Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:02, 7 October 2008

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 2 days

Archives

Index -index- As of January 16, 2003 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 - late May 2006 May 24 - July 2006 July 2006 - August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 - Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 - December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 - Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 - Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007- Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2-5, 2007 March 5-11, 2007 March 11 - April 3, 2007 April 2 - May 2, 2007 May 3 - June 7, 2007 June 9 - July 4, 2007 July 13 - August 17, 2007 August 17 - September 11, 2007 September 14 - October 7, 2007 October 28 - December 1, 2007 December 2 - December 16, 2007 December 15 - January 4, 2008 January 4 - January 30, 2008 January 30 - February 28, 2008 February 28 - March 11, 2008 March 9 - April 18, 2008 April 18 - May 30, 2008 May 30 - July 27, 2008 July 26 - October 4, 2008 October 4 - November 12, 2008 November 10 - December 10, 2008 December 5 - December 25, 2008 December 25 - January 16, 2009 January 15 - January 27, 2009 January 26 - February 10, 2009 February 8 - March 18, 2009 March 18 - May 6, 2009 May 5 - June 9, 2009 June 10 - July 11, 2009 July 12 - August 29, 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Featured Articles on The Simpsons and notability

"Cape Feare"	March 162007
"Homer's Phobia"	March 262007
"Homer's Enemy"	May 72007
"You Only Move Twice"	July 312007
The Simpsons	August 142007
Troy McClure	August 252007
"A Streetcar Named Marge"	September 202007
"The Joy of Sect"	November 252007
"Lisa the Skeptic"	December 122007
Treehouse of Horror (series)	January 222008
The Simpsons Movie	January 282008
"The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson"	February 42008
"The Last Temptation of Krust"	February 23 2008

Jimbo, in an earlier thread at this talk page in a discussion about notability you said The Simpson's anomaly is probably my own personal fault, because way back in the day before I really understood the limitations of the medium, I said something like "We should have an article on every episode of The Simpson's, why not?" Whereas now, if I were voting, I would vote to delete. I am curious to hear your response to Durova's subsequent query - which of those articles would you "vote to delete" ? Cirt (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, either all of them or, possibly, all but a few. For me, were I voting today, I would look for much stronger verifiability as evidenced by reliable third-party sourcing rather than original research. In particular, I would be looking for something to suggest that the episode achieved some wider and significant specific cultural impact. (For example, the last episode of Seinfeld, or of Mary Tyler Moore.) It bears repeating: I am not trying to make policy here, just indicating my current thinking on these matters.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled why you'd mentioned original research. The articles may not be perfect, but OR is not an issue with any of them. Are you referring to the plot sections? It's generally accepted that editors can use primary sources for the plot section, so long as they stick to the basic details. Zagalejo^^^ 15:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Jimbo's response to this would be interesting to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television. I'm also curious as a main contributor to Degrassi: The Next Generation articles. There is only one article about an episode of that show at the moment. I'm not sure if I understand you, Jimbo, when you said, "My increased "deletionism" is very mild when it comes to things like Simpson's episodes - not much harm done. But it is quite strong when it comes to biographies of living persons, where serious damage can be done". Did you mean on a episode-by-episode basis, as in not much harm is done to the episode by having an article about it, or not much harm is done to Misplaced Pages and its reputation WRT episode articles in general? (Don't worry, whichever way you answer I'm not about to create 146 articles on Degrassi episodes!)

Personally, I'm a little surprised by some of the earlier articles that were given FA status. "Cape Feare", for example. If you take away the references from the BBC (just a summary as part of their episode guide from when they aired the show) and the DVD commentaries, we're left with 10 references for the entire article, eight of which are used in the Reception section. One of those, ref 8 is the opinion of 1 fan that happened to appear in USA Today, the rest all say the same thing: "this episode was one of the good ones" (paraphrasing). Same with "You Only Move Twice". Twelve references, eight primary sources, only four secondary. Three of them discuss a character and say "he is good", the fourth discusses the episode and says "it is good" (again, paraphrasing). I'm not sure if notability has really been established for those two articles. The others are better, increasing as you get towards the bottom of the list, which only goes to show how the FA process is improving over time. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, so you'd seriously delete articles that the community has decided to feature? Now I don't call myself an inclusionist, but there are five volunteers who worked very hard for many months to earn a spot here. I look at this thread and shake my head; to them your post has got to be a punch in the gut. Durova 07:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My comment is not a comment on the quality of their work. One could write a beautiful poem that changes the history of English literature forever, and I would vote to delete it from Misplaced Pages. There are many factors beyond just the amount of quality effort that someone puts into something that determine whether or not it is right for Misplaced Pages. In any event, I am not suggesting that I would delete anything. I am just giving some context on my current thinking in these areas. Primary research can be great. It just doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages for a variety of reasons that we understand better today than we did some years ago.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Writing Featured Articles using research from secondary sources from newspaper articles, books, and academic journals in an article about a notable topic in popular culture is not "primary research". Cirt (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if that it what these articles were, I would agree completely. But let's face it, they are not. They are primarily original research.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How so? Taking A Streetcar Named Marge at random, aside from the five-paragraph plot summary (which is cited not only to the original primary source, but also to an episode guide, which although not completely "independent of the subject" is nonetheless a secondary source), the rest of the article is thoroughly referenced to reliable secondary sources like the New York Times and an analytical book on the subject of The Simpsons. I don't see any original research to speak of there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Josiah Rowe (talk · contribs). These articles are in fact not primarily original research, but instead rely heavily on secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What has changed since your original proclamation to make you reconsider? The cynical side of me says it's the for profit Wikia you launched which would love said articles and their traffic... but I hope it's wrong. the wub "?!" 00:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Minimum length for FAs?

On a related issue, there is a discussion and straw poll at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates on whether there should be a minimum length in words for FAs of say 1,000 or 1,500 woords, and other issues. At the moment there seems no majority on this, so we are likely to continue to get increasingly short FAs - the shortest candidate I have seen was 329 words - many on small tropical storms (one reached 40mph for 1 minute) and American state roads (one a 1/4 mile long, outside a military base). The questions start here. Johnbod (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll have you know that Erick reached 40 mph for about 12 hours. :-) In all seriousness, though, why does quality correlate to length? –Juliancolton 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That information isn't in the article - I was going from the infobox statistic, which perhaps needs to further explanation, as so often. Is this article "Misplaced Pages's very best work"? I don't think so, though of course it is very well done (much better than the road). Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, is the article well-written? Is it comprehensive? Is it neutral, unbiased, stable, and does it meet notability requirements? If so, what prevents it from being considered "Misplaced Pages's best work"? –Juliancolton 01:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on those issues at FAC, & not all the answers are yes. But the topic is just too tiny. It's worth rememberering that it's only because the little storm happened near the US, and got an official US classification, that it qualifies as automatically notable. In most places in the world weather events on this scale are not remotely considered notable here. Maybe it's time to reconsider the notability criteria. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is fairly non-notable; I completely agree that it's only notable for being designated by the NHC. However, being designated by the NHC gives a storm a large amount of notable via the media, government sources, tracking agencies, etc. Granted, a large amount of notability for a storm can be seen differently than a large amount of notability for another more widely-known subject. The notability given to any named tropical cyclone allows the subject to passe WP:N, and as a result, can support an article. That said, if an article meets WP:N, it could therefore survive an AfD. A while back, Raul said that any article which survives an AfD can become featured. Have our standards changed that much? What's wrong with a goal of getting every article featured? Now, I'm still slightly confused; "Misplaced Pages's best work" is named such for a reason. It's not called "Misplaced Pages's most notable work". Would a subject have to be notable before we can call it our "best work"? However, I understand and respect that Misplaced Pages is not ready for a 400-word article; hence I withdrew Tropical Storm Erick (2007) from FAC. I also understand why people might want to create a new class of Featured Content for shorter articles. (Jimbo, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated). Cheers, –Juliancolton 01:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Can become featured" doesn't mean "should become featured once all available online information has been compiled in a well-produced article". I can imagine (at a stretch) a fuller article on the subject I would vote for at FAC, but 329 words, no. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

These articles are a net benefit for Misplaced Pages, they don't cause any harm and doesn't violate any of our policy. From a PR point of view, they are beneficial, except if featured on the Main Page too many times. Cenarium 01:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope we can abide by Jimbo's plea not to take his view (too) seriously here: "It bears repeating: I am not trying to make policy here, just indicating my current thinking on these matters." if Wikia ever shut down we might be able to persuade you to his view back again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.26.4.35 (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Can i redirect from Jimmy Wales to User:Jimbo Wales or User:Jimbo Wales to Jimmy Wales ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.29.28 (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh..no. One is an article in the mainspace. The other is a userpage.--Xp54321 16:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Jimmy Wales is a GA! :-) –Juliancolton 16:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? I can just hear the media now insisting that WP is corrupt for saying an article on its founder is "Good". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, what would they say if this was an FA and put on the main page for his 40th birthday? lol. There is always 45 and 50 to shoot for. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

IP editor Welcome to Misplaced Pages.If you want to test please test using the Sandbox.Please go through the welcome message I gave in your talk page. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo

Just wondering here, but seeing as you are the almighty-final say in everything power on wikipedia, what do you think of something like this where the guy gets piled on for the answer to a question, opposed for being a wrestling fan, and told off for not answering an optional qustion about his age evn though the oft agreed lower limit is 12? (I was 13 when I first had an RFA and noone pulled me up for it (I phailed anyway)) PXK /_C 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

process & precedent for explicit image type

This relates to commons:Image:Anal Creampie.JPG, recently placed on MediaWiki:Bad image list after being used for vandalism. A couple years back, you deleted Image:Creampiesex.jpg, used in Creampie (sexual act), with the edit summary "Image would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements." (It appears that the image and log has since been oversighted, but I wrote down the incident at Misplaced Pages:Pornography#Jimbo Wales on obscenity.) Given how similar the images are, I wonder if you could clarify whether your previous deletion was a one-off and the stance of the higher ups have changed in the meantime, if you reserve summary deletion of these types of images for yourself, if admins have authority to do out of process deletion for these types of images as well, or if you wish this image to go through normal deletion discussions? Thanks, BanyanTree 01:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

All images which would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements should be deleted on sight, and the uploader blocked for simple vandalism. If anything has changed about my stance on this in recent years, it is a significantly lower tolerance for trolling us. I do not think it is out-of-process to delete such stuff on sight, and if it is, then the process needs to be changed to make sure it happens.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. - BanyanTree 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Having had time now to review the particular case, it seems clear to me that the user in question was trolling.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And to all, out of interest, here's the relevant section of Code that covers this - Alison 22:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Also probably of interest to anyone reading this, according to Misplaced Pages "On 23 October 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the record keeping requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech." (Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act) Jimmy, when you said "all images which would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements", did you mean to include all images that would have triggered such requirements had the law not been deemed unconstitutional? If so, I believe this would represent a significant policy change. Anthony (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It has always been policy to block users who are simply vandalizing Misplaced Pages and trolling others. These kinds of images have zero encyclopedic value. I recommend that we continue to take a hard line against them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I've got to wade through this crap to figure out what you're saying. So you would recommend blocking the uploader of , , and ? Should be deleted as having zero encyclopedic value? At least two of these images are of topics explicitly mentioned by 2557 (via 2556). These types of images have been listed on deletion pages time and time again, and each time they are kept, not deleted, and certainly not deleted with a block of the uploader. Maybe you recommend taking a hard line against them, but this would be a departure from current practice, not a continuation of it. Anthony (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, in light of these comments, how would you view this image ? -- zzuuzz 23:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It should obviously be speedy deleted and the uploader blocked.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In contrast to the above, from a PR point of view, these images are detrimental. Cenarium 01:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, but it wasn't. As you see, a majority of commenters in fact recommended keeping the image. I don't have the bit to enact your recommendation of the obvious. Maybe you'd be willing to speedy delete it yourself, along with those 4 I mentioned above, and block all the uploaders. I don't actually recommend this, because I think it'd cause quite an uproar, though I do agree with your sentiment. Anthony (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo does not own Wikimedia nor Misplaced Pages and he both knows this and acts accordingly. Thus I read his above comment as indicating that he believes consensus should be that the image is deleted, not that he believes he should violate consensus and delete it himself. Since consensus did not agree with Jimbo's statement above, there are several possibilities: Jimbo could try to change consensus, Jimbo could decide maybe he was wrong, Jimbo could believe that his saying what he said usefully provides him with deniability, Jimbo could take an eventualist approach and accept that sooner or later the right thing will happen, and other possibilities as well. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of this comment. Could you please explain your reasons for posting it?— Dædαlus /_Improve 21:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? Videmus Omnia? An editor with over 30,000 edits on English Misplaced Pages and over 2000 edits on Commons? It's a moot point since Videmus Omnia has left anyway, but it still seems a little off to say he should have been blocked. Also note that the picture actually went through OTRS, presumably someone who dealt with it there should be blocked too... the wub "?!" 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus or verifiability?

Dear Jim, First, please check out the history of the Henotheism page.

You are perhaps already more aware than I am that there are abusive users on Misplaced Pages. There is no doubt about it. What is sad is that even admins abuse their special privileges regularly without any "checks and balances". All this just to go with "consensus" instead of basing decisions on "verifiable" facts. This is violation of the very mandate of what admins are for and waste of time for good faith editors. In the long run, this will keep poor contributors in and sway away good faith editors. While I was a target of abusive editing practices by others, I was blocked by User:YellowMonkey from arbitration (as a punishment for my notifying an abusive admin to arb)!!! All this instead of User:YellowMonkey issuing some sort of warning to an abusive admin User:Dougweller or asking him to refrain from abusive practices in the future. The disputed content was discussed at Talk:Aditya. Anyway, while watching the history of the Henotheism page today (as it is I'm blocked), I noticed that another person User:ADvaitaFan also seems to have run into the same issue i.e. continued forced edit reversals even after that good faith editor added links so others can verify the corrections he (or she) had made. The edit reversal again in this case done by admin User:Dougweller~! Doug's last rv note says "it is clear there is no consensus for this edit" and nothing about "verifiability" of facts discussed on the Talk: Henotheism page. All this goes totally against Misplaced Pages Misplaced Pages:Verifiability guidelines. I am wondering why Misplaced Pages would make such people as admins! Even long-timers like User:Dbachmann also seem to playing the edit reversal game just to go with the flow of whatever the admin likes. With the current approach, this great project is bound to fail, especially if nothing changes. The content will most certainly not be high grade if "consensus" instead of "verifiability" is used as the yardstick. The smart people of Misplaced Pages need to figure out and fix this "bandit ring game" for good. What's really disturbing is even long-timers dabble in mindlessly just to look good within the circle of favor (especially to admins), and admins can't seem to separate wheat from shaff, while also ruthlessly pushing their own POV!!! This again goes totally against the Misplaced Pages:NPOV principle. At minimum, a neutral hidden committee (arbitration not comprising of admins) should monitor all admins and keep score of their actions secretly. Misplaced Pages needs to look closely at their stats and seriously at rules on admin monitoring. If admins themselves engage in Misplaced Pages:Edit_warring, this goes totally against the very foundation of building a great encyclopedia. Better still if admin monitoring can be done programatically instead of this current affinity-based approach. Where we are today, further degradation of content and even more POV content is almost guaranteed. I'd love to hear back from you if Misplaced Pages is already working along these lines or what your planned next steps are. Be well. VedicScience (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• VedicScience, this is stupid. And you don't strike me as a stupid person, so I don't know why you're doing this. Keep it up and you'll be banned soon, which would be a shame, because you can make good edits. You have absolutely no case here, and you need to let it drop. I think a part of you knows this. Please let go of the vanity. Moreschi (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I explained to him (for the second time) what he should do. One more wall of text complaining and he's gone for a while. There's a line between anger and just plain disruption. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello

You have made a very good website, but please don't allow random IPs to edit. Registration should be mandatory. 59.95.114.118 (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)