Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:17, 9 August 2009

Noticeboard archives

• v
• t
• e

Use of cleanup templates at the top of articles

Most of us are familiar with the maintenance templates at the top of articles. I am seeking feedback on the degree to which the community believes that these templates are useful and viable. Recently, a new wikiproject, called CiterSquad, has been expressly formed to add the {{unreferenced}} tag to the top of thousands of articles after a cursory review of the article. (And in fact, it's often very cursory, considering the "long tail" of Misplaced Pages articles that hardly have any content in the first place.) A BOT was first used to algorithmically identify which articles had no references. The bot added a hidden category to each article that it found lacking references. One of the compromises that the "dissenters" to this bot task (and the wikiproject) thought they had reached was that the hidden category would be used instead of the "unreferenced" template. The wikiproject, however, is now doing what the bot could have done, by removing the hidden category and adding the template. Please see the recent contributions of the active members of that wikiproject for the results of these edits in the aggregate. A normal result is an article whose deficiencies are already obvious (at least in the sense of how much it says about the topic, I mean) that looks like this: .

Does the "content community" believe that anything useful is accomplished by this? Questions to consider are:

• Is the reader served by templates, or only editors? What assumptions do you make about the reader in assuming they are, or are not, served by these templates?
• If these templates are primarily of interest to editors, why don't we mark the articles in a less intrusive way? What assumptions do you make about the degree to which templates actually encourage someone to do something they would not have done anyway?
• Is a misunderstanding of the WP:V policy leading to the belief that mass-tagging articles that have no references is an appropriate edit? The policy stress "verifiability", meaning "the ability to be verified" is important--not that citations be splashed after random facts. (Does the reader "verify" random facts? What assumptions are you making? See question 1.)

As you can probably tell, my own position is that this project is the logical, and awful, outcome of a misguided application of policy that has gradually seen more and more articles randomly templated, instead of improved. I am very surprised that Misplaced Pages has arrived at a point where there is no outrage that people are editing this way. (See the talk page of the wikiproject for some viewpoints.) Outriggr (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The solution seems to me to be that those who don't like "ugly" tags at the top of articles can dispute the factual nature of the tag. I do this fairly regularly, when someone has gone hog wild with 5-6 tags when really only 1-2 are relevant (e.g., one article probably doesn't need both {{in-universe}} and {{fansite}}), and challenge editors desiring to readd the tags to articulate an actionable fix for the problem on talk. Alternatively, if a tag is accurate, but an editor would like to remove it, the problem can be fixed. While often a brief effort should result in {{unreferenced}} being replaced with {{primarysources}} or {{refimprove}}, as is my usual custom, I perceive no requirement for an editor removing one no-longer-accurate tag to replace it with a milder tag. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Over-tagging articles is rather unhelpful so I regularly trim down to the top two relevant ones. While I find many tags annoying I also see a need for some of them. Having stated all that ... the vast majority - 99 percent? - could be tagged but I also don't see that as actually helping anything. -- Banjeboi 04:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tags such as those serve more purpose than cleanup (although that that alone is good enough to warrant them IMO), they identify the problems of the article for everyone to see, not just the experts), and drive people (both logged in and IPs) to fix what's wrong with the articles.Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the concern this is addressing is the mass tagging of hundreds/thousands of articles when those categories are already quite clogged. Is it really helpful to have every article in some clean-up cat or should we focus on the worst offenders and dig from there? -- Banjeboi 20:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I support BOTH adding sources AND adding verifiability-related citation tags to articles that need improvement. I frequently add citations to articles I work on, and also on those I stumble upon that are in my area of interest or expertise. These actions however are orthogonal to other actions that I also choose to take to tag unreferenced material. WP:Verifiability is not optional. Policy is unambiguous, it is up to the editor who wants to retain material in Misplaced Pages to get it cited with verifiable sources; it is NOT WP policy that every editor who stumbles upon significant unreferenced material must stop their lives and endeavor to improve THAT particular article, nor ignore that the article has no sources. So I tag it and move on. It seems to me to be a simple courtesy to flag it for a month or two to see if "the community" cares enough about an article to fix it before material is deleted for being unsourced. N2e (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing the sourcing is a good thing. The only issue here seems to be the wholesale adding of clean-up tags to thousands of articles without actually working to add the sources. We already have hundreds of articles with these tags and nearly every one of our nearly three million articles could have a tag. I guess this just seems unneeded and disruptive. -- Banjeboi 20:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Mario Lopez

Hello, just noticed this. does not seems to be a valid edit. However, I am not knowledgeable enough about Mario Lopez to judge if it is vandalism. Requesting Admin assistance. --Jyothis (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like routine vandalism, someone else has reverted it and I am warning the editor - a new account and their first and only edit. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. --Jyothis (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Great Ziggurat of Ur

Somebody has changed the page's name from "Great Ziggurat of Ur" to "Ziggurat of Ur" before a discussion about such a move has taken place. A proper debate and a concensus must be attained first. Izzedine (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone interested should look at the history of the article and the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to insult their intelligence? Izzedine (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Plasma Applications

The above (currently replaced by the copyvio boilerplate until OTRS permissions are achieved) is a bit puzzling to me. On the surface, it looks like a legitimate article. Many references however link to , which pretty much offers solutions for every single subheader. Also noteworthy, plasmaapplications.net is a redirect on the above domain. Legitimate article or cleverly disguised advertisment? I'd appreciate some experienced eyes on the matter. Posting here because NPOV or SPAM noticeboards seem more "loaded" than this may warrant. Thanks, MLauba (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game

I apologize if this is the wrong place for this particular problem, but I couldn't find a more specific one. I have tried recently, through wikilinks in templates and searching, to access the article List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game. Although a preview of the article appears in my browser window through a popup, clicking through to it results in a blank white screen with the words "Override this function." in plain text at the top. I was only able to read the article by going through a redirect, specifically List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in a National Hockey League game. I don't know if I'm the only one this is affecting, or if it is a symptom of a wider technical problem, however, I felt it should be made known. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

See Template:Bug, apparently it has to do with some sort of software update. Anomie⚔ 10:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent Deletion On Wiki Talk Page Josip Broz Tito

Dear reader just recently my thoughts on talkpage Tito have been deleted and it seems it’s going to stay that way. Since I am faced with the fact that my opinions are being suppressed and then eventually will be blocked, I’ve decided to put this out there so these events may be known to the wider wiki community.

The article in question is Josip Broz Tito (the former Dictator of Yugoslavia- East Europe). He was commander of the partisan forces during world war 2 and later a Stalinistic style dictator of the former Yugoslavia. The Wikipedic article is biased and does not mention crimes (Bleiburg massacre & foibe massacres)) against humanity that were committed under his leadership. I registered that this should be part of the article and as a result I have been deleted. One writer was very abusive and deleted my writings on talk back pages. His name is DIREKTOR. He was supported by Ruhrfisch ><>°° I would like to quote some of the Direktor’s statements regarding this article just to inform you of what we are dealing with here.

“Find yourself another one of your crappy "forums" to talk about your presumptions. Just forget about this, Luigi/Brunodam, you're not annoying anyone - you're just turning out amusing. I think I'll file a checkuser in an hour or so, you'd better believe it when I say I'll delete everything you wrote if you're a sock. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)”

These events are not some conspiracy. They have been part of the western media since the break up of the former Yugoslavia. They have been presented as TV documentaries, on talk back shows and in general writings in England, other parts of Europe and USA, Australia and other parts of the free world. They are backed by eye witness accounts by people who were actually caught up in these events.

The Croatian government is addressing these issues with investigations and financial reimbursement is being given to the victims. These are facts and should be present in the article and not deleted when someone points them out. These actions mirror the attitude of the regime that I am trying to expose.

The Josip Broz Tito article is a dangerous biased piece of writing. It would fit perfectly in any article of the old the Yugoslavia or the old Soviet Union propaganda machine (Cult of personality). Why is it there? The only answer it seems is that Misplaced Pages has some writers of extreme views (Stalin Style) who don’t tolerate being questioned.

Regards Sir Floyd203.161.104.34 (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Without expressing any view on the merits of the dispute, it is exceptionally poor form for a user to delete someone else's comments on an article's talk page without a compelling reason. See WP:TPO ("The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission"). WP:NOTFORUM is not such a reason. user:DIREKTOR's actions in deleting your comment were poor form.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think you'll find NOT#FORUM is policy, which is why it is actually one of the compelling reasons detailed in the TPO guideline - "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". MickMacNee (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in NOTFORUM overrides TPO and permits the removal of a user's comment from their talk page. Even if it did, that authorization could only follow from a violation of the closest thing to on-point language: "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article." The discussion that was deleted may be off-base, but it can certainly be understood as trying to improve the article by identifying a perceived bias in the article. Whether that bias is there or not is irrelevant: if the user seems to be advancing it in good faith, their argument should be met or ignored, not deleted. That said, if the debate degenerates into personal attacks, that is a reason to remove another user's comments (and I've removed one of Floyd's for that reason), but only those comments that violate WP:NPA. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything in NOT#FORUM overrides TPO, that is why one is a policy, and one is a guideline. Civil and apparently good faith requests about rejected theories or claims are routinely removed from hundreds of articles, Barack Obama being a prime example. To challenge this particular case, the onus is on you to prove the deleter violated NOT#FORUM by concluding this was not a realistic attempt to imporve the article, because he quite obviously believes it wasn't. If that's the case, then it is a matter for ANI, but I doubt it is. MickMacNee (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There are all sorts of laws that tell people not to do something without implying a cause of action for a third party to tackle someone who breaks that law. Misplaced Pages isn't a legal system, but the same concept applies here. NOTFORUM tells editors what to do and not to do in their own comments and contributions. It also delineates a category of article-space material that should be removed. It does not, however, authorize you to police other editor's talk page comments and remove those that you don't think measure up. If it did so, I might agree that it trumps TPO - but it doesn't. NOTFORUM doesn't authorize you to remove talkpage comments violating it, and TPO has a general rule forbidding it; there is no incompatibility between those rules, and both can be followed.

With that said, I of course recognize that TPO makes exceptions to its general rule, and one of them incorporates a version of NOTFORUM's rule: it allows deletion of comments (even discussions) that are irrelevant to improving the article. But as WP:EXCEPTIONS and common sense make clear, the exception must be understood in the context of the rule. The rule is, don't delete other people's comments. When you see a comment criticizing and/or proposing to change wording in an article that you like, there is an understandable temptation to make a snap judgment that the change would make the article worse. (A fortiori if it's a passage you wrote: WP:OWN can only go so far toward suppressing the instinctive attachment of writers to their own writing!) If the change proposed would make the article worse, then it wouldn't improve the article, so the comment must be irrelevant to improving the article. So I can delete it, right? By that tortured chain of reasoning, the exception swallows the rule. That won't do. To preserve both the exception and the rule, they must be understood to protect good-faith comments seeking improvement from deletion by other editors, even if those editors think the changes proposed are stupid. DIREKTOR evidently thinks that Floyd's concerns are ill-taken and his proposed changes stupid. They may well be. But that doesn't authorize DIREKTOR (or anyone else) to delete Floyd's remarks so long as they can be understood to be a good-faith effort to improve the article. If the discussion degenerates into a slanging match, TPO authorizes deletion of comments that are personal attacks. If the discussion wanders too far afield into a general discussion of Tito rather than one focused on the article, TPO authorizes deletion of comments. It does not allow (in fact forbids) removal of comments simply because DIREKTOR suspects Floyd of being a sock or disapproves of his proposed changes.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

PRODUCER and ICTYoda and their fake sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/ICTYoda

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/PRODUCER

RELATING to the article Karađorđevo http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kara%C4%91or%C4%91evo_agreement&diff=306809367&oldid=306809213 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kara%C4%91or%C4%91evo_agreement&diff=306636454&oldid=306636441

the section testimonies.

The statements of each witness diferr.Some of them were present but most of them were not (Marković , Okun ,Ashdown, Zimmerman...)

I have tried to sort it by the crtiteria of presence in the meeting but PRODUCER and ICTYoda are simply reverting it.

and they constantly push this statement

Croat politicians who worked with Franjo Tuđman such as counselors Dušan Bilandžić and Hrvoje Šarinić, and former prime minister of Croatia Stjepan Mesić have confirmed the story.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

rorschach inkblot test...

I apologize if I post this on the wrong place, but I think this is the most apropriate one... And again, I apologize if there isn't any problem, but is it acceptable to post the pictures of the test and most common answers? I only ask if this isn't irregular(?) for it is prohibited to do both by the council of psychologists of my country... Thanks

You want this discussion. – iridescent 23:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Burger King & Burger King products

Copy and paste from WP:ANI

Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

• Burger King products
• Burger King

Involved parties

• Jerem43 (talk · contribs)
• RaseaC (talk · contribs)

Description of the dispute and the main evidence

This is a content/3R dispute that I would like to have a third party look at. RaseaC deleted a section in the article, which I disagreed with and restored. He then deleted it again and I restored it requesting that she not delete it again and discuss it on the talk page before continuing. He then deleted it again and started a discussion. I replied to her stated my reasoning, implying his behavior was consistent with edit warring and requesting she restore the information until such time that consensus could be reached. He refused, claiming that he had consensus based on a previous discussion regarding an unrelated issue involving fair use and that he was in the right.

Lets add the Burger king lead discussion to this. Also the comment in the Burger King history that borders on a violation of personal attack, though it really doesn't bother me. It does point to an issue with his behaviors that I am having an issue with. I do apologize for the error of assuming he was a she.

Could an uninvolved admin look into this for me please?

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

Firstly, I'm a he, not a she, and I will refrain from substantiating that particular claim. Secondly, the previous discussion mentioned was related, as two other editors clearly stated doubts that there was encyclopedic merit, hence, as far as I'm concerned, a consensus. I'll be back in a few minutes when he opens an ARI on the other page he owns.RaseaC (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Don't sweat about the gender thing. My response to the Burger King page was that there is no need for such an indepth paragraph regarding such a mundane issue, and I couldn't really find any basis for such from a handful of other similar pages, though reading through my response on the talk will clear that up. Not sure where the personal attack was, but it probably did happen, people often complain about my behaviour, but then we've got more important issues. RaseaC (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards