Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wifione (talk | contribs) at 03:12, 8 September 2010 (→A micro question on claim of notability and a macro question on notability of religious figureheads: adding Xeno talk page link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

• WP:VPP

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

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Two-factor authentication for page movers
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

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

Restaurant Notability

As this seems to be a recurring phenomenon, I believe we need to create a separate, distinguished criteria for passing notability for restaurants. I would like this to go before a large audience and eventually have a proper vote on it. I stand on a more conservative side of this issue, leaning towards excluding restaurants that may meet general notability guidelines. I think that this is what has caused such a large divergence in opinion, simply because no specific set of rules exist for restaurants. It is my opinion that by following current rules for notability, we are allowing the insertion of unencyclopedic restaurants to pass through, and adherents to the general rules have something to lean on during a debate for deletion.

A large supporting source is the New York Times, an obviously reputable source, which constantly reviews restaurants in its dining section. What this gives writers is a safe source for maintaining notability; one could potentially write an article for a restaurant on a weekly basis citing this source. There are certainly other highly used sources which weekly feature restaurants which can be used. It is my opinion that even though these are used countless times (by myself in many articles I've written), they do not give notability. Every restaurant has a history, and some may be certainly very interesting, but that does not make it remarkable. To quote myself from a related discussion:

"I worked at a restaurant as a cook for 8 years that was featured every year by the local news (nj news12) and the owner has gotten a ton of good reviews for it simply because he has connections and wanted the exposure. It is utterly unremarkable and does not belong in an encyclopedia, but if this is a trend, maybe I will someday write a fluffy article about the hardships he faced climbing up the ladder, sacrificing whatever it was he did."

That is an empty threat, but my point is that if the owner had any interest in Misplaced Pages (yet he luckily doesn't even have an interest in the internet), he could probably meet general notability guidelines and have a very well referenced article. I do not wish for this to happen.

I have a general set of rules which I would like to propose to determine eligibility for notability for restaurants which I will list.

"A restaurant may be notable if it is independently sourced for something other than the fact that it's a restaurant that got good reviews, and has some sort of history."

1. The owner is notable.
2. The workers are notable, like a notable chef.
3. Notable regulars, like if a celebrity frequents and supports the restaurant.
4. Historical significance, like an old restaurant or site which has been or is currently a restaurant (a fictional example being... George Washington's house has been converted into a diner).
5. If something notable happened there, maybe even one time event as the host article.
6. Extraordinarily remarkable cuisine, like serving extremely exotic or unique food which no other, at least regionally, restaurants serve which is well sourced and noted just for that.
7. Social significance for the community.

I would like to start a discussion, cause I grow tired of the back and forth regarding restaurants and notability, and I want any supporting contributors to revise or add rules. Thank you very much - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone who isn't familiar with restaurant reviews as a journalistic practice, could you explain why reviews of a restaurant in multiple reliable sources shouldn't satisfy general notability requirements? Not every restaurant that exists will get reviewed, so how is it different from a film or a book getting reviewed? If it's purely just a matter of how localized the coverage is, I'm sure there are ways to distinguish between a review in The Cowtown Enquirer and The New York Times without resorting to an insistence on the restaurant's significance. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary. What makes such restaurants "unencyclopedic"? If there are multiple independent sources, then there should be enough to write a neutral, verifiable article on the subject. Note that per Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies), purely local coverage is generally not enough to meet notability standards. Many of the proposed guidelines are also looser than the normal notability rules, in particular, several run afoul of "notability is not inherited". Mr.Z-man 22:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Theornamentalist, can you explain why you think that the usual rules for businesses (which are slightly stricter than WP:GNG's "presumed notable" level) aren't normally good enough?

Also, I agree with Mr. Z-man that many of your suggested criteria are actually banned under current rules, for being far too loose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• to Postdlf - The New York Times writes reviews all the time because they have to, not because it's news or notable. Therefore, it seems that a restaurant in the tri-state area will likely get a review simply because that's typically the extant of the NYT's coverage.
• to Z-man - My main concern is that businesses can pay for this type of coverage, the fact that a restaurant serves food and it's cited to a reliable source, should not make it notable. I know some of these conflict with inheritance issues right now, but I would like to revise them (with the help of those who agree and even those who do not fully); I am trying to come up with a way to orderly separate an unremarkable restaurant from one with some actual encyclopedic value. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• to WhatamIdoing - Simply put, they allow for articles like this to exist, which I oppose. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

My goal is to avoid lengthy discussions like this, it seems like there are definitely issues with a given restaurants' notability, and instead of going through the motions every time, I think it would be good if both sides could agree on a set of rules. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• This subsection of WP:N seems relevant: "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan", nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." I don't think that a single restaurant review, even in The New York Times, is generally going to be enough to meet the bar. I don't think the problem is that we don't have a guideline, it's that it's not being followed in all cases. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

to Beeblebrox - Then maybe instead of rewriting policy, an official guideline regarding Restaurants needs to be created (pending further input for support..); something like WP:HAMMER, to name one regularly in use and subject specific. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Teaneck Kebab House, I've argued for keep on the grounds that, while only one restaurant review in a major newspaper's dining section isn't enough to establish a restaurant's notability, this particular restaurant has had two such reviews in two different major newspapers. In an area like New York City where restaurants exist by the tens of thousands, this is no small feat, even when one of the reviews is bad. The reason why WP:GNG calls for multiple reliable sources is that we don't want a subject to be considered notable on the basis of just one lucky break with the media. If there are at least two, from mutually independent sources, that would indicate that the subject is at least interesting enough to get these two sources involved.

However, I have just one caveat with regarding multiple restaurant reviews as being enough to establish notability: the Montreal Gazette has stated time and again in its dining section that its restaurant reviewing team does not accept invitations from a restaurant's owner. That should be the case for every review used to establish a restaurant's notability. -- Blanchardb -- timed 01:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Why just restaurants? Why do reviews count for notability for any product, service or company at all? Reviews are routine coverage of routine things. Everything gets reviewed. Magazine racks are full of dedicated product review magazines with hundreds of reviews and then even more reviews in every special interest magazine too. I mean, get real, out of 121,000 Google hits I am sure I could extract two reliable source reviews for the muffler on my car, but that doesn't mean it is notable! Reviews prove existence but not notability. We want to document the notable things, not the ordinary things. A review can demonstrate notability by documenting claims of out-of-the-ordinary things but the existence of a review merely proves the existence of the product. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Good point, but for some reason there tends to be disputes about restaurants, I support your opinion, but I was hoping to crack this egg first, not the whole basket.. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I also have to concur that reviews should not constitute reliable sources for anything other than verifying a restaurant's (or other product's) existence, which is not enough to establish notability. One counter-intuitive problem with allowing reviews to establish notability is that it necessarily means that restaurants in smaller cities will be more likely to be notable, on the grounds that a local newspaper has fewer restaurants to cover, and thus any given restaurant is more likely to be reviewed, compared to a restaurant of similar size, stature, income, etc., in a larger city.

Another way to tackle this is to deal with the issue in WP:COMPANY, which requires that "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." The key here that needs to be resolved, of course, is papers like the New York Times, which serve a dual national/local purpose. One of the big issues at a recent high profile AfD was that some editors (including myself) believed that while the NYT is a national paper, the restaurant reviews are a part of their local coverage (found in what I believe is called the Metro Section), and thus don't qualify. If a restaurant were featured in the Business section, that would be notable coverage, but the reviews by themselves are not. Others, however, argue that such an analysis is a type of POV/OR on our part, and there's no way to clearly state that the reviews are only intended for a local audience. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* Yes, it's obvious the Metro section of the NYT is regional coverage, sometimes people take policy a little too literally. whose AFD

Personally, I am less interested in whether the coverage is regional or national versus whether the review documents an extraordinary claim. For example, Sunset (magazine) has articles every month reviewing "5 Crab Shacks on the Maryland Coast" which are great food porn, but say nothing indicating the five crab shacks are extraordinary other than the travel writer decided to stop in that town. For the broader product category, national coverage is a given, again, in national magazines on every magazine rack. Again, the review needs to document an extraordinary claim beyond mere existence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

But such a write up could indicate (but not necessarily guarantee) notability. It does not need to say it is notable. Local (which is typically regional for large cities) should not be disregarded.Cptnono (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think one option is to expand WP:ORG to introduce a "new" criteria: Notable businesses have normally received noticeably more media attention than similar businesses.

My primary concern is that while I think some editors are thinking this at AfDs, nobody seems to actually come right out and say it, and ORG has a general goal of reflecting the actual practice as seen at WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Please see Mzoli's - an article of this sort whose AFD was well-attended by the community and which was kept. The proposition is that restaurants, as a general class, are not notable, even though it is agreed that they commonly attract independent detailed coverage in reliable sources. Because this class of topics passes our general notability guide, this proposition rests upon the personal opinion of the nay-sayers. It is their POV or judgement that such topics should not be covered here. By objecting to such coverage, they wish to censor the project contrary to core policy. The nay-sayers do not seem to have any special status which would set them above other editors, the founder of this project nor the independent professional editors and publishers who decide that such topics do merit notice. Having worked themself in a restaurant does not qualify an editor for a special, expert opinion as such work is commonly menial labour and familiarity breeds contempt. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I wish you'd stop Mzoling us: that article is of little help for a number of reasons, namely:

1 - Mzoli is not a restaurant, but a sort of wholesale butchery, around which a number of restaurants opened; in other words, if anything, it is a restaurant cluster

2 - The concept described in point 1 is rather unique; most restaurants that would be affected by this proposal are something like, uh, a run-of-the-mill kebab house in Albany.

3 - The majority for keeping Mzoli was not clear-cut, and the article was written by Jimbo Wales; many of those who voted to keep the article explicitly did so out of respect for such a venerable editor.

4 - The whole AfD discussion for Mzoli, which is far too personal and acrimonious to be a template for how things ought to be discussed on wikipedia, was obscured. Editors with a certain expertise can still dig it out, but the fact that it is, at least in the intention, hidden from view is, in my opinion, a clear sign that wikipedia doesn't wish for it to be a precedent.

And, incidentally, deletionism (which I do not myself support, until ridicolously irrelevant things like prize dogs' sleeping habits start popping up on DYK) is a legitimate and widespread point of view on wikipedia. Calling its supporters menial, censoring nay-sayers is not particularly mature, and doesn't really help the mood of the discussion. Complainer (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just as a comment, what tends to happen with restaurants, local businesses, local bands, local sports teams, etc. is that while there are multiple secondary sources to cover these, they tend to be from local sources that question their independence to some degree. No, this is not to say that a newspaper has a vested interest in the well-being of a restaurant, but instead they do have one to the local community. The smaller the community the source servers, the less independent that work becomes, and thus begs the question of notability of anything strictly sourced to these types of works. Note that a source normally considered to be a work on a large scale (like the NYTimes) often will still have a local section, and while all the rest of the newspaper will generally be independent, this part will not be.
• In other words, it is not that we need a new guideline for restaurants - they should already be covered by WP:CORP if not the GNG. Instead, it is recognizing that local sources cannot be considered independent of the restaurant, and while usable as general sources, do not do a good job to establish the restaurant notability. --MASEM (t) 06:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

@Colonel Warden--I just want to say that it's not me being POV, at least not in the sense that you mean. It's my POV that interpreting either WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY to imply that reviews establish notability is an improper interpretation that is counter to the goal of the encyclopedia. I'm also not saying that restaurants are, as a class, non-notable--that would be unacceptable POV. I'm saying very specifically that specific restaurants to not meet WP:GNG, which states that there must be "significant coverage," and that a review does not meet the definition of significant; and also that it must be "independent of the subject", and not all reviews meet that criteria, either. I don't mind you disagreeing with my/our position, but you are wrong to claim that we're POV pushing in a way counter to core policy. Rather, we simply have differing interpretations of what core policy means. Yes, interpretation of policy is a point of view (just like being an eventualist or an immediatist is a point of view), but neither of them is a POV in the sense of WP:NPOV.Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• WP:N helpfully defines what is meant by significant coverage: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Detailed reviews therefore satisfy this requirement. Furthermore, reviews in journals such as the NYT are commonly thought to be satisfactory for other topics such as plays or other attractions which may be of interest to their readership. Your ideas about significance seem constructed in an ad hoc or ex post facto way to produce the result that you desire - the elimination of articles about restaurants. There seems to be no objective reason to discriminate against restaurants and so doing so would be an overt bias or prejudice which would be contrary to core policy and other policies such as WP:CENSOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we be more interested in building an encyclopedia with articles of encyclopedic value, not blindly obeying core policy? We make the rules... - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• An encyclopedia, by definition, includes everything worthy of note. Different people have different ideas as to what is worthy of note. We have no special status which entitles us to use our own POV for this purpose, as if we were the snooty maitre d' of an exclusive establishment. Instead, we rely upon the independent judgement of the professionals who write upon such things. For example, consider your first contribution to Misplaced Pages - Dance for the Sun. This seems to be a collection of children's music which some might think trivial and unworthy. In evaluating this, we look to see what independent authors have said about it. This doesn't seem to be much but I shan't be leading the charge to delete your work as it seems to have some possible value and good sources may yet be found. It is our explicit policy to be tolerant of such weak contributions in the expectation that they will mature and improve over the years. This is our essential method as we are not paid for our work and so cannot be held to deadlines or specific demands. Our volunteer nature requires tolerance and patience and it is our explicit policy that we are not here to make rules which do not assist us. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am not questioning whether or not we are in a position to decide what is noteworthy and encyclopedic, I am questioning our ability to discern advertisements under the guise of news articles. Common sense tells me that the Kebab House does not belong in an encyclopedia, just as it generally does so in keeping Schmuckythecat's muffler from having its own article.
• And for the record, I am slightly embarrassed by that being my first article..  :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Your more recent work seems more embarrassing. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ha, I reverted to a version that still had vandalism by the same IP, I need rollback. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think for purposes of AGF, unless the article specifically says "paid advertisement" we cannot presume a restaurant review was made purposely as a commercial advertisement. I still argue that one can apply the concept of local coverage of local events losing independence as a reason to avoid such reviews however. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• We also need to put Misplaced Pages:SPAM into the mix. I'm just putting out a hypothetical situation, but one could "bribe" local reviewers and whatnot into giving a restaurant rave reviews, and via this, "create" a legitimate article according to the rule and regulations of Misplaced Pages.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This is definitely a possibility. Although, as noted above, there are newspapers that boast that they won't do that, we can't be sure that it is the case. Ironically, should that happen to be the case, the restaurant that bribed the newspaper reviewer into being reviewed (regardless of whether the review itself says) and the deception is uncovered, the restaurant becomes notable for another reason when the newspaper's competition jump all over the bribed reviewer. -- Blanchardb -- timed 14:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There are some strange claims above, such as that we can unilaterally decide to disclaim restaurant reviews based on our own unsupported notion that they may not be truly independent of the subject, or that a critical review of a product or service should somehow not count as a reliable source in determining its notability. There's obviously a difference between a review that describes the history of an establishment, its founder, etc., and one that just tersely says "Good decor. Short wait. Pizza is a must." A review does not necessarily have significant coverage of a subject, so the question always remains as to whether it can actually be helpful in writing an article. Re: the hyperbolic muffler review claim above, a review that lists members of a category of products in a table with numerical scores of efficiency, cost, whatever, would not count as significant coverage in anyone's view. If someone actually bothered to write a few paragraphs about a particular model of muffler, however, then there may be something to the topic. At least based on the discussion so far, I'm just not seeing any workable general principles here that would exclude any or all reviews from consideration towards WP:GNG. postdlf (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, WP:GNG and WP:ORG should be sufficient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Support, at least something along these lines, or some amendment to GNG and CORP to tighten them up. At the moment it's simply too easy for people to say "cited in NYT, must be notable, per guidelines." However, restaurants - and hotels and shops among other things - surely need some substantive notability above and beyond being featured once or twice in the lifestyle, travel or regional supplements, even of major newspapers. There is a massive difference between those sections and the main news section. It's not about reliability as such, but about the nature and the purpose of the coverage. There are hundreds of thousands of papers around the world, and among them, hundreds of what might be termed top flight, national or semi-national ones. Most have at least one restaurant critic, who is invited to or sent to at least one restaurant on a weekly basis, usually in the city where that newspaper has its offices, to tell their readers what the food is like there. Similarly, travel journalists will be packed off to hotels and resorts (often as part of a PR jolly, which I don't think is quite such a problem when it comes to local restaurant reviewing), to provide readers with guidance/ideas as to which holiday they might wish to buy. Those visits will usually result in quite a detailed review or even fuller feature. Are we saying that every restaurant featured here, here or here gets a WP page, at least if we can find a corroborating cite in a second publication? What function would that serve other than to provide a directory that tells the reader "you can get a meal in this place, and here's what a couple of reviewers thought of it, to help you along"? N-HH talk/edits 17:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Vote

At this point, with a fair amount of variety in opinions and suggestions, a formal vote is in order. Please note that this is intentionally non-definitive in either support or opposition of the inclusion or exclusion of specific ideas, just a chance to define what we will accept in the future to avoid lengthy arguments which involve referring to contrasting rules, essays, guidelines, policies, laws, or examples.

I would like to see a clarification in the rules or a new guideline regarding the legitimacy of any restaurants' notability.

Support

1. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
2. - N-HH talk/edits 13:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Definitely need at least clarification of existing general guidelines - "trivial" coverage should be explicitly taken to include simply featuring in regular review spots or columns, even in major newspapers. The problem is, as noted, that there is enough wiggle room there currently to allow articles on every two-bit local restaurant - whether created as spam or in good faith - to survive AfD, just because a couple of papers did their weekly review spot on the place. Two editors cite that interpretation of policy, and suddenly there's no consensus to delete.
3. Herostratus (talk) Some comments: 1) There is a restaurant wiki here, and that is where most of these articles belong. We have transwikied vast numbers of articles to wikia.com sites and we could do it again. 2) While it might be OK if we had neutral articles on every restaurant (although see point 1), it's practically impossible to have balanced coverage because 2A) it's a crapshoot which restaurants will be in and which not, and 2B) most of these articles are basically puff pieces. If there was a Wikiproject:Restaurant Neutrality dedicated to ensuring that restaurant articles gave fair place to negative information and removing puffery, then maybe that would be OK instead.
4. I support this, in the context that all products, services, and companies should disregard routine reviews as evidence of notability. I note that most, or at least many of those that have commented so far, in the oppose camp seem to agree with this broader scope and seem to be opposing a specific guideline for restaurants and the WP:GNG should be enough. To them I say, well, the GNG isn't working, so let's modify the GNG. Maybe the next discussion needs to be on the WP:N talk page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
5. Largely for the reasons the above two users have given, but partially because restaurants are something of a unique category unto themselves that don't really fit anywhere else. Each one is unique, and most newspapers have sections reviewing them. It's not the same as something like law firms, because there are daily reviews of different ones; with law firms, only the notable ones get any attention, and the non-notable ones struggle in obscurity. Quite frankly, I think this same issue exists with books, but I don't want to go there now. With the exception of huge chains and places like Frank Pepe Pizzeria Napoletana, which are undeniably notable on multiple levels, it's difficult to determine what constitutes enough variety in sources to establish notability, leading to discussions about obscure, ordinary kebab houses in the boondocks out in Albany. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. I am late to the discussion, but what is missing is any consideration of published restaurant guides. Many of these - for example the Zagat guides in the United States - deal with regions or cities but are national, indeed international publications: they are for tourists. And many of them are published by reputable publishers. It is a slam dunk that they pass WP criteria as reliable sources offering national coverage. But, whatever the editorial content, many of these guides are basically directories, listing as many restaurants as they practically can, the good, the bad, the fly-by-night. Inclusion even in a national guide from a respectable publish does not mean that a restaurant is notable; it means that the guide is trying to be a fairly comprehensive directory of restaurants which simply exist. Now look back at the newspaper reviews on which these discussions are always focused. As Theornamentalist cogently argues, these mandatory weekly and bi-weekly reviews have similar status; their function is to sell papers and ad space. WP:RS is simply too blunt a tool to deal with absolutely every type of content we have to evaluate. The point is not to exclude some restaurants or to include more or less all restaurants, but to make up our minds which it is. That restaurant guides and newspaper reviews can be left to do the job is out-of-touch with reality, because by their very nature - they don't care about notability - they try to cover just about everything. My perspective is that of a restaurant critic and author of a dining guide (and no of course that doesn't make me an authority here).KD Tries Again (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Neutral

1. The arguments have some merit, in that restaurants are a hotbed of irrelevant articles--the source of this very proposal is some incredibly irrelevant kebab house in Albany that I proposed for deletion. However, Misplaced Pages has already so many policies that nobody can remember them all and all too often the one that's forgotten first is the one about common sense. As a matter of fact, I was a fierce opponent of special policies for BLP, and derided the ones for notable pets; supporting special ones for restaurants would be inconsistent. I just wish WP:MILL were made into an official policy, which might make this proposal redundant. Complainer (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
2. I don't see any reason to treat restaurants in a different fashion from other organizations that are commonly written about. The problems that exist with restaurants apply with equal or greater force to schools, television stations, radio stations, small newspapers, and so forth. There are ways to make WP:ORG better, but a special, restaurants-only rule probably isn't it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
3. I say, let each article be judged on it's own merits on a case by case basis, but with a caveat. It's pretty hard as it is to control Misplaced Pages's rapid growth as of late, where anyone or anything with a few verifiable blurbs can automatically have an article. I can also point to several specific subjects (certain TV shows for example and there myriad of articles about each of their episodes) where it seems that no matter what policies you can point out, people will vehemently support the articles in a Afd queue from being deleted. Yes, we do need some reining in of redundant and nonsense articles, but when do we implement a/or start to actively tackle them? We can't even agree with the current policies!! There is a problem, but it's not at the point where we need a massive overhaul of the rules. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Unnecessary, likely requires refinement of selection of sources at WP:N than a new highly-specalized guideline. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
2. WP:CREEP: I don't think that there is any problem here serious enough to require a new guideline. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
3. We already require that coverage must be nontrivial. Routine reviews, local paper blurbs, etc., are trivial coverage. We don't need more subguidelines, we just need to follow the rules we've already got. Seraphimblade 06:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
4. A systemic bias against restaurants would be contrary to core policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
5. WP:ORG is good enough. No need for a new one. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
6. WP:GNG and WP:ORG should be sufficient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
7. General notability guideline is fine. Davewild (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
8. The existing rules seem to cover the main issues here. If they aren't being enforced fully, new rules won't help. Mr.Z-man 23:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
9. There is enough in the existing guidelines laid out at WP:CORP that can be applied to restaurants just as well as to any other business or product. Reviews in major publications is certainly not something exclusive to restaurants. -- Blanchardb -- timed 05:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose this entire process as nothing specific is even being proposed. We're having a vote to decide whether we should even try to write a policy? No thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Another stillborn attempt to regulate ... one of the least contentious area on wikipedia. No firm proposal indeed (the first criterion, that of being owned by a notable person is a deal-breaker: no inherited notability). Use general guideline. East of Borschov 08:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Although I do somewhat sympathize with the proposal, this is instruction creep aimed at a specific type of commercial establishment, and does nothing to address similar dubiously notable subjects as local music bands, buildings, local businesses and charities, and other factors. Maintaining the current policies, and in time perhaps merging some of the smaller, less developed articles into another article, is an idea which can still be used. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose I echo the sympathy, but we've got far too many specific guidelines already. GNG is the cover-all; 'keep it simple'.  Chzz  ►  06:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Nasty comment if special guidelines e.g. WP:ORG are used to prohibit things allowed by WP:GNG, then we should stuff like WP:Notability (Pokemon characters) to squeeze out even lower-importance categories of articles. But I think that deleting one another's types of articles as unimportant rapidly turns into a library-shredding competition. Any article about any subject should always be notable if it meets the basic WP:GNG criterion. And I don't see anything obvious in WP:ORG to contradict that. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Unnecessary instruction creep; existing rules sufficient. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
16. If the establishment meets general notability with in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources I think its inclusion in wikipedia is appropriate. Solid State Survivor (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
17. Per above, I don't see a need for this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Question: Is a listing in a restaurant guide "in depth coverage"?KD Tries Again (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Why not allow Misplaced Pages editors to share in revenue for their efforts?

The British Broadcasting Corporation reported that a prominent user-content-generated website was planning on implementing a method of paying its contributors a share of its advertising revenues. Weber, "YouTubers to get ad money share." (BBC). I posit that Misplaced Pages, also a prominent user-content-generated website, should explore implementing the same policy. Of course, some revenue stream has to be tapped to make it worthwhile. More importantly however, if wikipedia users could share in the revenue generated by the website, more individuals would contribute higher-quality content, as opposed to now where editing wikipedia is akin to giving to charity. What's stopping us from implementing this? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A complete ban on advertising on Misplaced Pages. See Misplaced Pages:PERENNIAL#Advertising. postdlf (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is, once users look at advertising not in the abstract, but as a way the users themselves can directly monetarily benefit, perhaps advertising will be seen as more beneficial. Anyway, I didn't know there was a "complete ban" on advertising. Where is that written? Furthermore, I'm not proposing anything old-hat, what I'd like to discuss is the revenue-sharing idea that other websites are advocating. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Among the many other problems with this... how do you determine who gets the money? The people with the most edits? The people with the best edits? Only people credited with creating a featured work? --Golbez (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I say the people with the most edits. ;-) Seriously, though, Misplaced Pages has no "revenue" to share. bd2412 T 15:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Plus, would such a move potentially jeopardize the Foundation's 501(c)(3) status? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There'd be no way to filter out vandals and non-constructive edits. Bots would be among the highest paid if it were just by number of edits, and if it were by kb added, then people who contribute by pruning crap out of articles would get nothing, and people who revert blanking vandalism would get a lot. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I dont know if there would be "no way" to organize this in order to be fair to all editors. That's why I brought it up here . . . so that we can hash out the guidelines for paying editors dividends like other user-content websites. Perhaps we should allow advertising for the purposes of having revenue to share. Just a thought huh. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, but I think in order to make revenue-sharing fair we'd actually have to have a real-life human being (or a panel) actually reviewing user's edit histories. I dont think payment would be automatic -- a user probably would have to apply for remuneration and be evaluated for such. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And then there would be disputes - why did the panel only award me x? And then an appeals process. And then litigation. And increasing greed for more advertising to earn more money. And then some becoming professional Wikipedians... And then we will have lost the original spirit behind Misplaced Pages. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Followed by "And after I spent six weeks' insisting that I deserve 16% of revenue from this obscure article rather than 14%, I discovered that the total revenue from the entire article was only twenty cents, and they never pay less than US $10 at a time, because of the cost of bookkeeping involved."

In short, it's not worth it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• NOOOOOOOO Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be based on financial gain, this proposal runs against the very core ideas of what it is we are doing here. There should never be a profit motive involved, I can only imagine the terrible mess this would make of this entire project. Misplaced Pages is not even remotely the same thing as YouTube, thankfully. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think the core ideas have anything against making money per se. Jimbo's a fan of Ayn Rand, who was always in favor of making an honest dollar. But not when it compromises the integrity of the project. And it's hard to think of any way of keeping that from happening (even if there were any revenue to share, which of course there's not). --Trovatore (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Why not?" Because there's no money; there's no process for allocating the money; there's no system for dispensing the money; and a lot of people would object to the philosophy. I cannot believe you meant this as a serious query. Propaniac (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did mean it as a serious query. Sorry if I offended you sir. Please AGF and all that . . . Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

On a more serious note, I would really appreciate if the Wikimedia Foundation would provide me with a tablet computer of some kind. My edit history will show that I am a constant editor when free to edit, but I have hour+ commutes in the morning and afternoon that I would be using to edit madly if I had the tool for it. If any sort of "revenue sharing" was to go on, that's the kind that should. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Flattr? MER-C 09:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Misplaced Pages is not based on financial gain. It is a free encyclopaedia in every sense of the word - speech as well as beer.
2. Advertising is something that has been repeatedly discussed and repeatedly thrown out due to the inherent problems of having advertising.
3. Suggesting that people would look at the debate differently once they know they could benefit from ads is tantamount to bribery. It implies that Misplaced Pages users are easily-swayed imbeciles who will change their stance on a principle because they have some gain out of it.
4. Linked to the above point, nobody here got in it for cash.
5. It would be impossible to determine who gets money for what; do we say that only content writers get money? what about anti-vandalism? should it be by raw editcount? what about people making bad edits? So on, so forth.
6. None of us got in it for cash, and the principles behind refusing to allow ads are not likely to change because there's money in it for us. Misplaced Pages does not need advertising or to pay its users to stay afloat.
7. We currently have a complete ban on paid editing; I'd love to see how this idea would interplay with that. Ironholds (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

We do not have a complete ban on paid editing. See WP:PAID for links to the two (currently unapproved) proposals, both of which would permit some kinds of paid editing. See WP:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project for one example of paid editors that the community is—far from "completely banning them"—grateful to have helping us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the issue of ad revenue for Misplaced Pages should be distinct from the question of rewarding editors, since this could come from outside grants or donations, and advertising might be done simply to cover server and employee costs.

I think that rewarding editors can be done, but it must be done cautiously. An example of an incautious reward would be that a certain computer game manufacturer looks over the edits about its articles, picks out some key fans, and sends them generous care packages of games and computer equipment (or at least, tickets to claim them sent via Misplaced Pages e-mail). Note that the lack of transparency and clear strain on WP:NPOV are what make this objectionable.

But a different philanthropist might set up another way to reward Misplaced Pages editors. All editors are put through a primary screen for number of edits and byte count. Text that is new versus old is marked, and an effort is made to create easy links to contemporaneous discussion pages. A statistically guided "random" set of 50 edits is chosen from these and sent to a group of volunteers. Each volunteer runs through 50-100 edits from 50 different people, rating the quality on a few characteristics. (Volunteering might also be required for people to have a chance to win? A handful of standard edits, especially those meant to sense certain biases in judgment, might also be used to discount some ratings) By summing up the quality ratings, and multiplying by the number of edits per each person, a group of winners can be generated in nearly neutral fashion. The winners would then receive a modest sum - not really enough to be worth the time on an occupational level, at least not at first - and the recognition of having been selected as a quality editor. Wnt (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the vast success of Misplaced Pages as a purely volunteer project, it doesn't look like financial incentives are necessary or even desirable. If you don't want to edit without getting paid, don't edit. SDY (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I gladly volunteer time for this project because it is a beneficial, worthwhile project. It is also a non-profit project—no one makes money from running Misplaced Pages, not even WMF or Jimbo Wales. I'd much rather see money go toward paying for servers, hosting, and the few paid staff we do need in terms of WMF and developers. If we should ever have a surplus of cash, I would really like to see that going toward purchasing the rights to different types of media and releasing them under a free license.

If this were a for-profit product, you bet I'd demand a share of the profits (or, more likely, I would never have worked on it at all). But it's not, so there is no profit to share. For WMF to attempt to retain profits for personal enrichment would be a gross violation of federal law. That's what 501(c)(3) means. Seraphimblade 00:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Money is the root of all evil. 96.255.178.76 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not only are you wrong, but you quoted it wrong. Read your Bible. --Golbez (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I picked up two quarters and a penny on the beach today. I feel that I have already been overpaid. pietopper (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

With all the cultural pull to be dishonest already coming from outside Misplaced Pages, adding financial temptations for skewing text and spewing credible scribble, for minute pay, seems to miss the Zen of Misplaced Pages, which is that you do get no credit, do receive no reward. --Wetman (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

While Misplaced Pages and the other sister projects may not have advertising, there is money being made by people who are selling books and using material gleaned from Wikimedia projects. Some of this is overt and being used to support the Wikimedia Foundation, and some of it is for blatant commercial projects that are enriching... well some very "well connected" individuals who are associated to some degree or another with the WMF. I've considered in the past setting up some sort of publishing organization that might be able to help bring some of these profits back to the authors and contributors of Wikimedia projects, but such efforts have gone in vain in the past when I've brought it up on some of the various mailing lists.

There is a market for dead tree (and other) content derived from the contributions made to these websites. Profit is being made, but not by those who have written and contributed to these projects. Yes, I know that is also the nature of a copy-left license just as people who have contributed to Linux over the years aren't necessarily making money from the sales by Red Hat and other companies who make commercial distributions. More significantly, the use of Wikimedia trademarks in secondary and tertiary products that are derived from the wikis and the editing going on here is not really well defined and is not something which anybody can necessarily use. This is something that hasn't really been dealt with very well by the WMF. Yes.... I've brought this up in the past too, usually with very unsatisfying results that have gone very sour when I've tried to formally offer stuff for sale for a very modest profit (usually loss for myself or at best barely enough profit to buy a single pizza). --Robert Horning (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to RfA pass/fail percentages

I am intending to propose a small but significant change to the wording at WP:RFA. In the "About RfA" section, in the "Decision process" subsection, the current wording of the first paragraph is

Any user may nominate another user with an account. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass; most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion.

I am proposing to change it to read (my changes are shown in bold, but won't be bold in the actual text):

Any user may nominate another user with an account. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~70% approval should pass; most of those below ~60% should fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion. (Historically, the likely-pass level was ~80% and the likely-fail level was ~70%, but these were lowered in the fall of 2010.)

That is it. The only real change is the lowering of the likely-pass percentage from 80% to 70% and the likely-fail percentage from 70% to 60%. That is, the instruction to the closing bureaucrats is changed. (The addition of the word "should" is only to prevent the sentence from being descriptive (and therefore technically false) rather than prescriptive; it is not important. The last sentence ("Historically..." is also not important.

I see this as the simplest way to address the problem that not enough admins are being created, partly because too many are failing, and presumably others thus despair of trying. I think this is because of some commentors applying too-high standards ("Oppose, would make a great admin, but does not meet my criteria of 25 GAs and 25 DYKs") or are too niggly ("Oppose, would make a great admin, but his userpage shows awful design skills"). We could go round-and-round with other solutions but just changing the percentage is far simpler and should do the job of reducing the weight of these kinds of comments.

I'm not asking so much for discussion on the merits of this proposal here, as a large forum is needed for this (see question 3), although maybe I'm missing something. But I have three questions:

1. Has this been discussed recently anywhere?
2. Any suggestions on changes to the wording? In my opinion, simpler is better, and less change is better.
3. Would it be OK to offer this as a stand-alone proposal, that is, as a stand-alone article with the "Proposed Policy" template at the top? I know its not usual to do this when just proposing to change the text of a page (and WP:RfA is not even labeled as a policy), but this is a pretty radical change, I guess, and an RfC won't do, I don't think. Or would there be a better way? Thanks, Herostratus (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The classical argument against that is that people will just increase their personal standards when the pass percentage is lowered. I doubt that is true; I think people in general simply ask "Can I trust this person to be a good admin?", and will continue to do so with a lowered percentage. Ucucha 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If the reason really is people opposing for stupid reasons, why not just remind everyone that RfA is not a vote and the percentages are a rough guideline for onlookers? This is already stated in WP:RFA#Decision process, but could be made somewhat clearer by removing "and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion" to remove the implication that the area not between is not subject to discretion. Anomie⚔ 00:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that could be done instead. It would give more discretion to bureacrats, and to a certain extent take it away from the regular editors. This could be controversial, and RfA has been considered closer to being a vote than anything else here. Note that the support/oppose/neutral numbers are given when the result it posted, and "votes" are not mixed in with general discussion as happens in other venues. I think this would be difficult to get adopted. Herostratus (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's an experimental AFD style RFA from 2007. Interesting concept but considering how long RFAs become, closing something like this would be one hell of a headache for the crats. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. It would be a lot of work unless the 'crat basically ignored the numbers and focused on the cogency of arguments. Which means someone could pass with minority support (or fail if there was one truly damning argument against). You could do this if you replaced the reference to "consensus" with something like "best judgment of the bureaucrat". I don't have an opinion on that, but it might be a good thing. But I don't want to propose it because I don't want to go that far, and it would probably never fly anyway. Herostratus (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you all. I have gone live with this, here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Proposal of August 31 2010 Herostratus (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone who recently failed an RfA but would have passed under this proposed amendment, I oppose the change. I cannot see myself working as an admin without the community's confidence. -- Blanchardb -- timed 17:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what was said above; it is important that all admins are trusted by the community. A bare pass doesn't cut it, in my opinion. Also, I see the word "promotion" in there, which I think should be removed. I realize that you weren't proposing anything to do that, but still; adminship isn't a promotion. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Unrealized ideas

I seem to recall some policy or guideline or essay or something in the Misplaced Pages: namespace about not including in a biographical article the things that a person is thinking about doing or would like to do, because those are just unrealized ideas. However, I can't find that now. Does anyone know what page this might be? Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 18:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

TV episode plot summaries

I'm pretty sure this is not the way it's supposed to be done.

For those who accuse me of asking about one article, I'm saying this may be an example of what Misplaced Pages is not.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It definitely fails notability, but ignoring that, its plot fails WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT and overuses NFC images. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is something of a recurring problem. We have over 3,000 articles in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with plot summary needing attention, with the oldest dating back to January 2007 as I write this. Perhaps we should target them next when we've finally sorted the unreferenced BLPs! Alzarian16 (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Eeeehhh, unreferenced BLP actually have a potential legal hazard to Misplaced Pages; bad plot summaries (or articles on fiction without sources) aren't an issue that needs expediency. That said, I certainly see a possible task force to help get appropriate WProjects involved to understand what articles are tagged, suggest other articles for merger (possibly deletion) due to lack of notability, and so forth, but without the gusto of the BLP one. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should be deleting plot summaries because that is all there is, instead it needs expanding to add the context, refs etc. We could expand the notability criteria to say that an episode of a notable series is also notable. Misplaced Pages typically has great coverage on TV shows. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we really want every episode of a notable series being declared notable and therefore have every single episode of Bonanza or Law & Order or the Simpsons? Those three series alone would cause for so many episodes that it becomes ridiculously unmanageable to make sure all episode articles are taken care of in a decent amount of time. We should limit articles to tv episodes to actually notable tv episodes that were reported about in third-party sources. Just because it exists and people are fans doesnt mean we need every single episode as a stand-alone article. The episode where the Fonz jumps a shark waterskiing would be a notable episode since it led to the phrase Jumping the shark. Unless an episode is relevant such as that, then why keep it? Because we are an indiscriminate collection of knowledge? Oh wait, we arent...Camelbinky (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I been trying to wrangle WP:FICT long enough to know that there is no precedent or consensus to assert every TV episode notable; each episode needs to meet the GNG like any other topic. Which is why I suggest that if we wanted to make a task force to handle these plots, we would be informing projects about it, giving them time to work it out and expand if possible, and at worst merging as a redirect to a list-of-episodes articles. Do also note that not every entry on the list noted above is a TV episode. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd echo what Graeme Bartlett said: this is an area in which Misplaced Pages generally has excellent coverage, and this should be appreciated and enhanced, not diminished.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

While that may be, a lot of that enhancement has been in consolidation. We don't, generally speaking, need a full article for one more episode of any given show. Now, of course, some episodes (the jumping the shark episode was mentioned above) are notable on their own merits, and most certainly should have a separate article. But most are not, and are notable only in context of the show they're part of. Given that, the proper presentation is also to keep them with the show they're part of (or as a list of episodes emphasizing the whole), not as a standalone article that largely consists of an over-detailed plot summary and perhaps some trivia. Seraphimblade 04:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been well established that tv episode articles that lack any coverage outside of being a TV episode are generally merged and not kept. This is consistent with established policy (specifically WP:V regarding lack of 3rd party sources, and WP:NOT#PLOT on articles comprised mostly about plot, in addition to WP:WAF and WP:N. That said, I would certainly not want to delete/merge existing articles on TV episodes without editors being given the reasonable chance to expand plot-only articles to include things like reception. If they can't be expanded, they can always be merged into a larger episode list with a shortened summary. --MASEM (t) 04:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Plot summaries and "reception" (viewership? or do you mean something more?) is not enough! You need actual third-party (not TV guide!) coverage that shows the EPISODE was in fact somehow notable in its own right for some reason. Just because you can write an article about something does not make it notable. Please, if an episode exists with nothing more than a plot summary and some numbers on viewership and nothing substantial that shows it is notable for some sort of cultural reason then DELETE DELETE DELETE and let it be part of a list of episodes on the tv show's article page or some sort of spin off page but it does not deserve its own article. It makes a mockery of Misplaced Pages and makes us something we are not. I am sorry there are lots of editors who love to make these types of articles because they love the show and are a fan. We are not a fan site. There are other places for your hard work, just not here. Yes, you are large in numbers, but this isnt a democracy, those articles simply factually do not meet our standards at all.Camelbinky (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't found anything yet, but with the show's 50th anniversary there will surely be mention of the show's most popular episodes, and I have heard or read that this is one of those. If I find this information I'll certainly add it to (hopefully) establish notability. I was really surprised Opie the Birdman doesn't have an article, because it is often listed as a fan favorite.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages and public domain for upcoming edits.

Rationality

Atheism is one of the condition for rationality and moral science. Can you make Misplaced Pages rationalist (inclusively atheist) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iohana4 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Misplaced Pages tends to respect all viewpoints, religious orientations and personal beliefs. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If anything Misplaced Pages is agnostic. The very fact that we are not chauvenistic (the real meaning, not to be mistaken with male chauvinism) and we are not overtly religious is why Conservapedia hates Misplaced Pages so much. We dont put the US first, we dont put the Christian religion first, we dont put ANYTHING first other than our collective belief on creating an accurate encyclopedia of knowledge.Camelbinky (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also challenge the idea that being "rationalist" and or "scientific" is somehow better than our current point of view--essentially (in my opinion), that we attempt to match up our writing to the properly weighted and attributed points of view of people writing on the topic in the "real world. What do we gain by moving to a point of view that favors a certain group of voices over others? Wouldn't this also push our systemic bias even farther towards the western, privileged classes? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is entirely rational. It speaks facts on all matters; in religion, a figure is X; Religion Y is the belief of Z; etc. etc... I know no instance on Misplaced Pages where a purely religious aspect is described as objective fact. So your request comes across as odd, without making any statement on where Misplaced Pages lacks rationalism. --Golbez (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not just religion, Misplaced Pages does not side with anyone's beliefs about what is good or bad, but only describes objectively confirmed events neutrally. 61.7.120.132 (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos of Executed Persons

There may be other cases besides nazis, but in the case of virtually every nazi executed by hanging we have included in the article a photo of the body, sometimes with the rope still around the victim's neck.

I personally find this shocking and unnecessary. Should this be allowed? Should there be warnings? A user-configurable preference that blocks or allows such images?--Jrm2007 (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored, does not use additional disclaimers and this help page will show you how to hide specific images you wish not to see. Cheers! Resolute 15:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you post at the relevant article talk pages for discussion there. Misplaced Pages is not censored and I see nothing wrong in these images being used. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the policy questions: It is and should remain allowed. There should not be warnings beyond the one covering the entire encyclopedia at Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer. See Help:Options to not see an image for options on not seeing a particular image, and Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals for more on this topic. You can also search the Village pump archives for old discussions, particularly on the related topics of sexually or religiously offensive images.

For the (unasked) content question: I have no opinion on whether the photos are encyclopedically necessary; it might be best to discuss that particular issue at WT:FASC, WT:MILHIST, and/or WT:MILBIO rather than here. At the very least you should post on all three of those pages to invite interested editors here, although I personally would suggest moving the content aspect of this discussion to WT:FASC and posting invitations at WT:MILHIST and WT:MILBIO to discuss it there. Anomie⚔ 15:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think you will find that the vast majority of people, not just on Misplaced Pages but everywhere, feel that a nazi with a rope around his neck is the very best kind of nazi. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  Speak for yourself. Nazis are people too. Generally bad people, but still people. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  I'm with OD on this one. Taking pleasure at the suffering and death of others is incompatible with morality. The question, not necessarily censorship, is whether the pictures in the articles are purely there for shock value or to please the crowds. Not censored does not equal "as crass and disrespectful as possible." SDY (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Logged-in editors' IPs

If I wish to follow up a (good faith) IP edit believed to be by registered user who may simply have forgetten to log-in eg. this, are there any routes to finding the IP that a logged-in editor used to performed an edit in a (recent) document history – so it can be compared with the range of IP edits to the same article? If so, is access to the info a technical issue or a policy one: ie. is the investigator required to have a particular user status? Thanks, Trev M  ~  16:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Only Misplaced Pages:CheckUsers have this access, mainly for detecting sock-puppets. If you suspect sock-puppetry you can post at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations. This information is sensitive and confidential and not usually available. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jez! That answers that! Trev M  ~  20:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

BRfA related to WP:AIV

Please see Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/DuckBot for more details. —I-20the highway 01:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How to indicate a source is in pd

Moved from VPT Is it appropriate to indicate if a source is in public domain with a in the reference such as in the references section at Ringed_Seal#References? If so, is there a templated method of indicating a source is pd?Smallman12q (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems purely decorative to me, and should probably be removed. I can't think of any reason there would be a need for us to indicate in the references that a source is PD. As opposed to what is done for example at Apollo#References, but even there IMO the icon is superfluous and seems to have been added quite recently, and I can't find the discussion that led to it. Anomie⚔ 15:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm looking for a consensus to either keep them or remove them...is there any guide to the usage of icons in sources in the MoS?Smallman12q (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's called MOS:ICON. IMHO they should definitely be removed as they serve no useful function. (Btw, this discussion is really more suited for Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)). — Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at MOS:ICON but it doesn't explicitly mention the use of icons in references/citations. Could the MoS be amended to reference their usage in references?Smallman12q (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there really a need to note that a reference is from a source in the public domain? Is this practice even standard among any of the citation styles? —Farix (t | c) 14:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A micro question on claim of notability and a macro question on notability of religious figureheads

Micro question Two days ago, I had speedied this article on the A7. Beeblebrox declined the speedy with the comment, "I would say that being a saint is a claim of notability...". The confusion that arose -- which I discussed consequently on Beebelbrox's talk page -- was that Beeblebrox was considering the claim of being a Hindu saint as (perhaps) being equivalent to the claim of being a Saint. I perceived that the claim of being a Hindu saint which the article made was not in any way a claim of notability (as opposed to the claim of being a Saint, which is a clear claim of notability). One reason for such a perception in me is because in my understanding of the Indian culture, India has a huge and significant majority of Swamis, Hindu saints and sadhus (all used synonymously) present who haven't undergone any formal test by fire, in the manner of speaking. Some references in context are provided:. I might be comparing apples to oranges, but for me, the claim of being a Hindu saint is equivalent to being a claim of being a sports person. There're very many notable sports persons, in the same way as there're very many notable Hindu saints.

• Given all this, it'll be wonderful if editors here can clarify whether a claim of being a Hindu saint should be always considered a claim of notability (in the context of a csd A7 tag).

Macro question Given that we have notability criteria for many categories of individuals (from pornographic actors to academicians), is it a good time to re-propose that we have a separate section that defines the notability criteria for religious figureheads? Thanks and warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ 19:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I readily admit that my knowledge of Hinduism is limited at best,but I did not intend to suggest that any Hindu saint was "automatically notable™" and in fact I strongly dislike the idea that anything is automatically notable. The point here is that for purposes of speedy deletion, a claim of being a saint is an implied claim of notability, not that any article on a Hindu saint must be kept in the long term. All that is required to avoid WP:CSD#A7 is any reasonable claim of some notability. Of course actual proof is required to survive AFD and retain the article in the long term. (by the way if you are trying to clarify a CSD issue WT:CSD may be a better venue) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• (commenting based on a note on my talk page) I agree with Beeblebrox entirely. This (being called a saint) isn't a case of notability, rather an assertion of importance as required by CSD#A7, a standard that is purposely lower than notability. As for notability criteria, I don't think there's a need for something different for religious people, WP:BIO and WP:GNG pretty much cover it. —SpacemanSpiff 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Figurehead is a rather insulting term to apply to who is being discussed here, namely, importance assigned to persons by religion or specifically religious communities. patsw (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Check your grammar, because that makes no sense, but I wish someone would insult me by calling me a figurehead.KD Tries Again (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• (Figurehead. It's not my intention to give a negative term. Apologies in case the term does that to you. Best regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ 03:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for the comments. Even Xeno on his talk page communicated that Beeblebrox is right and that someone similarly unfamiliar with the subject would likely make the same decision coming across an article that where the claim was that of being a "Hindu saint". Thanks again and warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ 03:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggested improvement to WP:OR advisory in many articles

Many articles, such as List of sovereign states, include an advisory with wording similar to the following:

This article's sorting and inclusion criteria may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (September 2010)

My suggestion for improve is a simple one: change "adding references" to "citing sources". This both says the same thing and avoids the redirect that currently takes place.

Note: I found that "WP:..." in the double brackets does the same thing as "Misplaced Pages:..." does. However, if "Misplaced Pages:..." is better to use, then, as a famous Star Trek: The Next Generation starship captain would say: "Make it so." — Glenn L (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really a proposal to change a policy, just the wording of a template. I suggest you re-post this on the template's talk page. However, I would also note that changing something solely to avoid a redirect is not needed or desirable. Click here for more information on this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to use information in our website

Respective Sir, We have developed a business directory for the country of Pakistan. In which we provide details about all kinds of businesses in all cities. To create more interest for users, we also want to provide brief introduction of that city in which the user is interested. For this purpose, We want your authorization to use contents of your site, so that we can prevent any legal violation. We hope positive response by you people as contents of your site are already an open source of information. Please reply us at (email removed) --116.71.173.73 (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

All wikipedia content is usable with attribution, see the relevant section of the FAQ. I removed your email address to save you some spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Logo size concern

I have a concern that a proprietary product logo is being used on a page in such a way that it constitutes "an endorsement" of the product in question. The logo is the most striking object on the page, unnecessarily large for clear viewing, larger than the article title which has the same lettering, and draws immediate attention. I have twice reduced the size of the logo and a discussion at the project talk page is not being responded to since my last intervention. After my second intervention, the logo was replaced even larger than when I initially replaced it. The page is that for the IPad, an Apple Inc. Tablet computer. While I actually use Apple products, I feel this example has become a POV statement.

I've checked out several similar products, and other products by Apple, which have no such logo issues and this mis(?)use appears to be one other editor's. Other Apple Inc. products: iPod,iPhone,MacBook; comparable products: HP Slate PC,Samsung_Galaxy_Tab. Wider input to this matter? Thanks, Trev M  ~  12:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (infoboxes) seems to be about all we have on infobox design. It recomments such boxen should be 300px or 25em. The infobox in question is 22em, well within limits. The image is 250px wide - a standard image size. It is narrower than the HP Slate (albeit this is a landscape image) but wider than the Samsung, which like the iPad is a portrait image. Oh, and the image will be deleted on the 13th September anyway, as non-free and replacable. Given all of this, I'm not that concerned about the image size. We could survive with it smaller, but it's doing no great harm as it is. (Oh, and it's an image of the product, not a logo. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "logo" on iPad, which is just a standard rendering in Arial font, and replaced it with actual text. I've also replaced the non-free use image in the infobox with a free use image that was already available on Commons. That should take care of any issues with the WP:NFCC criterion #1, which both of the previous images failed. —Farix (t | c) 17:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, I was talking specifically about the logo above the image, that TheFarix|c has since replaced with text. Best, Trev M  ~  17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see it now. Apologies. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Both", Farix? If you're trying to claim File:IPad wordmark.svg somehow failed WP:NFCC criterion #1, you should probably go review commons:Template:PD-textlogo which it is (correctly) tagged with.

As for logo versus plain text, I personally would prefer having the logo, but not enough to get involved. Anomie⚔ 20:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards