| Revision as of 00:14, 15 April 2006 editSlrubenstein (talk | contribs)30,655 edits →Jimbo Wales comments on NPOV Undue weight← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:49, 15 April 2006 edit undoとある白い猫 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,796 edits →Sanity checkNext edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| Would it be ok if I were to tag chinese ctities under ] as the goverment of Taiwan (]) claims to rule mainland china? --<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 09:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC) | Would it be ok if I were to tag chinese ctities under ] as the goverment of Taiwan (]) claims to rule mainland china? --<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 09:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :#Seems like a question you could easily answer for yourself... if not, maybe after reading ], and other guidance linked from there. | :#Seems like a question you could easily answer for yourself... if not, maybe after reading ], and other guidance linked from there. | ||
| :#If still not being able to answer that question for yourself after reading all that, maybe ask your question at ], or start an ] (but I think you may assume that the outcome of such RfC would be pretty much predictable - only encouraging you to try to find a ''sensible'' answer to your question yourself - if you'd try to find it yourself, I'm convinced the eventual answer will stick better) --] 09:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC) | :#If still not being able to answer that question for yourself after reading all that, maybe ask your question at ], or start an ] (but I think you may assume that the outcome of such RfC would be pretty much predictable - only encouraging you to try to find a ''sensible'' answer to your question yourself - if you'd try to find it yourself, I'm convinced the eventual answer will stick better) | ||
| :--] 09:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are right the outcome is easy to guess. The result would be that what I am suggesting is nonsense right? I for onr would oppose tagging of Beijing under a taiwanieese category. I'll copy this chain to all those pages you mentioned. --<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 08:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This discussion belongs on ], not here. ] 15:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC) | ::This discussion belongs on ], not here. ] 15:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::No this is a discussion of NPOV policy and how it applies to categories. Its place is aproporate. --<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 08:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Jimbo Wales comments on NPOV Undue weight== | ==Jimbo Wales comments on NPOV Undue weight== | ||
Revision as of 08:49, 15 April 2006
When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.
Shortcuts to sections
... don't work, so personally I'd propose to omit WP:NPOVUW entirely from the policy page. Maybe it should better be proposed for MfD or so, per Misplaced Pages:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?, reason 2, that is: "confusing" (it creates the confusing, and incorrect, idea that the shortcut actually links to the UW section, someone not knowing that was the intention can only be more confused when reading the "NPOVUW" acronym, and when clicking arriving at the top of the NPOV page, where the "UW" is nowhere explained). And overall, i think NPOVUW to be a horrendous acronym, in the WP:WOTTA meaning. --Francis Schonken 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- If they don't work, then delete them. I seem to remember them working in the past, but that was sometime ago. FeloniousMonk 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- It would be nice if the software would support redirects to sections. Not for NPOVUW, but to create e.g. WP:WEIGHT. AvB ÷ talk 12:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with AvB exactly. NikoSilver 20:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Sanity check
Would it be ok if I were to tag chinese ctities under Category:Taiwan as the goverment of Taiwan (Republic of China) claims to rule mainland china? --Cool Cat 09:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Seems like a question you could easily answer for yourself... if not, maybe after reading Misplaced Pages:NPOV tutorial#Categorisation, and other guidance linked from there.
- If still not being able to answer that question for yourself after reading all that, maybe ask your question at wikipedia talk:categorization, or start an RfC (but I think you may assume that the outcome of such RfC would be pretty much predictable - only encouraging you to try to find a sensible answer to your question yourself - if you'd try to find it yourself, I'm convinced the eventual answer will stick better)
- --Francis Schonken 09:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- You are right the outcome is easy to guess. The result would be that what I am suggesting is nonsense right? I for onr would oppose tagging of Beijing under a taiwanieese category. I'll copy this chain to all those pages you mentioned. --Cool Cat 08:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- This discussion belongs on Category_talk:Taiwan, not here. Bensaccount 15:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- No this is a discussion of NPOV policy and how it applies to categories. Its place is aproporate. --Cool Cat 08:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- This discussion belongs on Category_talk:Taiwan, not here. Bensaccount 15:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales comments on NPOV Undue weight
Per prior requests from the community, this discussion was moved to: User_talk:Iantresman#Moved_from_Talk:NPOV FeloniousMonk 20:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've had no such requests, and you have no right to remove discussion from talk pages (now restored above). You also have no right to remove the original verifiable statements from Jimbo Wales. If you remove my discussion from the Talk pages again, I will report you. If you remove verifiable quotes from the article, I will also report you. --Iantresman 20:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Read the archives. Literally dozens of Misplaced Pages's most credible editors have asked for this discussion to be either dropped or taken to user talk space over the last four months. Read Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/-Lumière. There is no support for what you've proposed. Read Misplaced Pages talk:No original research, where is issue of similar such changes by your contingent has been discussed at length and rejected. FeloniousMonk 21:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- This is a strange discussion. What are "verifiable" quotes? This policy page is not an article on what Jimbo said in a specific context. It is about a policy, and it makes sense to paraphrase Jimbo as appropriate. The paraphrase is entirely verifiable, all we need to do is ask Jimbo if it is fair to ascribe these views to him. In fact, the page has been in this state for quite a long time. We should all feel fairly confident that if Jimbo felt his words were being misused, he would have made the change himself. I repeat: this is not an article on Jimbo and the standard for verbatim quotes does not apply. It is a policy page and what is important is wording that helps explain the policy. Verbatim quotes would be unnecessary and inappropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Page protection
I've protected the page because of the reverting, because policy pages in particular need to be stable. Let me know when you're ready to start editing again. Cheers, SlimVirgin 20:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)