not always dictate a desired result. postdlf (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Regarding the speedy deletion comment made earlier if that is a reference to WP:A7 that covers articles without a claim of importance and it is clearly listed that it is a lower bar than notability.--70.24.206.51 (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

yes, indeed. We have consistently avoided listing notability in this criterion in order to avoid just this confusion. Many, many , things of of some reasonable plausible importance are less than notable, and will need to be deleted via Prod or AfD, or at least merged. About half our deleted articles are so obviously unsuitable that they can be safely deleted by Seedy, but the other half require a community decision. Notability can be so subjective that no single admin should be judging it without a chance of community input. But some things, like the classical examples here of corner groceries or bands that have never recorded a record, can be judged by any person who understands our policies. DGG ( talk ) 09:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Locking pages unlikely to change

What do you think about being able to lock pages that are unlikely to change for example an article on a sports tournament that mostly consists of a table of results. If it is considered more or less complete it could be locked to avoid vandalism and edits could be suggested through the talk page where they can be considered by the community. --178.208.207.204 (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is never complete, not even single articles. The protection policy forbids pre-emptive protection. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The question was what do we think, not what does policy say at the moment. (I'm quite supportive of the idea, and have said so in previous discussions concerning similar suggestions. It will probably only happen - if at all - if people at Board level finally wake up to the fact that they're hosting 21st-century humankind's de facto principal source of knowledge, rather than a gaming website.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

An article may be "complete", but that doesn't mean it can't be expanded even further. A simple list with the results of a sports tournament may be expanded with background info, rearranged as needed, and perhaps nominated for featured list. Besides, there are edits made from time to time which are not related to the article itself but to the structure built around them: add, remove or replace photos, categories, templates, links to other articles (or fix them when they point to DABs or to the wrong article), interwikis, links to other wikimedia projects, etc. Cambalachero (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, per what has already been said. Also, protecting a page is not something we actually want to do, it is something we do only in response to a demonstrable problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're just stating what the position is at the moment. It might well be beneficial to do it in anticipation of a possible problem, when there's no particular reason to suppose there will be much constructive editing going on in the near future. And of course locking a page doesn't mean it's finally complete - just means that making further changes will involve a little more hassle (and the page can always be unlocked again if that seems appropriate).--Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with citing current position as an argument if one thinks it is the best option. The question was what do we think, and I personally think the position at the moment should remain. In this case, I cannot invent another argument, just because my argument is already documented. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

But saying "this is the case" is no argument for the position that this "should" be the case.--Kotniski (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone is supposed to be able to edit any page at any moment, we only lock pages when forced to, and we unlock as soon as possible:

• It is one of basic principles of the project since the start. It's part of Misplaced Pages:Editing policy since it was first drafted in October 2001 "It is very nice when someone adds a complete, well-written, final draft of an article to Misplaced Pages. This should never be discouraged. However, one great advantage of the Wiki system is that incomplete, poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. If this does give our system an advantage over other systems of producing similar end-products, then it would be very wise and desirable to encourage this process as much as possible. ", Larry Sanger copy edited this text later in February 2002. And meta:Protected_pages_considered_harmful exists since January 2003.
• It is one of the main reasons that it became "21st-century humankind's de facto principal source of knowledge" in the first place. I was going to cite Jimbo or some scholar study, but, hey, we already say it ourselves in Misplaced Pages:Why_Wikipedia_is_so_great#Editing.
• Misplaced Pages is a wiki, and What is a wiki explains "A wiki is a collection of interlinked web pages, each of which can be visited and edited by anyone at anytime." since its creation in May 2002. The original definition of a wiki includes the editing of any page as part of its philosophical content: "Wiki is a piece of server software that allows users to freely create and edit Web page content using any Web browser. (...) Like many simple concepts, "open editing" has some profound and subtle effects on Wiki usage. Allowing everyday users to create and edit any page in a Web site is exciting in that it encourages democratic use of the Web and promotes content composition by nontechnical users.".
• Cambalachero already cited some reasons for not protecting pages, there are some more reasons at Misplaced Pages:Perennial_proposals#Protect_featured_articles.

If we change that practice, Misplaced Pages will stop being a wiki, and we will have removed one of the reasons that made it successful in the first place. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Weeell.. of course if we locked down every page, then it would stop being a wiki, but that's not the proposal. And if you look at Sanger's words, you'll see he refers to masterpieces and end-products. Which implies that there is a stage at which we can consider an article to be an "end product" - and once that stage is reached, there's no longer any reason to maintain the processes that allowed it to become an end product. (And of course the decision is always reversible, so it's not such a big deal - we already have thousands of pages protected for other reasons.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Observational Comment - This is an interesting theory, and my first gut reaction was, Whoa, we don't preemptively protect pages, thats against policy. Yet my second reaction was, Why not protect pages that have no reasonable reason to change in the near future? Its a simple question. Yes we can quote policy and guidelines and act lick we are so smart for be able to do so, or we can have a rationale intelligent discussion that could lead to some real thought and perhaps some useful change. Yes no article is complete, but that is why we have edit requests. perhaps we should test this idea out on a few articles for a few months and look to see if it works or not. Perhaps on a few older olympic events. Articles very unlikely to have anything constructive added. The alternative with some of these sporting event articles, is that some of them are on very few editors "watchlists", and as such, have higher potential to not be corrected when incorrect information is added. So, in reality, this discussion is about changing the current guidelines on page protection.--JOJ 14:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@Kotniski & Hutton. I wasn't quoting policy, I was quoting the basic philosophy of this project: a quick-changing website where anyone can change any page, without asking for any permission. Above, user Cambalachero has given a list of why it's a bad idea to protect pages. So, a) let's not imply that I was simply quoting existing policy b) let's not pretend that these changes can be done without seriously undermining one of the main success factors for the project.

If someone wants a more "serious" encyclopedia, where articles with no vandalism or editwarring problems can be "frozen" and you have to ask for permission to administrators, then that someone is better served by funding his own project with his own rules. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Reducing orphaned fair use file deletion dates to 5 days

Currently, orphaned fair use images can be deleted 7 days after the date they were tagged as such. I'm proposing this be reduced to 5 days. Many fair use images which are no longer used in articles are not added again within the 7 days, and hang around when they could be deleted. Being able to delete them after 5 days would reduce some of the time these types of files hang around. Cloudbound (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It also reduces the amount of time that someone who doesn't log in every day has the opportunity to correct. What does shaving the two days off do? There are categories that list the articles after 7 days so that they pop up on an admins radar, so its not as if someone is waiting patiently for 2 more days to go by to hit that delete button. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 17:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. No explanation of why this is beneficial is presented in the proposal. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This would be unfair to editors who only have time to spend here on weekends or whenever their day off might be. Seven days/one week is a more appropriate time cycle. Martin Morin (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Surely deleting them straight away would be even better -- no backlog, no hassle? The reason not to do that is to give editors time to deal with them. And 7 days is the right choice, mainly because of weekends. 12:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by H3llkn0wz (talk • contribs)

Online private donation history

Suggestion: allow a logged-in user to see their donation history, privately.

(I accidentally donated twice recently ... which is fine ... but not ...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki ctlow (talk • contribs) 14:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Child pornography

Please be aware that this very serious issue is now being addressed at http://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Village_pump#Child_Pornography at this time. KCBlackHole (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not ask your question here, rather than make people follow a link in order to see it? SMP0328. (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The user above has now deleted the thread they started above from Wikimedia Commons. Dcoetzee 06:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Policy regarding simple pages emotional discussions

A passing comment regarding policy. A quick look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Conditional statement (logic) reveals a clear case of "policy failure" which needs some remedy. I am not sure what the remedy may be, but wish there was a "fire engine" to call to come out and put out that type of fire.

The topic which is the subject of the debate is pretty simple and a "basic issue" in logic. The discussion is emotional and free of logic. There should be a way to ask the two people involved to step aside and let others fix this simple page. I will not touch that page while the fire rages, and there is no point in discussing the issues in that emotional environment. This situation needs a better policy for it is a basic topic. History2007 (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Interpretation of Template:MultiLicenseWithCC-BySA-Any

This template sounds confusing and contradictory to me. Is it actually possible to simultaneously license edits as both "Non-Commercial Share-Alike" and "Share-Alike" at the same time? They don't seem to be compatible licenses. Does someone know more about the history of this template and how it is intended to be used? --HappyCamper 07:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal regarding Article Rescue Squad

{Moved from AN/I by Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC))

An issue with an individual editor is better resoved by dealing with that editor and not taking an entire project to task. However, perception IS everything, and as much as there has been some really good work performed by its members in actually improving articles, the ARS refrained from setting up a hierarchy to oversee itself or guide its members. Lacking guidence, we thus have repeated ANIs about over-active members and MFDs about templates and their usage.

But "perception" IS definitely addressable. As the editors who were part of its original inception and design have gone on to other pursuits, it seems that NA1K has single-handedly and in good faith tried to tweak the project page for many months. And while I have avoided editing the project page, I think by being a bit bold and making the project page itself more formal and neutral will be of help in underscoring to its members that they should be proactive in improvements.

I dislike suggesting the setting up a hierarchy, but ARS essentially lacks guidence. I think serious consideration should be given toward there being at ARS, just as with other projects, coordinators who help set a moderate and constructive tone. See Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Proposal for ARS Project page redesign. I request and will respect input toward my proposal, but feel a bit of personal boldness in setting a more sturctured and moderate ARS will be of value to continued improvement of the encyclopedia. Opinions? Schmidt, 23:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Change the name. Perception is an issue, but "rescue" creates a certain mentality. How about Article Improvement Team? That said, there seems to be genuine concern above that more than one member seems to be simply going to articles and saying keep without improving the article or by making trivial improvements that don't address the issues. Despite the utopian view of AfD that we like to pretend to have, most admins do seem to just do a head count and 3 or 4 people could sway a lot of AfDs like that.--Crossmr (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A name change is something I had been myself considering. Revamping the ARS will need to entail the creation of a hierarchy (ouch!) of those willing to accept the responsibility of leading through example. Won't happen overnight, no... but definitely do-able, and well worth the effort.

I disagree that improper closes are performed by "most admins"... as an improper close is a matter for WP:DRV, and any admin who repeatedly closes AFDs improperly has their edits under close scrutiny and placed their admin tools at risk. Remember, WP:ANI is not only for non-admin-related issues... admins can be brought to task here just as can any other editor. Schmidt, 02:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

ARS members do a lot of good and the ARS is a good thing in itself. The point at which group needed co-ordination, or at that very least a plan to get things back on track has been, gone and disappeared from the rear-view mirror. At times in the past the group's message board has looked like an open house for those with a grievance due to some deletion process or another to come and have a whinge. Sometimes a romanticized view is presented of the ARS being a small group of battered soldiers huddling in a trench, valiantly guarding WP's content against a huge army of 'deletionists' who would tear it to ribbons. See comments on the rescue tag's deletion discussion for a couple of examples. It's not that the ARS necessarily encourages or even shares these views, but these are voices which shout loud and this paranoid and hostile vision is presented to potential members of the squadron. It isn't helped by the Squadron's underselling of itself, even in the limited area of my own interest I see numerous editors who would be of benefit to the ARS and perform the same tasks Squadron members do, but aren't being invited to join. Having members who specialize in different subjects and who agree to watch them would take the weight off other members and (hopefully) reduce the feeling that everyone has to check everything or else we'll lose perfectly good content every day. Wikipedians with good access to sources would also be a boon, as they could be approached if more readily accessible sources are not available. New blood, efficient deletion patrol, less feeling of backs against the wall. It's always been doable but someone has to roll their sleeves up. I wish you all the best. Someoneanother 12:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying "it's just this one editor" but that just plain isn't true. First of all, I have repeatedly mentioned another editor, Dream, who similarly pushes an agenda blatantly and I notice you have repeatedly defended retaining the rambling anti-deletionist screed that is Dream's userpage. Second, one can look and see that North is far from the only editor who has used the ARS as a canvassing group for inclusionists. In fact, on the inclusionist wikiproject, one of the suggestions for how to help the cause is to join the Article Rescue Squadron and sends people directly to articles that have been tagged. That wasn't even placed by a member of ARS from what I can tell, it was just someone in the inclusionist project.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, this ANI began by you describing your interactions with one editor and his use of a rescue template, included your discussion of three keeps at an AFD that appeared to be drive-bys responding to the rescue tag, your concerns that their not following instruction on the ARS page gave their "per NA1k" keeps an appearance of a template being "canvassing", went on to impune an entire project of 400 members based upon your interactions with NA1K, used Dream Focus and his user page as an example of "inclusionist agenda-warrior behavior", and then based upon your opening statements, your summary suggested that "the only feasible way to stop this kind of activity without getting rid of the group altogether is to explicitly restrict anyone in this group from getting involved in AfDs and limiting them explicitly by policy to only editing the article itself when it is nominated for deletion."

I do not see a topic-ban preventing 400 editors from involving themselves in AFD discussions simply because they are members of a project wishing to improve content for the project, as particuarly useful nor as a method to improve Misplaced Pages. If you have issues with the behavior of one or two or three or four editors, mount ANIs or RFCs against them. But an blanket ban of an entire project based upon perceived issues with less than 2 percent of that project?? Massive overkill. Your desired outcome as stated in your opening, is to topic-ban 400 editors when perhaps 380 or 390 of them have never had dealings with you. Wrong queue.

My proposal as above was brought forth as a means to address perceived issues through education and guidence in a project lacking that guidence. If you do not think issues can be addressed through education and guidence, fine... and thank you for your underscoring your issues with a minority. But I am seeking input from editors who might feel as I do that your solution to topic-ban 400 editors is perhaps a bit of overkill. Schmidt, 20:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, my suggestion was to serve as an alternative to disbanding the group altogether. The way you quote my comment about Dream's behavior is as telling as your past arguments against deleting Dream's userpage. I sincerely doubt anyone objective could look over the exhaustive rhetoric on Dream's page and not come away with the same impression I got. Both North and Dream have sought to entrench that agenda-warrior mentality explicitly in the group itself. You keep implying this is isolated, but it really isn't. North and Dream seem to be two of the editors most regularly involved in the wikiproject's activities. Quite a large number of those 400 editors are inactive, with most of the remainder being less active than North and Dream. Their actions are inevitable given this group's existence, the way it draws attention specifically to articles facing deletion, and its freedom to be involved in voting on AfDs.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: The link above with an abbreviation of my user name was essentially a simple copy/and paste of information that I didn't personally originally write, but performed some minor copy editing upon, from Meta.wikimedia.org. At the time I felt the information may have been helpful to a WikiProject. I'm personally neither an "inclusionist" or a "deletionist", or any other kind of "-ist"; I'm an editor and contributor. Northamerica1000 09:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not believe that a proposed topic ban of 400 editors could ever be considered a reasonable "alternative". And such a proposal would essentially disband the ARS project... in application if not in fact... as a project-wide ban preventing 400 editors from being able to offer their opinion (either good or bad) at AFD, simply because they were a member of any project, would act against policy by not allowing them to participate in the building of consensus... and would discourage membership in a project which ostensibly exists to improve the encyclopdia. We do not assume bad faith toward all 400 because of the actions of two.

Your repeatedly returning to two editors as if they were entirely representative of or responsible for the other 398, might be a reason to address those two if deemed neccessary, but never to punish 398 others. And with respects, your stating "Their actions are inevitable given this group's existence" is a strawman... as ANY editor, inclusionist or delitionist, will edit however they edit no matter what projects exist or not on Misplaced Pages and despite membership or not in those projects. We do not curse the sky because of a rainy day. My own hopefully more reasonable proposal seeks to address the problem of ARS lacking guidence without the collateral damage of punishing 398 other editors, active or no.

Back to my proposal... do you have input on how to revamp the ARS though education and guidence? Schmidt, 01:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you presume the problem is isolated and fail to recognize it as symptomatic. Sure, the editors will continue to act as they please, but the nature of the project has always been to direct people to an article so that they may "rescue" it from deletion. As long as the project exists with that tag and members are able to comment on tagged AfDs, it will continue to be used as a canvassing tool for inclusionists. You keep touting the idea of the WikiProject and ignoring the reality. It clearly facilitates activities that are contrary to the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages in a uniquely disruptive manner. Honestly, I think there is no real way to revamp the group that does not involve severe policing. Saying "you can't tag the article" will be meaningless because it is likely someone else will tag it instead. By suggesting it is a problem with this or that editor and they should be dealt with individually you are essentially suggesting that your fellow admins play a game of whack-a-mole rather than going to the source of the problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want an idea, I think one good step would be to eliminate the tag and bar anyone for promoting a specific article for rescue. They can look at the list of all AfDs and judge for themselves if something is notable then act accordingly.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Another idea would be to introduce a delsort that would specifically note where an article's notability is being contested by nominating editor so members don't get involved in WP:NOT disputes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Rename and revamp the project Many if not most ARS members do good work improving articles. The problems arising here stem from the perception that ARS tagging of articles results in votestacking at AfD, so why not change the project's focus to article improvement generally, rather than specifically fighting for inclusionism at AfD?

• Rename ARS as "Article Improvement Squadron" or something similar.
• Prominantly link the project page to Misplaced Pages:Contribution Team/Backlogs and Misplaced Pages:Reward board.
• Change the much-discussed {{Rescue}} tag to a request for project members to improve the article (rather than "save" it from AfD), move it to the article talkpage as a standard Wikiproject template, and don't limit it to articles which are up for deletion.

Implementing these three changes would encourage the editors at ARS to continue their work without fostering the battleground mentality that seems to be poisoning the well. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support revamping the project I'm not sure a rename will help, but I'm not opposed to it. Here are some ideas I really do support though:
  • I like the idea above about prominantly linking to project improvement pages. Perhaps even sorting by topic so ARS members who have particular interests can find decaying topics easier.
  • Perhaps the creation of a "Someone is considering nominating this topic for deletion" that would go on the article's talk page instead of a "rescue" template. I would use such a tag and give it about a week before nominating something for deletion. This would give ARS sufficient time to improve an article before it was nominated.
  • Also another template option, include a |reason= option in the {{rescue}} template so ARS members can explain exactly what (other) improvements need to be made to an article by other ARS members (or regular editors)
  • Some kind of project-mentoring program for editors who show signs of competence issues who misuse the tags, use poor sources, or who only !vote keep in AFDs
  • Some kind of hierarchy to coordinate all of this effort and standardize responses to calls for help and who can accept criticism from outside of the project
  • Revamp the project's main page. I'm not opposed to this section about avoiding article deletion, but reasons like "It can be discouraging for an editor to have their article deleted" and "t can be frustrating for a reader to come to Misplaced Pages for information" are not in compliance with Misplaced Pages guidelines.
  • I like your hall of fame page, but what would really be nice is to see "rescued" articles reaching GA or FA status.
  • A link to Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources added to your instructions
  • Effort by the project to address concerns by outside of the project. Acceptance that the concerns are valid even if they are misconceptions. Effort shown to improve the image of the project.
• I hope some of these suggestions would be taken into consideration. I'm not opposed to the entire project, I'm frustrated by the mentality and attitude of some of the members. Honestly, I feel like we're in a military tribunal, Jack Nicholson is on the stand (a leading member of the ARS) and Tom Cruise wants to know the truth about whether ARS sees Misplaced Pages as a battlefield. It's almost as if some ARS members revel in the fact that it feels like a battlefield but won't admit to it because they know it's wrong. I feel like one of them is just itching to say "You can't handle the truth!!!" Anyway, that's how I feel, take it or leave it.--v/r - TP 14:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links