Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:09, 24 February 2008

• 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.

Tor nodes

An ongoing discussion is in progress regarding adjusting the blocking policy in reference to TOR nodes. The discussion is here. Regards, M-ercury at 13:18, January 8, 2008

Ipblock exempt proposal

A proposal has started to allow established or trusted editors to edit via Tor, or other anon proxy. This discussion is located at

talk page

The proposed policy in its “needs to be worked on” form is located at

project page

Regards, M-ercury at 23:22, January 14, 2008

WP:RFC/U - time to get rid of it?

Moved from archive as it's premature to close this - future datestamp applied to make sure it isn't archived again - Will 17:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Moving from WT:RFC...

About two months ago, I listed Requests for user comment for deletion under the premise that it did not work, and it's basically a quagmire of personal attacks and a stepping stone to ArbCom. The consensus in the MFD, including the creator of the process and the MfD's closer, is that it doesn't really work 99.9% of the time, and only exists because there is no other process existent. Just get rid of it and reinstate the Community Sanction Noticeboard, as that actually did do some good. Will 17:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I personally prefered CSN better than RFC/U. D.M.N. (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support CSN provided there was a minimum time for comments (about 7 days). There should also be a maximum time for banning (1 year, same as ArbCom). R. Baley (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

CSN had teeth, RFC/U hardly any. CSN saw discussion and nuance, RFC/U sees ganging up and party-lines half the time. With the same provisos as R. Baley, except I'd prefer six months, it would be good to have it back. Relata refero (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could merge the two... CSN to me always seemed to arbitrary. Consensus could be declared in an hour or never... that kind of gives power to people who can generate a mob of "me too"s on demand. RFC is very structured but seldom goes anywhere. Is there any realistic way to have CSN but with a more normalized process, to give the accused a change to reply, slow down the mob mentality, and reasonably assess consensus? --W.marsh 18:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it need a new name possibly? Also please note than CSN only closed three and a half months ago and consensus might not of changed much since then. Also, a lot of things that "could" of gone there are instead now sent to WP:AN or WP:ANI, meaning they get a lot more traffic and stress put on them. D.M.N. (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

W.marsh, don't you think a minimum one-week period for each sanction discussion would help with the mob of "me-too"s? (Too much evidence has emerged lately of off-wiki co-ordination for us to discount that as a factor.) Relata refero (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A week sounds reasonable. If it's truly an emergency WP:BLOCK should apply, and if someone's transgressions don't seem blockworthy a week after the fact, then a ban was a bad idea to begin with. I'd also like to look at a waiting period before people start bolding words (ban, don't ban, etc.) maybe 48 hours of pure discussion without people taking definitive stands like in a vote. I think that would lead to better discussion, people tend to feel psychologically committed to a stance once they're locked in to it. --W.marsh 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

At Arbcom they've decided to take the ambitious step of waiting (I believe 48 hours, but I can't remember) before voting on the proposed decision page. We could do something similar, discussion can take place for 2 days, but no proposed "remedies" (ban, topic ban, etc.) could be offered until 48 hours after a new complaint had been certified (maybe not "certified," just following the initial complaint --basically enforce 2 days of discussion before any talk of "banning"). R. Baley (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC works when it's used for asking for comments, it does not work when sanctions are sought, but that is not its purpose. The CSN should be brought back and RFC kept and used for its intended purpose. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Community Sanction Noticeboard had its own problems, though I'm not sure that it needed to be eliminated. Part of the problem is that dispute resolution mechanisms seem to come and go - Mediation went away, and now it's back under a new name, the CSN came and went, ANI seems to alter its mission every so often. I see three main problems with RFC/U: it is not empowered to sanction, it's intended to keep reduce the burden on ANI, and it's a mandatory step before going to ArbCom, which can sanction. The solution I see is to 1) bounce more stuff, both from RFC/U and ANI, to Mediation (wherever it's living right now), 2) have some level of sanction available at RFC/U, which would probably require administrator patrolling, and 3) allow admins to move complicated cases off ANI to RFC/U. Perhaps a name change would be in order - instead of "Request for Comment/User Conduct", it could become "Administrators' Noticeboard: Ongoing Problems" (to distinguish it from AN:Incidents). Making it part of the Administrators' Noticeboard would mean that sanctions would be available and it would be an appropriate preliminary step to ArbCom. It would also reduce the load at ANI, where probably half the volume of discussion is on complicated, drawn-out issues, even though those are fewer than 10% of the actual incidents reported. Community Sanctions would all get moved to AN/OP, also. As part of the AN cluster, AN/OP would be fairly highly visible. Argyriou (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm Opposed to this. Many of our processes suffer from a lynching mentality and RFC is as bad as some of them but it does serve a purpose. I really do not see a return to the votes for lynching that CSN turned into as a viable alternative. If we are replace this process we need some other way to garner community feedback into problematical or disputed editor behaviour and a noticeboard doesn't seem the way forward. Spartaz 22:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Rlevse's and Spartaz's comments. --Iamunknown 00:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Both W.marsh and Spartaz voice important concerns. The CSN was split off from ANI, and then was merged back into ANI after only 8 months. I think ANI, with its high visibility and traffic, is the proper place for most such discussions. The deletion discussion is very instructive as to the potential problems that must be kept in mind. I oppose any page dedicated exclusively to "sanctions," as well as any form of voting for a ban.

Getting back to RFC/U, I think its purpose and its place within the DR process should be better defined. The list of DR options here is rather bewildering, and does not indicate (what I see as) RFC/U's status as a second-tier DR forum for problems that have proven intractable in the first-tier forums. The third tier, of course, is Arbcom.

There is a grave problem when people see DR as a list of hoops that must be jumped through before you can ban someone. Emphasis should be placed on restoring relationships and on helping problematic editors to become better ones. Note that I am not talking about obvious trolls, who should be dealt with easily enough in the first-tier DR forums. To me, the purpose of the first-tier forums is to have one or two experienced editors tell a problematic editor that he/she is behaving problematically and should change. At this point, the case may be obvious enough that a block or ban would be appropriate. The purpose of RFC/U is then for the larger community to communicate that same message. If the problematic behavior continues, then an admin can enact a community ban, and the tougher cases can go to Arbcom. If I am out in left field on this, then tell me so or ignore me. If not, then the DR guidelines should be a lot more clear that this is the case. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be good if it worked that way, but the practice is less harmonious. The process seems to escalate conflict rather than diminish it. I don't however know how to substitute it. CSN was seen as a kangaroo court, so that too had problems. DGG (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Practice does not need to be harmonious. I'm not so naive as to think that a large fraction of people are actually focused on "restoring relationships" etc. But I'd settle for orderly. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have seen in the few RFC/U's I've seen (as an outsider) is that there is very little in the way of objective evidence. It usually ends up in IDONTLIKEHIM comments, or sometimes people siding with the nominator they like or the defendant they like, or even lining up with the POV they like.

Any complaint, whether it is in an RFC/U or an AN/I or a proposed AN/OP, should have specific charges based on policy or guidelines and specific diffs to support the charge, and diffs to demonstrate attempts to resolve the problem. A user who behaves badly should be warned every time the problem is noticed. Just as we warn against vandalism, we should warn about NPA, incivility, etc. (If we had more warning templates, users might issue warnings more often.) If we warned users more often we might see fewer problems. If problems persist, then the warnings will provide the evidence to justify blocks.

AIV is not contentious because there is a visible history of escalating warnings to demonstrate the problem, to demonstrate attempts to resolve the problem, and to justify the length of a block. 3RR is not contentious because diffs provide objective evidence of bad behavior. RFC/U, AN/I, CSN almost always are (were) contentious because there is usually no objective evidence to demonstrate the problem and attempts to resolve the problem. I think that RFC/U would be more effective if it required specific charges of violated guidelines, specific diffs to support the charges, and specific diffs to demonstrate attempts to resolve the problem.

I was just about to make these suggestions about specificity over at WT:RFC when I saw the link to this discussion. I might still suggest it over there to try to improve the process while waiting to see if a consensus develops over here to eliminate or replace the process. I'm also thinking of starting a new section over here to suggest that we should issue warnings for bad behavior much more often. I have seen a lot of incivility go unwarned. If we had escalating templates for warnings, editors might use them more often. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, RfC on User Conduct should be used to elicit a wider community involvement in the background of the situation instead of the superficial cat-calling that we stumble acrost in article-talk and user-space. I frequently accidently wander into a vicious debate, simply because I visit a lot of pages. The RfC/U posted to the article-talk, and user-talk of both the RfC presenter and the subject would allow for impartial input. Which should continue for a minimum of three days there. Then, as above mentioned, the subject can be given some breathing room inwhich to evaluate improvement or at least detachment. After sufficient time, if an editor feels that anti-project editing still exists, then it would be appropriate to escalate to CSN and allow at least 3 further days for responses to be gathered. So my nutshell, RfC/U as a precursor to CSN and a necessary part of DR.Wjhonson (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with ANY system of open community comment on another editors actions, regardless of which Wiki-acronym you attach to it, is that it is always open to sniping and abuse (once someones name shows up there, everyone they ever have pissed off gangs up on them). The question is whether such abuse is willing to be tolerated in order to have a system whereby the community can comment on user behavior. You can't have a system in place that is immune to this kind of abuse, but neither should you throw out the baby with the bathwater... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly in favor of the WP:RFC/U system. It isn't good at seeking punishments for past bad behavior, but that's partly because sanctions are preventive, not punitive -- the point is, sanctions should be applied when bad behavior continues, rather than because it existed. RFCs are good for that -- if a user pushes POV, for instance, and it becomes well-established that this is the case in an RFC, and they continue to do it, sanctions can be safely applied. RFCs sometimes get out of control, but that's actually a good thing -- think of it as water in the mountains, it needs to come downhill somewhere. WP:RFC/U is a good way of handling that release of tensions because of the way its rules keep editors from commenting back and forth, which tends to build tension. Plus, they have a good way of adding lots of uninvolved editors to the mix, which distributes the energy. Mangojuice 15:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what to think. The Misplaced Pages community hasn't shown itself to be anymore trustworthy than the Misplaced Pages admins. Both increasing and decreasing admin accountability or things like RFC/U seem counterintuitive. Making it more strict allows people to witch-hunt users and admins they don't like. Making it more lax allows trolls and corrupt admins to do whatever they want. The problem is that so many Misplaced Pages editors have zero regard for reason. That needs to be addressed first, I think. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC works (as stated above) when it's used for asking for comments on behavioral issues of a user or users, it does not work when used for witch-hunts, lynchings, Public floggings, personal attacks, bitterness, and character assassinations. Since this process does seem to escalate some conflicts rather than diminish them, perhaps modifying the guidelines within the process is needed as opposed to removal. Without RfC/U, the only formal steps in dispute resolution that focuses on editors are AN/I and ArbCom. Conversly AN/I could serve as an appropriate venue and does provide wide community involvement on issues (Apropriatly a modified format would be needed on AN/I to replace RfC/U). Processes exist to have a purpose, I belive this does, but some reform may be needed to improve it.--Hu12 (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How to guide

I think RFC is a good way to gather evidence and gauge community sentiments. If an RFC/U convinces an editor to cease causing problems, that is a good result. If they continue, a note can be posted at ANI requesting a community remedy, such as an editing restriction or ban, with a link to the RFC/U. If there is no consensus at ANI, the case can go to ArbCom, and again, a link to the RFC/U provides much of the necessary evidence. The processes work when people use them correctly. Jehochman 14:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, if we ever want RFCU to ever work, we need more admin intervention - Anittas was indefed a second time in October. The attack he was blocked for was on RFCU for twelve days, but nothing happened until ANI got wind of it. Will 00:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-US postage stamp images

I am almost afraid to ask a question, seeing as how I am new and don't really want to draw too much attention as yet.

I am wondering, since non-US postage stamps are not covered under US copyright law, if therefore a person's image on a stamp, from a third world country perhaps may be used as an illustration? EraserGirl (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a special page for questions on this topic: Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. The short answer is that U.S. law respects copyrights in other countries, and hence so does Misplaced Pages. Bovlb (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks sometimes it takes a WHILE to find the right page, it seems there are an infinite number of wikipedia internal pages. EraserGirl (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. And never be afraid to ask. :) Bovlb (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a private conspiracy theory that the system of "internal pages" is kept deliberately complex and opaque, just to ensure that newcomers don't become too knowledgeable too quickly. A bit like the Bible used to be available only in Latin. This way newbies can be kept in their rightful place at the bottom of the hierarchy, at least till they've been here long enough to learn to respect their betters and appreciate the perfection of the way things are done here. --Kotniski (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That assumes that "the betters" know what's going on in half of those pages, which is a rather large assumption. Titoxd 08:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Proper content, notability, vandalism,

deletion, banning, locking, protecting... all censorship. The problem with all of the above is the amount of freedom provided to collaborators by the powers to be. The people locking, banning, deleting, etc are simply: 1. not perfect 1.1. not completely objective. 1.2. maybe with a hidden personall agenda Maybe putting an article against a government wouldnt be proper content and render the collaborator banned? Why not just ditch the 'proper content' thing. Maybe the person who locks articles is the most savvy and knowledgeable in the world? Why not simply put an official wikipedia page on that article and any subsequent edition just not being official. Who is to say what is notable and what is not? Archeologists treasure past-times trash mounds as an invaluable tool to unearth history. Vandalism? It happens. Just make a different version of each page. Or make a category called: vandalism and non-notable content. Banning and all of that is just a policy asking for trouble. Trouble being restricting knowledge. And what is an encyclopedia but a compendium of knowledge, ideally all knowledge? Verifiable? Like from the American Diabetes Association which for years said lowering blood sugar in diabetics prevents heart attacks and now finds out the complete opposite is true (GOOGLE IT)? Or what about the blasphemic thought that the earth is round? Very easy to find reputable references for the theory that the earth is not flat. Are rules good? Maybe, maybe not. But I would say -in principle- avoid messing with so many rules and just stick with advice. --WonderingAngel-aesc78 (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are you actually proposing? We allow people to write absolutely anything on Misplaced Pages? J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, every word anyone writes is not knowledge. This place is an encyclopedia, and without policies and enforcement of policies that keep this place on that track, we would very quickly be something else, like a random massive biased chaotic myspace-forum-blog, with people foisting ridiculous fringe theories on the readers such as that the earth is flat. If you want to push that agenda somewhere, there are lots of places to do so that aren't encyclopedias.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to even mention the potential legal implications of such a thing... I suppose you could create your own Wiki with no rules, but I can't see Misplaced Pages becoming like that any time soon. In fact, it is heading in the opposite direction. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, we are becomming a very oppressed bunch. Gavin Scott (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Inline citations usually use wrong style

Inline citations throughout Misplaced Pages are positioned incorrectly, probably resulting from the uncertain appearance of the source code.

Many <ref> </ref> elements and related tags have incorrect formatting around them, examples

Kernels of popcorn should have 15% to 20% moisture content.

Kernels of popcorn should have 15% to 20% moisture content.

It should be: Kernels of popcorn should have 15% to 20% moisture content.

Popcorn has high density.

Popcorn has high density..

Popcorn has high density.

Popcorn has high density.

It should be: Popcorn has high density. or Popcorn has high density. or Popcorn has high density.

Related pages:Misplaced Pages:Footnotes, Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, Help:Footnotes, example article1, example article2, example article3 and see Random article for other instances of articles that have wrong citation style.

The style needs to be clarified somewhere as soon as possible. Where and how should this be clarified? 209.244.43.112 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps here?. Otherwise, for a more general Manual of Style forum, here. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The style has been indicated on Misplaced Pages:Footnotes, what needs to be done is the style made overt, perhaps with an obvious notice on all related pages with a link to Misplaced Pages:Footnotes. Another idea is to make a short summary about use of citations on the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style. (I have a dynamic IP, I would have waited for my address to return to 209.244.43.112 but do not have time.) 209.244.43.122 (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#Ref tags and punctuation. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The long-standing consensus that footnotes followed punctuation was removed from WP:FN after a protracted edit war last November. A handful of editors dominated; everyone else eventually gave up rather than engage in edit warring. A broader audience may help restore the guideline to reflect actual practice and long-standing consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If we really, really care that much about where the {{fact}} template is placed, then we should ask for a bot to fix this, not try a massive (re)education program of thousands of editors.

As for replacing "Popcorn has high density." with "Popcorn has high density.", sorry, that's wrong. It's perfectly acceptable to support one sentence with multiple sources (rare, but acceptable); and it's a bad idea to combine two sources into a single footnote because that is inconsistent with using a named reference in multiple places in the same article.

And yes, I support putting footnotes after punctuation, but wonder how important this is, overall. I'm always quite happy just to see new information added to articles supported by anything, even just a URL. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there were multiple sources was not the problem, the issue was that often there is a period before, and after the inline citation, probably because the source code for multiple inline citations is confusing. 209.244.43.122 (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

May be best to just add a statement like "Be sure to place <ref></ref> case correctly in the text, directly after a word, comma, or period without any characters added." to one or more guideline pages, and try to straighten out the style of inline citations whenever we happen to be editing an article. 209.244.43.122 (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

From memory, the dispute in the guideline was whether it meant "Always put the citation after a punctuation mark", or "If a punctuation mark is present, place the citation after the punctuation mark". Personally, I'm in favour of the latter, but not the former Bluap (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's what it said for a very long time (and this still reflects current practice on most articles, certainly on most FAs):

Misplaced Pages's house style is that ref tags are placed at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the footnote refers. This is the format recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style. When placed at the end of a clause or sentence the ref tag should be directly after the punctuation mark without an intervening space, in order to prevent the reference number wrapping to the next line. The same is true for successive ref tags. The exception is a dash — which should follow the ref tag, as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style.

Several persistent editors objected and edit warred, wanted no rule whatsoever, everyone gave up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your obsession with format is silly. I'd rather read editors discuss the merits of a reference than its format. If you must dictate the form, create a pop-up template every time someone clicks on the <ref></ref> markup, like for example with photo upload. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference itself is certainly more important than the style for the position of the tags, however the current not unified system for the appearance of citations on article pages is unencyclopedic. --209.244.43.112 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

To reply to the mid-sentence example just added, there is nothing wrong with a sentence saying "The high density of popcorn allows it to...". This is consistent with the old MOS paragraph that SandyGeorgia quoted above. Bluap (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If perfect consistency is desired in these matters, a bot should be created, or editors who care can form a WikiProject. This should NOT be an editor responsibility. If we want editors to be bothered with things like this, we're going to have to start paying them for full-time services -- a volunteer organization means that a volunteer gives the organization a limited amount of attention and can only be expected to follow a limited number of rules. Professional organzations with full-time personnel are needed beyond that. There are literally hundreds of things that would be higher on my priority list for an education campaign for editors. As others have said, I'd rather editors spend as much of their limited time as possible focusing on good content and reliable sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The pages describing how to add internal citations are guidelines, not policies, editors may ignore them. Someone else with more time can cleanup the style if they chose. I propose a alteration for the How to use section on pages Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and Misplaced Pages:Footnotes, here. Already altered Help:Footnotes, here. I believe this will be all that is needed. --209.244.43.112 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There's two separate points being discussed here: 1) Whether we should have (reinstate) the MOS guideline on footnote placement standarisation and 2) whether all editors should be "trained" to follow it. Obviously #2 is not going to happen and yes even if it was possible, there's a number of other things far higher on the "train editors" list—but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a guideline. MOS guidelines are used to define standards for Good articles and Featured articles, where we want to be as encyclopedic as possible. So yes, IMO the old guideline quoted above ought to be put back. --jwanders 09:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:User talk page has been marked as a guideline

Misplaced Pages:User talk page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change. -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The page has been converted from a redirect to a new guideline (copying info from other guidelines) by Law Lord. The proposal to do so was made at Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page#Policy for user talk pages, yesterday, and no other editors have commented on it. I've reverted the new guideline back to a redirect and posted a note on the talk page about the need for consensus. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As I have answered, I merely quoted relevant parts from 3 different guidelines and even marked the source for each one as a footnote.

Please explain why you think existing and approved guidelines need new consensus. --Law Lord (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed WP:UTP from a guideline to a proposal. I think this succinct statement of user talk page policy is a great idea--it could help to stop some harassment of newbies--there needs to be at least a little consensus that Misplaced Pages:User talk page should be the place to pull it together, and that the page is necessary in and of itself, before it's marked as a guideline. I think that you should wait for that consensus, Law Lord, before marking it as a guideline again. John Broughton, I don't see the harm in hosting the policy proposal at Misplaced Pages:User talk page, with all respect. We can link to Misplaced Pages:Talk page from this proposal page, right? Darkspots (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I understand now. Well, to clarify, my proposal is just to put the current guidelines regarding user talk pages (found in three different guidelines) into one guideline. That can then later be improved if need be. I think it is very relevant because some people yelled at me in the past when I removed harassment from my own talk page. Cheers. --Law Lord (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong objection to the proposal being at what was a redirect. But it still needs to be a proposal - it's quite possible that some editors will object to yet another guideline, feeling that the info is fine where it is. Moreover, I don't believe the info was removed from the other guidelines, which means the new (proposed) guideline is simply duplication.

There is another option - simply make Misplaced Pages:User talk page an information page - that is, a page that simply says that guideline information about user talk pages can be found at X, Y, and Z. Information pages don't really require consensus (assuming that they aren't controversial). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Growing XfD nominations of non-controversial userboxes

See:

• Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 16
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:EVula/Userboxes/Martian
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:EVula/Userboxes/Eris

Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk · contribs) believes he's on a cleanup crusade for userboxes, including ones that are already userfied. I'm trying to explain why they're generally acceptable, but it doesn't seem like I'm getting through to him. I pointed out WP:GUS and he told me he wanted to make a proposal to stop these kinds of userboxes, so I thought that was going to be the end of it. Then he nominated {{User wikipedia}}. -- Ned Scott 09:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems more of a WP:AN issue than policy. There's nothing strictly against these noms, aside from being pointless. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymize contributions

Hi, I'm sure this topic has been covered before but I couldn't find anything related to it. So here is my proposal/question: Why is it not possible to anonymize a registered account? When I say anonymize I think of

• the possibility to disable the account
• lock/remove user and discussion page
• replace username in histories with a placeholder like e.g. anon contribution

The process would be for example: A user decides to disable his/her account, meaning that one is no longer able to contribute with this account (maybe with exception of the talk page). After 30 days or so the contributions of the account will be associated with an depersonalized/anonymous account (to avoid that vandals are able to hide their actions by instantly disabling their account after their work). As an alternative to ultimately anonymizing contribution, Misplaced Pages could just hide the contributor by storing the information in a non-public database. So the information would not be lost but would be inaccessible for the web.

Why am I proposing this? Because people make statements, in the real world they will eventually be forgotten - Misplaced Pages does not forget. Maybe someone made statements and does not want to be associated to it by e.g. his human resources superior. I know it's illegal to not hire someone based on his view on politics/whatever etc. etc. but this is definitely an issue. OK, someone can respond that one should have used a non-personalized username which can not be linked back to a person in the first place but I say: If someone actively contributes to Misplaced Pages e.g. over mailing lists/etc, most people will at some point give out their real names. Misplaced Pages should respect the wish for privacy. Views and characters change but Misplaced Pages does not forget - do we really want this? If this process should be implemented there is perhaps an open question regarding licensing. Who has the copyright of a text if the authors are all unknown or do not wish to be named? Or is this no problem at all because it's highly unlikely that all authors of an article do not wish to be named? I'm looking forward for your views on this topic. -- ReallyNobody (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't mention Misplaced Pages:Right to vanish in your question/proposal, so I'm not sure if you're aware of it. RTV lets you change your username, delete all personal information, and walk away. Of course you can come back with a new, more anonymous account if you like. Can you compare your proposal to this guideline? Darkspots (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to have a look at mw:Bitfields for rev deleted, a very slow-moving enhancement for MediaWiki which has the potential to largely effect this idea. Note, however, that this development is likely to be used only as an enhancement to oversight, not as a regular action for users who have vanished. If a vanishing user knows that they have posted personal information in a particular edit, the authorship of that edit can be hidden carefully with this new software, or obliterated by the sledgehammer of the current oversight system. However, anonymising all the contributions of an editor just because they have left strikes me as unnecessary, and would certainly damage the culture of openness and good faith that Misplaced Pages currently fosters. The fact that your angry words or inappropriate edits might be forgiven but will never be forgotten, is what compels many editors to remain civil and to assume good faith. Knowing the complete history of an article (or more usefully, things like user-talk or project pages) is invaluable in a whole host of tasks. If you had to dig up an old RfA to check for meatpuppetry or an old AfD to contest a WP:CSD#G4 violation, would you want to see that half the votes had been anonymised because editors had left? We have a crude system in place to deal with individual inappropriate contributions, and that system will become more elegant and precise with the software update I mentioned above. Beyond that, if you choose a username which allows personal identification and air questionable views on a site which you know will record your contributions for the rest of time, that's your own silly fault.

Thomas Melon,

14 Fruit Avenue,

Upper Bowl,

Melonia

:D Happy‑melon 15:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your input - I wasn't aware about the right to vanish policy. Although this is an interesting feature it does not solve the problem I have in mind. This only blocks very basic attempts of, let's say, snooping. What if a person knows to which articles or fields of interest I have contributed? It should be easy for this person to reveal my new/renamed username and thus the right to vanish itself would be useless. What if my career/job/life depends on destroying the link username <-> realname ? This is currently NOT possible and I don't see why archived, ancient votes are a reason against anonymization. Validity of votes was checked before so why should this be an issue?

You mentioned that the non-forgetting party of WP keeps people social - I think your view narrows it too much down to a Misplaced Pages internal issue. But I am thinking more of a real world issue. You know, it's not all about WP, people tend to have lives outside the internet and try to make a living. I guess you've heard about human resources folks googl'ing the names of applicants?

So, besides old vote results is there anything that stands in the way for such a feature? In my view, the personal lives of contributors should rank higher than Misplaced Pages internal politics. Regards -- ReallyNobody (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: Just to make it clear: anonymization means permanently disabling the account AND anonymize contributions (it's a logical and).

We can rename the account, but we can't change old versions of pages. If you sign a page, every time someone edits the page and doesn't remove your signature, a new version of the page is created that has your username in it. The only way to do remedy this would be to modify the software to be able to edit old revisions in a way that most people can't see what was changed, but this could still require thousands of edits to be made if you sign a page like WP:ANI a few times or just delete everything that you have ever signed, which would be incredibly disruptive (and impossible in the case of pages like this or WP:ANI). So you can't stop someone who is determined to dig up dirt on you from Misplaced Pages. If you have a good reason though, along with a rename, you can have your signature removed/replaced on the current version of pages that its on. Mr.Z-man 21:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image policies too harsh?

Hi, I have noticed that we have bots which are going around tagging hundreds of images for deletion because of their licensing/rationales etc, such as the Betacommond bot. I can't see anything wrong with this as policy is policy and fair enough, however how these rules are coming out may come across as aggressive and hard towards many users, I would like to propose some possible changes to how this works.

For instance images without licensing and proper rationales are tagged for deletion by the bots, however many of the images are uploaded by new users who do not understand the rationales, licensings, etc, and they get instantly nominated for deletion by the bots, the bots slapping a template warning on the users talk page. Often since they are new users the very first message they recieve is a notification that the image they have uploaded is up for deletion. They are not going to understand it is a template message, and may recieve it as harsh. The way this is done could come up as WP:BITE, and I think seven days is a bit too soon, often the users will upload the image and not edit again, so shouldn't we consider that the way this is carried out could be done be softened?

Some things to consider

1) Shouldn't we Increase the length of time the image is tagged for deletion for, 10 days maybe? and perhaps increase the publicity and teaching of these policies?

2) What happens if a fair use image is in an article and removed by a vandal which does it slyly on a small article which gets no attention, the image is therefore tagged for deletion for not being in the article and deleted by accident.

3) Shouldn't how to put a proper rationale on an image be simplier? because even if a rationale is there, betacommond bot will class it as "invalid" and have it up for deletion. Because for it to "leave the image" alone, it has to be a big complicated template

4) Shouldn't we make the bots deletion proposal less of a "threat", which is the manner it appears to carry out the edits and many a times betacommond will spam a talkpage with the same warning template intimidatingly.

5) Shouldn't the reasons why the bots tag the images for deletion be softer?

6) Has there been a wikiproject considered to sort out rationales, fair use and orphaned images?

7) should admins be allowed to run through them and delete them with bots, which such admins like User:Misza13 has been doing? AndreNatas (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. AndreNatas (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're proposing a lot of things there, but the thing that you seem to fail to realise is the scale of the problem. However, I will answer each of your points in turn. Firstly, seven days is long enough for someone to write a flaming rationale. It takes two minutes. Other than having thousands more invalid fair use images hanging around, what will increasing the time achieve? Secondly, the image is still seen by a human- the deleting administrator. If it's an album cover for instance, and the rationale mentions that and links to the article, any decent admin will check the article in question. I am not aware of that happening at all, and it'd be pretty pathetic vandalism if it was. However, what do you propose to remedy it? In answer to your third point- no. A rationale needs to include everything it needs to include, and it doesn't have to be in template form. I used to not write my rationales in templates, instead favouring a list of reasons. They would not be tagged, that's not the way Betacommandbot works. Your fourth point- the bot notifies every time an image is nominated. Imagine how ratty people would get if their images were nominated and they weren't told. I should know- it's happened to me, twice. The messages themselves aren't threatening, they are polite, and explain why this is happening to the image and what can be done about it. If people actually read them, there would be no problem. I have no idea what your next point means, and in response to your final point- again, you don't understand the scale of the problem. "Rationales, fair use and orphaned images" is not something that a few editors can sort out in a few hours- every image needs to be correctly licensed, with a full rationale for each article it is in if used under a claim of fair use, and every fair use image must be used in at least one article to prevent deletion. People should add these rationales and details when they upload the images. If I were you, I would not attempt to pursue all of these ideas at once, as you will achieve nothing apart from getting into a very long and boring discussion on the subject. I instead reccomend that you decide what the biggest problem with the way we deal with the issues is, and find a remedy, and attempt to implement said remedy. But please, please consider the size of this problem, as this is something you don't seem to quite grasp. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The issue of fair-use images on Misplaced Pages is a continually debated topic which is probably the single largest cause of controversy and discussion. Betacommandbot has over four megabytes of archives containing mainly complaints about the way the bot handles image tagging, and has been blocked (at the last count) 34 times by irate admins. While Betacommand and his bot take an enormous amount of stick for the work it does, Misplaced Pages fair-use policy is ultimately governed by the Wikimedia foundation's resolution on image licensing. Misplaced Pages actually interprets this resolution extremely liberally, and has resisted complying fully for almost a year now. However, new images simply must meet the requirements of that resolution - there can be no discussion or dissention on this. So in response to the general question that has been raised countless times, no, Misplaced Pages cannot become more friendly to non-free images and media than it already is: in some respects, it must eventually become less so.

It is in response to Misplaced Pages's reluctance to come into full compliance with this resolution that image taggers like BetacommandBot present their admittedly aggressive approach to image tagging. There is almost no one who argues that BCB's modus operandi is gentle or not bitey, but a majority seem to agree that it is ultimately necessary.

In response to your specific questions:

1. It is generally accepted that altering the length of time allowed does not really affect either the effectiveness or the friendliness of the system. A message saying "you have ten days to fix this image or it will be deleted" is not really much different to one saying "you have seven days to fix this image or it will be deleted".
2. Image uploaders have seven days to fix this problem, and it is usually obvious where an image was supposed to go. If the image had a proper fair-use rationale including an article backlink, this would be very easy to fix.
3. How, exactly, is the process currently complicated and how could it be made simpler? We would all like to hear any specific suggestions you or anyone else can offer for making it even easier to provide fair-use rationales.
4. No matter how it's worded, the message is ultimately saying "fix this image or it will be deleted", which is a threat. There has been much discussion about BCB combining notifications to avoid making multiple posts to a single talk page (the current record is 85 in two days), but it is usually noted that this would enormously slow down BCB's rate of operation.
5. This is not possible under the resolution I mentioned above - in some respects the bots are not hard enough.
6. I'm not sure about this, but I would expect it has been at least proposed in the past. With nearly 300,000 non-free images on Misplaced Pages, such a project would dwarf even WP:BIO or WP:MILHIST in scale and complexity.

Happy‑melon 15:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And in response to point 1, if there's anything that extending the deadline would do, it would create more red tape and clutter. What would be next; 2 months?--WaltCip (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Though I agree with most of the content of the responses above, I will say that the purpose of having a longer notice time is because not every Wikipeida editor comes here every day. Most of us do, who are Wikihobbyists, but there are a lot of causal users who come here now and then, and spend some time fixing up articles, and then they go away for a while. So the suggestion to have a longer warning period is not for you and me, but a different class of editor. -Freekee (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In a more general tone, we've extended the deadlines on a soft-basis whenever there is a day that BCB tags like 5000 images, to give more time to correct them. I've expressed concern before about deletion-bots and scripts being run from admin accounts, but it seems there is a latent consensus to accept such things. WP:TODAY is a project to address the backlog that never got off the ground (but did create some useful tools). Remember the Dot and I have been working on ways to make FU image uploads easier and have submitted a bug request to MediaWiki at bugzilla:12452, but they have been busy with actual bugs and haven't been able to get to new features. MBisanz 02:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but we can't wait forever just because someone might not check in once every week either (I've had people contact me about images I tagged 6 months after they where delted). Back in the "good old days" the predecesors of the current speedy deletion tags would just say something along the lines of "image has no source, please fix", and they tended to just stay like that, some for years. Granted part of the problem was that back then images could not be undeleted, so deleting them was a "big deal". These days image deletions are just as reversable as any other deletion so we no longer need long grace pediods, what we need is a way to keep the number of "bad" images down, and knocking them off after X days does the job. If anyone then comes up with a new infromation/rationale that would allow the image to be used after it has been deleted they can simply request to have it undeleted. Considering how many people get all worked up about "perfectly good" images getting deleted over technicalities we could probably be doing a better job at informing people about the posibility of undeletion though... --Sherool (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but wouldn't it be easier to give extra time, than to go through the hassle of undeleting? :-) And newbies aren't necessarily going to know it can be done, so it gets a bit BITEy. Anyway, as long as the warning period doesn't drop below a week, I'm not too concerned about it. I was just pointing out some rationale that wasn't quite true. -Freekee (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is an absolute deadline set by the Wikimedia Foundation of March 23, 2008 (see wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy). So slightly softer deadlines can be set - and as mentioned above, the 7 days is often relaxed a bit when BCB does a large batch - but as we're coming up to that deadline rather quickly and there are still a lot of images that don't even come close to satisfying the resolution, what's really needed is for people to look into the list of images that need fixed rationales and, well, fix them (I've done one or two, but I've been a bit busy IRL). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Flexibility of Standards - NPOV, Citations, Notability

One of my ongoing gripes about Misplaced Pages is that while there are stated standards, these standards are frequently ignored. The guidelines governing NPOV, citations and notability may be strenuously enforced in regard to some entries while completely ignored in others.

I've just read, and provided discussion on, the entry American Patriot Party. The entry is obviously written by a partisan of the Patriot Party, it refers to no cited sources, and as a political party without recognition lacks notability yet it remains in place and without flags. Last night I read an entry about the Art Renewal Center which was flagged by an earnest SuperEditor as lacking notability.

While in two subject areas I note the difference in treatment, the ARC, the net's largest collection of online art, which has been referenced as a source by a number of Wiki contributors, lacks "notability", while some little political party operating out of a true-believer's basement is accorded unchallenged status.

My guess for the difference is that the SuperEditors are more likely to be intimidated by political kooks than by art critics.

If there are to be standards then let's see them universally applied, if not universally applied, then just let everybody write anything.LAWinans (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your post would be perfectly valid if Misplaced Pages was run by some type of being with godlike powers, able to monitor, tag and enforce everything equally, at the same time, with perfect knowledge of policy and its judicious application. Ah, but that is not the case at all. We are a collection of thousands and thousands of separate and individual volunteers, each editing by their own lights. Where you contrast two articles' treatment and conclude that there is some actual, considered reason behind the difference in application of policies as to them (and come to a highly speculative result), I see chaos and individual action and thus no direct connection between the two articles' treatment whatever.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Fugghettaboutit's post is accurate. While I'm not sure what you mean by "SuperEditor" -- can I apply for admission to this category? -- I suggest a minor exercise that would help: rewrite the first paragraph of your post in the active rather than the passive voice. That might add the necessary precision -- doing so will make you think about who writes, edits, and patrols articles here. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a supereditor, but I am the superluser. Does that count?

Political parties are pretty easy to satisfy notability. States have published standards for being registered with that state. If it meets those standards, the state finds it notable, and if a state finds it notable, it's pretty much a shoo-in to pass WP:N.

On the other hand, I've never heard of the Art Renewal Center. Doesn't mean it's not notable, it just means that you should look up the phrase on Google News. Just because I'm a rube and have missed this site doesn't mean that we need to change our operating procedures. superluser_tc 2008 February 19, 02:51 (UTC)

Visitor counter request

Could you please have a look on m:Meta:Babel#Visitor_counter_request? (Regarding privacy policy) --- Best regards, Melancholie (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see Misplaced Pages tracking visits to individual articles. As usual, we don't have 99% of stats we need. No surprise there (see meta:GUS for another much needed thing to do).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

_fD results

I've been watching and/or participating in various AfD discussions. Ostensibly, the results of these discussions are determined by some meaningful notion(s) of consensus. But I have repeatedly noticed that some closers are ignoring consensus in favor of their judgment of who has provided the best arguments, or even of for which side the best argument could be made. I don't know whether this same sort of thing is happening in CfD discussion and so forth, but I certainly can't rule that out.

I think that there needs to be either

• a reäffirmation that the rôle of a closing admin is to identify, respect, and effect the consensus decision (if there is one); or
• an admission that consensus will no longer be as prevailing a principle as previously been asserted.

—SlamDiego_←T 15:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion and Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, in particular, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." Bovlb (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that this guideline can be interpreted to permit an admin to simply ignore the community and substitute the admin's own judgment for what the best outocme should be. Admins do not know policy any better than anyone else. The community, not the admin, arrives at consensus. The admin merely identifies it. The intent is for the admin's action to reflect what the community has determined to be the stronger arguments. The key area where the admin weighs in on is to determine whether genuine policy arguments are being used and discount editors who are simply ignoring policy. But as long as genuine policy arguments are being used, the community, not the admin, determines which ones are stronger. Otherwise we may as well stop wasting editors' time, dispense with AfD, and use CSD for everything. There's a wide area between a pure headcount and basing things on the admin's own idea of what should be done. AfD is intended to be resolved within that wide area in between, not at either extreme. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement. Closers should rely primarily on evaluating the weight of the policy-based arguments expressed. This may give rise to the appearance of disregarding consensus if there are many arguments (or plain votes) not grounded in policy. Bovlb (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yesd, closers will sometimes simply use their own interpretation of policy, and that is wrong. They should judge what arguments are not based on policy, eliminate them, and see what the consensus is. this is different from trying to judge which of two competitive policy based arguments is the stronger--that is for the community to judge, not the admin. they should not be judging strength of policy, and if the wording in deletion policy implies we should, it needs to be changed. Our role is to know what is not policy so we can ignore it, and to discard irrelevant arguments. if w disagree with what the consensus considers to be the most relevant policy, we should be joining the argument and not closing it. DGG (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Having participated in an AfD where I kept saying "no reliables sources exist for this subject" and others simply said "well, I think it's notable" and similar arguments not grounded in policy, I can assure you that at least one closing admin didn't eliminate all opinions which had weak arguments.

More to the point, nowhere in the guideline does it say "eliminate type X arguments", then count the rest of the opinions. If several editors make a nonsensical argument based on WP:COI, for example, the closing admin is perfectly within rights to ignore or heavily discount those arguments. If we didn't want to give admins discretion, someone would write a bot for closing XfDs.

What SlamDiego didn't say was the extent to which problem XfDs (problems as far as he/she is concerned) went to DRV, and whether they were overturned there. If a number of such XfDs did go to DRV, and did not get overturned, then what is being proposed is clearly a significant change. Examples would really help. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware that there are admins who do a superlative job of various things, including of closing _fDs; but I'm not quite sure why that point should here be relevant, as what I said was “some closers are ignoring consensus”.

Nor would I waste time if admins were merely ignoring arguments such as “Keep. I think this is kewl.”

Having observed the emotionalism that has attended most of the DRVs that I have seen, I decided that examples would not help. Instead, people would fight over single trees, rather than recognizing that overall some of the forest were diseased. (A DRV or new AfD are of course the places to go to reconsider the fates of single trees.) —SlamDiego_←T 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The process looks weak when a closer closes pages and pages of debate without typing a rationale. –Pomte 02:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Audio samples

Hi. Where can I find a discussion regarding audio samples like here and the involving copy right issues? --Tantalos (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You could try Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ability to share articles on Facebook, etc.

I would like to be able to share wikipedia articles on sies like facebook. Sites like these allow people to share articles from many news sources, and I consider Misplaced Pages articles to be article just like any other, though they are not always as timely.

Just my two cents. Thanks, Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgrade18 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're referring to Misplaced Pages adding links to each article like this: Save to del.icio.us • Share on Facebook • Digg This! • outside.in: geotag this story • Discuss on Newsvine • Stumble It! • Sphere: Related Content • Add to del.icio.us. (For an example, see this blog page.

It's an interesting idea; it's something that could go into the left margin (quickbar) below everything else. Thoughts by other editors? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, too spammy. We're effectively endorsing those sites by doing so. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention such a feature can be used for spamming. We have a big enough problem with spam as it is. MER-C 12:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how links generated by MediaWiki software could be used for spamming, but I agree that there would be a problem deciding which sites should get "endorsed" by Misplaced Pages. (Maybe we could charge any interested website, say, $100,000 per year for a standard link on every article?) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's already been implemented on Facebook's side. Instructions can be found here; I imagine the other sharing sites have similar setups. --jonny-mt 15:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Is dismissing someone's views because of where they live a personal attack?

Please see Misplaced Pages:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#HD-DVD. Firstly I'll freely admit I got carried away in the heat of the moment and undoutedly violate WP:Civility in the discussion as well as let the discussion get too off topic and to ORry (partly my fault). However I have concerns about one of the comments, specifically "Blu-Ray had not already 'won' in Europe, please stop saying things like that when you don't even live in the same continent as me to judge.". It is my understanding that this is a personal attack. A minor one perhaps, which is why I don't want to complain about it. However in discussing the matter with the person who made the comment, the other person does not agree it is a personal attack so I wanted to see what others think. As I understand it, you should never use what someone is and what they believe in this way. It may be okay to say something like 'I live in Europe and from what I've seen this is how things are here'. But it is not okay to say 'you don't live in Europe so you obviously don't know' . Just the same as it is wrong to say 'you're not a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu/whatever you obviously don't know' . Both are a form of personal attack, even if not meant to be one because in both cases you are dismissing the views of the person based on who they are. Ultimately of course, it doesn't matter, all that matters is what the sources say which is why people should be careful about saying 'I am XYZ and from my experience' since that's OR. And as I already said, I admit I let the discussion get too ORry (and so did the other contributor). But IMHO, it's still not acceptable to dismiss what I was saying based on where I live (in any case, I was clear from the beginning I was basing my views on the sources I had read including some which I linked to, not my personal experience, even if I didn't include enough of these sources). What do others think? Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read all your exchanges. I think this is a tricky call. The IP was making arguments with an original-research component, but was also arguing based on sources. I don't think he crossed the line into personal attack--if he had said "What do you know, you're a stupid American" that would have gone over the line. The tricky part comes in that he was obviously thinking something to that effect--he definitely thought you were an American for most of the exchange--and that was flavoring what he was saying. You caught that something was going on. Online exchanges that leave people with a sour taste in their mouths often come from false assumptions on the part of one (or more, of course) of the parties.. Darkspots (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Darkspots. What was said doesn't appear to be a personal attack. --Kbdank71 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if it was a personal attack, it sounds like it was minor enough to not get in the way of a constructive dialog, unless you decide that you want to let it get in the way. The best way to handle minor personal attacks is to ignore them. Misplaced Pages isn't the "real world" - you don't lose face if you fail to respond to provocation. (In fact, as far as experienced editors are concerned, you gain reputation if you're able to stay focused on content discussions.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually the real world works like that too... People who go around getting upset at the slightest provocation are usually not well respected either. In general, people who act in a mature, dignified manner even in the face of insult usually gain the respect of other mature people. Its only the juvinile and immature that have respect for those that escalate conflicts rather than resolve them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambig and selfref templates exempt from NPOV?

I've recently run across someone claiming that the content of disambiguation/link templates are not part of our encyclopedic content, and are thus not subject to our content policies, specifically that they are not obliged to convey a neutral point of view. In particular at the Wikia article, where {{selfref}} is being used to restore a disclaimer notice that was roundly rejected by the community just recently (see Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 5#Template:Wikia is not Misplaced Pages). Is this supported? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything - images, categories, infoboxes, other templates - it doesn't matter what - that is part of a mainspace page is subject to all the policies and guidelines in Misplaced Pages regarding content. Content is the face that Misplaced Pages shows the public. If someone wants to argue that one or more parts of an article page are not subject to certain policies or guidelines, it's up to them to come up with the proof for that argument. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So you will be able to answer the following questions:

Why the template {{POV}} is only transcluded on pages of the main namespace?

Why the template {{talkheader}} displays the NPOV policy only in the talk namespace ({{ns:1}})? 16@r (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The {{POV}} template belongs on article pages because it states that an article definitely has a POV problem. In that location, it gets a lot more attention than if it were on the talk/discussion page. I've removed a number of such templates, often simply noting that no specifics have been given, but also often doing some cleanup. And where the template remains after being reviewed by an editor, it serves as notice to readers that they should treat the article with even less credibility than otherwise.

This template is hardly the only one that goes on article pages: see Misplaced Pages:Template messages#Article-related namespace. The general principle is clear: if an article has a specific problem or needs specific kinds of help, put up a message to that effect. (One article messagebox I'm not personally that thrilled with is the one about an article needing expanding; almost every article does, so what's the point?)

As for the {{talkheader}} template, that provides general advice; there may in fact be no problem whatsoever. (It lists the NPOV policy (along with the two other core policies) under the heading "Article policies", so it's clear it applies to the mainspace page, but I don't think that's your question.) Putting this large messagebox at the top of every article would be extremely distracting - and largely pointless, of course, since most of applies to the talk/discussion page. And since pages are read much more than they are edited, it's not a good idea to provide general advise to the small minority of readers who are also going to edit. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Footnote placement

After this version of Economy of Ohio appeared at WP:FAC, discussion of a return to the previous long-standing wording at WP:FN and WP:CITE about footnote placement was initiated here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

reusing images from wikipedia

im doing a website for a class and i was wondering what the policy is on using images that are on wikipedia articles on this (external and non commercial) website. i know they're not public domain (the pics i need are all attached to wiki articles on british comedies - screenshots/dvd covers/title screens). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbhimanyuDas (talk • contribs) 08:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Details about what license images are under should be on every image page. I'll help you with specific images if you like, but it is more than likely that screenshots and DVD covers will be used under a claim of fair use, and so you would have to do the same on your site, unless you recieved permission from the copyright holder to use the images. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Click on an image to see the image's description page. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism in Immigration to Brazil

Please, can somebody block the article Immigration to Brazil. There is an IP doing vandalism there.

He is including information about Dutch and French settlers there, which is wrong, since both did not have any impact in Brazil's demography. They only settled Brazil for a few years then returned to Europe; they do not make part of the "immigration to Brazil" issue. I told this to the IP, but he is reverting me.

Can someone do something about this vandalism? Opinoso (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages's policy on vandalism. You are incorrect in calling the edits by User:91.141.232.77 to be "vandalism"; this is a content dispute. No administrator will protect this article or block the IP editor. Rather, the matter should be discussed on the article talk page.

I also note that if you have documented evidence that "Dutch and French only settled there for a few years and then returned to their homecountries", then that information should be added to the article, since the question will inevitably arise again, rather than removing any mention of early Dutch and French settlers because you believe it is irrelevant.

Also, please remember that the purpose of Misplaced Pages is not only to provide information but also to point readers to further information. The ideal way to do so is to cite your source of information in the article. That also makes it clear that what you're saying is not simply your personal opinion.

For further information on content disputes, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since my edition on the article is not vandalism, I ask someone to please revert the edition of user Opinoso. He is trying to omit that the French, the Dutch and the Spaniards settled in Brazil.

--91.141.238.10 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My Dutch ancestors settled in Brazil and then moved on to New Netherlands, they didn't return to their home country, therefore your edit is incorrect. Corvus cornix_talk 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability for Role-Playing Games

Some users have begun tagging RPG-related articles indiscriminately with the Notability-Books tag. Given that RPGs are indisputably popular, but that they appeal to a specific subculture and thus references to them do not frequently appear in more mainstream, widely acceptable articles, is there a way to create a more industry-specific notability guideline for these games and their spinoffs? Thanks. Snuppy 15:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indiscriminately is a value judgment. If you feel like users are tagging articles haphazardly and not discriminating between those that assert notability and those that do not, you should make a report to WP:AN/I, preferably with diffs that show tags on articles that indisputably meet the standard of Misplaced Pages:Notability (books).

That out of the way, you should check out the proposal: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability. Darkspots (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Snuppy 18:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the term "some users" actually only refers to me: see my talk page for the ongoing discussion. The allegation that the Notability cleanup template in question has been placed "indiscriminately" is not supported by any evidence. For an example of its application, have a look at the role-playing game Via Prudensiae for an example. Clearly this is a role-playing game, but the article itself describes it a a book, and there is a picture of the book cover in the article. Hence I have used the notability template that refers to WP:BK which I think is entirely reasonable to do so. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article refers to it being "published as a book", not being a book. A subtle distinction perhaps, but one that most roleplayers will make without a thought. You play the game, you read or refer to the book. The words "book" and "game" in that phrase would make no sense if they were swapped. What's wrong with just using plain notability in the absence of an appropriate specific guidelines? SamBC(talk) 14:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• The difference is almost jesuitical, but I am not disagreeing with you. Nothing is wrong about using more general notability criteria, but my view is that WP:BK is the closest specific guideline as the game comes in a book format, is marketed like a book and used like a book (although it is a game). It is therefore not unreasonable to apply the Notability (books) template to highlight the cleanup issue which this article has. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that you were tagging them with the book version while that was proposed, IIRC, why not tag them with the proposed RPG version? It's quite mature and reasonable now. One point some of us have been trying to make to you, Gavin, is that tagging them as books when people (who know more about the subject) have told you they find it inappropriate just gets people's backs up, and it's worth doing things a little differently just to avoid that. SamBC(talk) 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

SPCA, International

Eep! Forgot this was policy. Moving to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous). superluser_tc 2008 February 20, 20:01 (UTC)

Test Wiki? Nostalgia Wiki? What are these things??

I recently stumbled upon http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org and http://test.wikipedia.org. I assume the first is there, as its title suggests, for nostalgic reasons, but what does the second one do? Are there any other similarly obscure Wiki sites? Why isn't there a http://test.wiktionary.org, for example?

Also, could someone make an article listing all such "obscure" Wiki sites and clarifying their purpose?

Thanks It Is Me Here (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See m:Table of Wikimedia projects. For explanation see also the main page of each project. I think http://test.wikipedia.org is not specifically related to Misplaced Pages but more generally a site of Wikimedia to test the MediaWiki software.--Patrick (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the Test Wiki's where they patch code fixes before they go live here. It's also used for experimental features that aren't ready for production use yet. One of the interesting features is flagged revisions support, so that good revisions of articles (e.g., featured versions) can be marked in the history. If such a system was implemented, vandalism by IPs wouldn't become visible to most users until someone sighted the revision (rather than reverting afterwards like we have now). Interesting ideas eh? There's another list of all these wikis at Special:Sitematrix. • Anakin 13:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable Wikipedians

I'd like to get some input on my entry at Template talk:Notable Wikipedian#When should this be used? about when this template should be placed on talk pages. It is my view that it should only be used if the person is either a) a regular contributor (hence 'Wikipedian', or b) there is some other good reason for adding it, e.g. they were fiddling with their own biography to make themselves look good (edits of a controversial nature, I guess). For minor things like single edit accounts I don't think we have any good reason to be highlighting this. If you read a section just above my own there you'll see a case of this being potentially harmful. Richard001 (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Youtube as a source

I've read here and there that you cannot use Youtube as a source, and yet, doing numerous google searching fails to turn up any policy that says so.
In particular, I'm hoping to use Youtube as a source to prove that a band was on a TV show. If the interview with the band was flighted on Romanian TV, and there is a clip on Youtube, is this not acceptable as a source to prove they were on TV? Rfwoolf (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's probably a better question for WP:RSN, but my read is that what you'd want to do in that case is cite the source not as YouTube, but as the TV show itself; then in the source you can link to the YouTube reproduction of the show for convenience. As for YouTube being unacceptable as a source, the closest policy to saying that would be WP:RS. However, YouTube's really just a medium, and as for the reliability of a source, you have to consider what's being played over that medium and where it comes from. A lecture by some internationally renowned scholar broadcast over YouTube is likely to be a reliable source. Some guy ranting into his webcam probably isn't. See WP:SPS for more information about this and other self-published sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that we don't link to copyvios, so that excludes a YouTube clip of a TV show. Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point (although I thought YouTube was pretty aggressive about purging copyvios from its site; isn't that why you can't find Daily Show/Colbert clips there?). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No YouTube is not aggressive about purging copyvios from its site. As far as I know, they only remove copyvios in response to Cease & Desist letters or other strongly-worded complaints. Mike R (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Youtube is no different from an external link. It may contain some reliable sources, mostly it has lots of unreliable garbage. There is of course a problem of citing video sources in general - note that they are very rarely cited in academia, for example. Even documentaries and such don't have (I think) any standard citation format in Harvard style or such. At the very least, I'd expect to see time frame specified just as pages in a printed source.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how YouTube is different from WikiWorld. Opinions? superluser_tc 2008 February 22, 18:11 (UTC)

Sorry if I've missed the point, but WikiWorld is a comic strip created from free content found on Misplaced Pages, and YouTube is a video hosting service. Quite different. As for the matter at hand- almost every video on YouTube is either an unreliable source (some guy moaning into a webcam) or a copyvio from another source. As such, neither would be usable as sources. You could cite a programme that just happened to be illegally uploaded to YouTube, but linking to the YouTube clip would violate policy. The very rare occasion YouTube could be a legitimate source is when the publishers of a reliable source (TV show or something) upload a clip to YouTube. I know that some record labels occasionally upload their own music videos, and so I would imagine there will be a few clips of reliable TV shows that have been uploaded legally around the site. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My point is that WikiWorld is an unreliable source. My question stems from this--I had been thinking of doing a series of videos based on some of the articles here, and then linking back to the videos. As the videos would be GFDL or CC-licensed, I'm wondering why WikiWorld would be used, but not (appropriately-licensed) videos. superluser_tc 2008 February 23, 20:53 (UTC)

Where is WikiWorld being used as a source? Corvus cornix_talk 23:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that linking to unofficial YouTube videos is not acceptable (not reliable sources). However, linking to official content hosted on YouTube (such as music videos uploaded by the label itself) I would consider viable. For example, linking to LisaNova's YouTube page makes complete sense. It's the same as linking to a band's official MySpace page. If it contains further reliable information related to the subject, I think it can be included. And what does WikiWorld have to do with anything? ^_^ ~MDD4696 03:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No policy or guideline addressing anonymity?

I was surprised to find out we have no such policy. WP:ANON is a sketch of an essay with a few useful links... that's it? Anonymity is an (unofficial??) fundation of this project, yet we seem to ignore it. Isn't this strange? At the very least, I think we should try to make WP:ANON more useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at the "Privacy" section of the Editor's index to get a more complete list of pages where this subject is covered. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Maintenance categories etc.

It appears we now have an elegant solution to the problem I raised a few days ago, namely how to stop maintenance categories (like "Articles with unsourced statements...") showing up on article pages. See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#HIDDENCAT. Would it be considered in breach of current policy to go around putting the new magic word on all maintenance categories? If so, can I propose a slight change to the Misplaced Pages:Categorization guideline, so that it allows such categories, but only as hidden categories? (Previous discussion has taken place at Misplaced Pages talk:Categorization#Maintenance categories.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Corpse pictures considered unencyclopedic

Please see this discussion thread from a few days ago on one of the Reference Desks. In brief, it is debated whether it's appropriate for articles such as Wilhelm Frick to include images of the subject's corpse. I say not. (I'm "--Anonymous" in the archived thread.)

I know perfectly well that Misplaced Pages is not censored and I agree that it should not be censored, but this is not license for images that do not add encyclopedic value. And just because someone was executed does not mean that it is informative to see what his dead body looked like. Only if there was something notable about the person's dead body would that be the case.

And in the absence of encyclopedia justification, the inclusion of such images is simply bad taste. I say they should all be removed -- except, of course, if there was something notable about the person's dead body. A picture of Benito Mussolini's body hanging on a meat hook in a public square, if we had one, might be appropriate. That was a notable event. An execution is not notable, and pictures like the one that started this thread are not encyclopedic, I say.

Since this affects a number of articles (I don't know how many), I call for discussion here.

--207.176.159.90 (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Most people have encyclopedic value because of things that they did while they were alive, and a picture of them when they are not alive wouldn't seem to have any value.

But this is already covered. I don't see any need to add "Misplaced Pages is not Shakespeare's Brutus" or "Misplaced Pages is not Doubting Thomas."

It doesn't seem to add anything that's not already policy, and it would seem to discourage people from adding such images when appropriate. For example, the corpse of John Paul I might be encyclopedic (good luck finding a free image), since the embalming process was actually an issue. superluser_tc 2008 February 23, 09:52 (UTC)

1 - It is notable. This was the death of a nazi, it arguably does have encyclopedic value. If there were photos of the corpses of famous people like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, etc I would definitely think the images encyclopedic. Certainly the death of a nazi is notable? (given the efforts to find them and bring them to justice, the amount of blood on their hands, the lack of photos of the individual, and, the notability of the individual itself)

2 - The image is not that bad - it's in black and white (which is already less gory - no red blood or skin tone), and is quite washed out. AND its been set to a very small size in the article - you can hardly see most of the detail

3 - It might be difficult to develop a blanket policy on such things. I think the overiding policy issues are things like "How much does it offend" and "How encyclopedic is it?". In this cases there is strong argument for encyclopedic merit and the image really is not that offensive -- however that is subject, and opinions may vary. Therefore, perhaps we should get users to vote on this. I have a feeling the majority would not find the image offensive. I certainly don't, especially because it's not in colour and of poor quality.

Rfwoolf (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please also see the past debate on the talk page Talk:Wilhelm_Frick#Dead_guy_image. Rfwoolf (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a simple policy for images is "Is it notable"? To which I would disagree with your comment in section #1. He was notable for what he did while he was alive, not for anything particular about his death. The anon's Benito Mussolini counter example makes a good point and I would also point out that there might be some encyclopedic value to corpse photos of Bonnie and Clyde or Billy the Kid since there is controversy about their death. Being a nazi doesn't make his corpse photo de facto notable. You could possible argue an exception if we had no other visual image of him, period, but that is not the case here since we do have a very good image of him alive. There simply isn't a need for it and removing it is not censorship, it is just being prudent and using images that actually contribute something to the article. However, I will point out that there would be some value in adding this photo to the Cadaver article. Agne/ 15:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• There are Bonnie and Clyde corpse photos for precisely that reason. Without them, somebody's always claiming famous people got away. The Barbarosa syndrome, call it. . Anyway, corpse photos are as interesting for what they don't show as for what they show. In the case of the Nazis, they look good and hanged. And not very well (lots of blood). That correlates with historical accounts and is illustrative. They also look well nourished, which is somewhat ironic, considering. So that, too, adds. Their victims had it harder (all things considered). SBHarris 05:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO An execution is a notable event so it makes sense to me that a photo of the cadaver of an execution victim would be relevant to the article about that person. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Particularly someone executed by the Nuremberg Trials, a notable legal proceeding. Darkspots (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As the image is free, and there is no other image fighting for that space in the article, and it is an image relevent to the article, I see absolutely no problem. Pictures of the subject's corpse should be treated just the same as pictures of them when they were alive- if we discuss a concert a pop singer was involved in, and have a free picture of said concert, we include it. If we talk about the execution of a criminal, and have a picture of said execution, we include it. Images don't have to be 'notable' to be included in an article. This post basically boils down to 'Misplaced Pages is not censored, but I don't want to see that.' J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, images should relate directly to something stated in the text of the article. If the article discusses the subject's exicution, an image of that execution is directly related and can be included. If not, then there is no reason to include the image. It's as simple as that. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Once again I will note that this discussion has nothing to do with censorship, so any commentary along those lines are off subject and moot. The purpose of any image is to illustrate something of encyclopedic purpose. To that regards, what does this photo illustrate? That he died? Yes, is that particularly notable? No. That he was executed? No, looking at the photo (without any caption) there is nothing to indicate that he did not die from a fall down some stairs. That he was a Nazi? No, no Nazi emblems in the photo. That he was connected to the Nuremberg Trials? No, once again this photo fails to illustrate anything worthwhile or encyclopedic. So what is the point? Why is it needed? In the context of the Frick article, it serves absolutely no purpose. However, as I noted above, it would serve a very encyclopedic purpose in the Cadaver. Agne/ 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. Also, as the image is in the public domain, there's a good reason for putting the image into Commons. So unless the picture adds more than a brief description of it does (e.g. "William Frick was convicted under the Nuremberg Trials and was hanged until he died."), I don't see the point. It also really doesn't do much to prove that he died, as he would be celebrating his 131st birthday next month. Put the image in Commons, and maybe in cadaver, and certainly add a link to "Wikimedia Commons has media related to:", but don't put it in the article proper.

When newspapers consider printing gory photographs, the arguments are typically not ones of censorship or offending readers, but questions of whether the photos are hard journalism. The papers that don't print them know that the papers that do will sell more copies. That's not the point. The point is: Is it journalism, or in our case, is it encyclopedic? Misplaced Pages is not The Nazi Hunter. superluser_tc 2008 February 23, 21:14 (UTC)

• "Not censored" is not equivalent to "we do not take any consideration to the sensibilities of our readership". There is a major difference. Sam Korn 20:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The contrast between the main photo and the one after execution is stunning and says more than words can ever do. Images are also a language and a communication of facts, and should not be undervalued. This image adds considerably to the value of the article. The hanging of this once-powerful individual is a major part of his story. There is no reason not to show this. In fact, as it was such a significant part of his story, there is every reason that it should be shown. Tyrenius (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Likewise Emmett Till. Should we have a picture of Emmett Till's corpse? superluser_tc 2008 February 24, 04:47 (UTC)

The contrast of quite a few folks living vs dead photos would be stunning. Should that be an encouragement to start including side-by-side Alive/Dead photos in infoboxes? of Ronald Regan, of Princess Diana, of Benazir Bhutto? of Anna Svidersky? If we had free use photos of anyone's corpse, is the "contrast" alone, truly a reason to include the photo? And before anyone brings up the "Think of their family" angle as a reason not to post corpse photos of the folks mentioned above, I will point out that Wilhelm Frick has family too, possibly still living--though that is not my reason for thinking the photo should not be included. I do agree that his execution was historical and if the photo actually was of his execution, not an after the fact matter, I would probably be arguing for its inclusion because that would have some encyclopedic value. But a simple picture of his corpse, does not. Agne/ 04:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

I am wondering what the rational is for putting external links in their own section near the end is. would obviously be more helpful if it were a link within the list, but some editors more even inline citations to an "external links' section. Sparafucil (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems to me that that should not be a link but a reference. Citations should not go in External links. External links are links to related resources located in other places on the internet. ~MDD4696 03:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Serbia vs. Kosovo

I have been patrolling recent changes for quite some time, and I have noticed that articles about cities, towns, counties, etc. that are located in Kosovo are being changed from Country: Serbia to Country: Kosovo to Country: Serbia to Country: Kosovo ad infinitum.
I think we should write at least a temporary guideline regarding this since I (and I assume many others) are unsure of whether to revert these changes. Most English-speaking countries, indeed most Western powers, including the US, the UK, France and Australia have formally recognized Kosovo's independence. Because as far as I can tell, based on Image:Kosovo relations.svg, no English-speaking country has outright refused to recognize Kosovo, I would like to propose that all places/buildings/whatever that are located in Kosovo be identified as Country: Kosovo in the English Misplaced Pages. What do other people think? J.delanoy_adds 23:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. The more important thing is that we stop the edit warring. Perhaps a footnote somewhere noting the justification for one over the other. ~MDD4696 03:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Delegable proxy

For those who are not aware, this is an idea that has recently been proposed, and the supporters want to see the idea experimented with, despite some objections. From my understanding of this, the envisioned end goal is really no different from the experiment. So, I think it would be appropriate for the community to comment on the idea more fully. Mangojuice 00:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand the reason for the objection. It's kinda like if someone said, "We want to test what effect it will have on deletion debates if we set up a page at m:AIW for people to post endangered articles. If it helps our cause, we'll keep it; if not, we'll scrap it." And they go and set it up, and somebody objects, "Wait! This experiment is the same as going ahead and doing it. You haven't obtained community consensus." We could have set up delegable proxy without calling it an experiment, so the distinction is basically meaningless. There are no proposed changes to policy or guidelines at this time, although we've noted that we might propose them in the future based on the results of the experiment. Absidy (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to get at here is that I think this idea needs to get broader input from the community. I would always have insisted on this at some point. If you think it's ready for an "experiment" then it's ready for community input. Mangojuice 03:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a policy issue here? The brainstorming proposal has always been open for community input. At this point, the "proposal" for all practical purposes -- besides speculating a little about how delegable proxy might be used -- has been to design format for a proxy file, to be placed in a user's space, a Proxy Table that transcludes information from the proxy files and presents it in a form where it can be analyzed, and then to see what users make of it. With the caveat that the file format may well change, users can designate proxies already. Currently the draft proxy table doesn't have warnings that were on it at one time; but the intention is that it be made clear that these proxies aren't binding, no user is obligated in any way to recognize them, that the community has not recognized the validity of proxies, and, as well, that there is no proposal here for "voting" to become standard on Misplaced Pages. The current project page focuses on what !voting might look like in an AfD, if proxies were considered, but it should be realized that this was just an example, and nobody participating thinks that AfDs should be decided by vote. In outside study of Delegable Proxy, the most important thing it does -- in theory -- is to formalize networks of members to improve communication, cooperation, and coordination efficiency, and the establishment of the file formats will make it possible to begin simple and easy experimentation with the idea here. This sets up no bureaucracy, and neither involves nor suggests any policy changes. --Abd (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why both of you have felt the need to defend the idea from this request for input from the community. That's all this is. Mangojuice 05:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I interpreted earlier statement as an objection. Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and open it to new participants. Anyone who wants to sign up can do so at Misplaced Pages:Delegable proxy/Table. Absidy (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do object; we can discuss those objections further on our user talk pages or on the talk page there, but I don't think it'd do much good because I think my mind is made up and so is yours. I was trying to write the stub here neutrally though, so that people would come to the page with an open mind. Mangojuice 05:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I appreciate your efforts to keep everything fair and balanced. So anyway, while we disagree on this particular issue, I hope you will still consider appointing me as your proxy. Since you are actively participating in the delegable proxy discussion, the proxy designation will be of no consequence within that context, as you are already speaking on your own behalf. However, I can represent you in many other matters, and believe I am well-qualified to do so. I have a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and procedures and an excellent working relationship with Abd, who I intend to appoint as my own proxy. I notice you are a Mergist Wikipedian. Well, I'm Inclusionist, which is pretty close to that. Anyway, here are the instructions for nominating me. Just go to User:Mangojuice/Proxy, create a new page, and then enter:

{{subst:Misplaced Pages:Delegable proxy/Table/Designate|Absidy}}

I'll take care of the rest, don't worry. I'll go ahead and include this message on the VPP so others can begin nominating me as well. OK, at the moment I am just 3,000 users away from superproxyship! This is going to be awesome. Absidy (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

1. example01
2. example02
3. example03
4. example04
5. example
6. example05
7. example
8. example
9. example
10. example02
11. example03
12. example05
13. example

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines