Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) at 17:17, 10 October 2011 (→Touré). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Infoboxes in biographies of classical musicians

Hi, wondering if Jim or a page watcher would care to look at the discussion at Richard D'Oyly Carte about the appropriateness and usefulness of infoboxes in the biographies of classical musicians and related articles. I was so astonished at the stance there I briefly dipped into some facetiousness before hauling myself back out. Yopienso (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh, if theres one thing you should avoid on wikipedia is adding infoboxes to classical music biographies. They are strongly detested by the opera group.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So I discovered yesterday. My question is, what does Jimbo think about a bloc of editors commanding such power over a complete set of articles? Yopienso (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• That is why we need more rules to deter bullying which stops improvements. Perhaps they should read "WP:Thinking outside the infobox" as to how using infoboxes speeds translation of thousands articles into many other languages, because the infobox is standardized for simplified bot translation of many article stubs. Is there some hidden reason why they will not allow infoboxes when traditional theaters have "opera boxes"? -Wikid77 (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Any examples of such articles created by bot translation? I was not aware that this really happens and is approved on Misplaced Pages. I know that some of the artificial language wiki's are populated by bots translating articles on populated places, but I don't think that giving any support for such fake encyclopedias is what we want to do. I haven't noticed any biographies being translated from or to English by bots at all though. Fram (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of bulk-load edits of new articles, but I do not know of any interwiki bot translations yet. Most of the copied infobox stubs seem to be from people repeatedly hand-translating stubs. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So basically your argument pro infoboxes was baseless? Please refrain from introducing such arguments in discussions, they only serve to muddy the waters. Fram (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Would never get consensus to do so on here. Although I'm thinking of proposing a bot which translates German/French/Spanish/Poish wiki articles using google translate into the wikipedia work space and which can be moved into the mainspace once proof read and sourced. But given that articles need to be proof read it would just as easily be done manually whenever an editor wants to translate one. If google translate was perfected a bot translating articles would be useful but the articles would still need to be placed in categories of "needing proof reading" and given the millions of articles needing translating and lack of editors would be years before they could all be checked and in the meantime could contain mistranslated and incorrect info so overll would be a bad idea... In regards to infoboxes I quite like the fact that composer articles just have a photograph, in fact I dislike infoboxes in biography articles. I only see their use really for articles which have a lot of facts like aircraft etc or to display pin maps for places and buildings.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In 2004, Google Translate was formerly translating articles correctly between several languages, including conjugation of verbs and declension of nouns, with proper word-order placement. However, I think it was considered "too slow" or limited to just a dozen languages. If we could find another old-style language translation site, then we could quickly expand the "big articles" to have text from other Wikipedias, by copy/paste/translate, with first masking "Frankenstein" as "XFrankenstein" (or such) to avoid getting "French stone" in the translation. Some of the Google Mutate results are totally incomprehensible, and take hours to re-translate. However, as I remember, translation from Swedish-to-English was better, so perhaps find a German article, get the Swedish and translate that as a start. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What of course we are trying to achieve is for there to be the same quantity and eveness of coverage and quality of articles across all 260 wikipedias and some sort of system where as every article (missing) is created on another wikipedia we have the chance to have it started at the same time in english and in any other language so the effort put in by any wikipedian in any language can benefit all of the other wikipedias. Maybe in the future if google translate is perfected we could have a go at sorting a bot to bridge the gap in badly needed areas where the general quality on the other wikipedia is high. Ultimately of course we want everything to be human written and checked but it could certainly be very useful to do to gruelling work needed initially on articles such as our empty one liners on German municipalities and French communes in fleshing them out..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it curious that half of the infobox supporters in a recent straw poll there (Talk:Richard_D'Oyly_Carte#Count) are WP:ARS regulars. Rather than asking "what can we do about a bloc of editors commanding such power?", perhaps the question would be "why do a bloc of editors insist on imposing editing styles on a wikiproject?" As noted in the discussions on that page, boxes are not mandatory. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with the ARS. DGG and Michael are ARS regulars, sure, but they are both also heavily involved in numerous areas on Misplaced Pages. And i'm not sure if any of the other supporters are members, i'm not going to bother checking though I believe Noleander is, but unless you're saying that all 300+ members of the ARS are "regulars", you have absolutely nothing. Now I would respectfully ask for you to stop badmouthing the ARS everywhere you go when we have absolutely nothing to do with a discussion. Silverseren 19:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I often save articles from AFD and I voted oppose..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Seren's spirited defense of his cohorts aside, the question remains; why are editors trying to impose infoboxes onto a project that feels the articles are better off without them? Wikiprojects do not own their respective articles, sure, but they are more familiar with the subject matter than non-members are at times. This seems to be one of them, and editors trying to enforce some sort of "there must be infoboxes everywhere!" sameness/uniformity is a bit pushy IMO. Tarc (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please be more careful in alleging conspiracies. You are mistaken, at least on my part. Please answer my question instead of posing your own.

My answer to yours: Speaking for myself only, not editors, plural (There is no cabal.), as a user--and I use much more than I edit--I appreciate uniformity for multiple reasons.

• First and foremost, I know where to find things. If editors on any given page had the leeway to choose different styles for titles and subtitles and general outlines--that is, if each page had its own look--it would be confusing. (And, yes, editors do have the leeway to include or exclude infoboxes; I'm just answering your question.)
• Second, uniformity gives the encyclopedia a more professional appearance.
• Third, uniformity makes for easier editing. This is a case in point. Never did I imagine there was a bloc of editors who closed ranks against infoboxes. So here I've waded into something I very reasonably thought was an anomaly--and it is, really, compared to the bulk of WP where I've never encountered a dislike for infoboxes--because of a lack of uniformity. Having different rules for different pages creates confusion.
• Fourth, and this is in regards to infoboxes specifically, not uniformity in general, the infoboxes are a great aid to the general reader who perhaps never heard of the subject before. The opera group (There is no cabal.) seem to want to have a snooty enclave in Misplaced Pages aimed at scholars opera experts. Now, I could be mistaken about this, and please point to the policy if I am, but I understand the project is aimed at informing the general public, not scholars. Scholars supposedly don't use general-reference encyclopedias, anyway.
• Last, this seems like a states' rights v. federalist struggle: is each Wikiproject a sovereign entity, or is Misplaced Pages one big umbrella project with many sub-projects?

Well, in any case, as a drive-by editor, I'm respecting the consensus on those pages. Thanks to each for your perspective and best wishes to all. Yopienso (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Making any sort of connection between infoboxes and subject specific knowledge of a user (Wikiproject or not) is a fallacious argument. Infoboxes are not subject matter, they are a formatting opinion. The opinions of users in regards to them all count equally and members of any Wikiproject, regardless of their subject specific knowledge, does not count any more than any other user. Infoboxes are purely an opinion and the use of them should be done through consensus. That is what was done in this situation and done properly, consensus was re-established and there is nothing wrong with that. Please stop trying to make it seem like there is some sort of infobox conspiracy going on. Silverseren 22:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh seren, if only it really were as simple as you proclaim. However, we have the topic initiator who is "astonished" that a "snooty enclave" wasn't interested in his infoboxes, and came calling on Mr. Wales for his input. Then Wnt decries the "bullying" by the opera project members. Yopienso drops "bloc" into his commentary several times, which is indeed asserting that the wiki-project is acting like a cabal, despite his protests that he never meant that. Yes, infobox use can come about by consensus. The consensus rejected the usage, but Yopienso and Wnt come here to Mr. Wales talk page acting like a pair of missionaries who just can't understand why those operatic heathens couldn't accept their enlightened view of the Wiki-world. I also noted how some of the usual players in these sorts of things cropped up in the original discussion, which made you extra-testy. The matter here is quite simple; an editing proposal was made, consensus came down against it, and the originator is complaining about it. Tarc (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother. Your constant incivility is the worst out of anyone on this site. Silverseren 03:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yopienso's summary was well put. I expect "snooty" referred to some statements in the infobox discussion, particularly the one stating that readers should have to read the entire article, not encouraged to skim an infobox. iow, implying Misplaced Pages is not here for the convenience of our readers, but to "educate them" in the precise way a few contributors deem correct and proper. Whether that was the consensus of the group or the opinion of a specific Wikipedian wasn't clear. (Tarc, thank you for pouring petrol on the fire. You never fail to delight in that regard.) 99.50.186.180 (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, Roi. Pontifications aside, is is still puzzling to see why this matter ever came to Jimbo's page at all. If editors have reached a consensus that a box detracts from the article rather than enhances it, and no policies are being violated by this consensus, then is there a legitimate beef here? All it seems to boil down to here is "I disagree, so I will appeal to another authority", similar to the sentiment that one sees in many flawed DRV filings. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, did you miss the memo? Everyone, for whatever reason, is allowed to post here, without being accused of forumshopping, canvassing, or anything else (at least, without being accused of these things by Jimbo, what other people think of it may be different...) Fram (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "don't post here", I asked "why are you posting here?" Yopienso begain this discussion in a fairly combative tone, and I think it is fair to ask of him and his supporters just what is to be accomplished by this. Tarc (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the division of opinion over infoboxes I'm not sure why the option in "my preferences" isn't introduced to hide all infoboxes and those who want them can have them and those who detest them can simply hide them and by default just feature whatever photo is in the infobox to be thumb nailed at the top. Flexibility is the key...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And where does that end, exactly? The real issue is: What constitutes a consensus? The people who happen to be working on a particular article or project at that particular moment in time? (Remember: no canvassing!) What about overlapping projects, such as Biography and Opera, which come to different consensuses? What about the views of users/readers which are currently only being represented by editors? Editors who are purportedly mostly young educated males from western countries, according to Sue Gardner? What about those who lose a given argument, but simply wait a bit until a new group with a different consensus shows up? Or run to a different but similar article? And then the 'other side' does the same? This is the same problem every single online volunteer community project has faced as volunteers and users and popularity hit the tipping point. Volunteers often start in some particular area of interest. As they contribute (and look) beyond that, and as time passes and others do the same, they expect some consistency: "We've tried several alternatives, now let's settle on some standards for a better user experience." That's when these arguments start and long-time volunteers disappear. It's pointless to spend time and effort if your contributions will likely be deleted at some point in time, on the basis of whim or personal preferences of a few people wearing the cloak of "consensus". Those contributions aren't likely to be restored later, as who would even think to search for them? You don't know what you do't know. All it often takes is once. It's pointless to spend time and effort if one's contributions have to be re-justified in each and every article when the facts and reasons are the same, but the "consensus" (meaning the people participating) varies. It becomes a charade, and we lose contributors. This is our biggest current problem, and won't be solved by Eddie Haskell-style "politeness". Truth to power: Solve the problem. 99.50.186.180 (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, this is a small individual kerfuffle, but illustrates the general issue of real content writers leaving the Wiki. When you have someone actually writing actual content, it is a complete buzzkill to have these infobox-adders or taggers come by and try to imose their desire for format on articles. It is significant valuable work to read books, structure a page, write multiple paragraphs, decide what to exclude versus include...all the work of composition...and even worse having to do it in the wiki markup language and a non WYSIWYG window. Oh...and no lectures about everyone is equal or AGF or NPA please. This is a serious thing to let Jimbo know. We are ten years into this thing and vast spaces of vital articles are not written. There is a reason. The real content contributors are turned off by the over aggressive gnomes and bullies. They vote with their feet...07:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree I have no evidence about good content editors leaving due to nonsense like this, but I have seen a small number of similar cases where the people who have actually created excellent content have been confronted by a passer by on a mission from MOS to make some essentially trivial adjustment to an article: "fix" the reference style; change heading levels; add infobox; remove external links; and more I can't think of at the moment (I generally favor pruning external links—in this context I am talking about a case where an article has a reasonable number of links to reasonable sites). Sometimes the passer by will be quite aggressive and pepper the talk page with links like WP:OWN and WP:CONLIMITED and they must cause a great deal of damage by driving off some content creators. Yes, aggressive pruning is sometimes required when a few editors have erected a walled garden—I am talking about cases where the article is encyclopedic and excellent, and it is unfortunate that some passers by cannot distinguish between cases when rules are helpful and when they are not. Johnuniq (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a two way street, though. I remember a relatively new user had created an article for some obscure British composer, and as soon as they had added the article to the relevant WikiProject, someone from that project came by, ripped out the infobox, and left. No one from the WikiProject had been involved with creation or improvement of content, but by God they got that infobox out of there! It wasn't just ownership; it was abstract ownership. --JaGa 03:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am against that. But I think you will find the aggressive gnomes doing a lot more of that sort of thing (pushing a format on articles they don't write) than the real content editors. Wiki turns off/away people who are content experts and good writers. Who wants to stay and have some wargamer fucking with your hard work? (And it's not some evil ownership. Many eople welcome strong players adding useful things or fixing small wrong things...but the taggers and infoboxers. UGHH!

This comment is really offensive to people with asperger's syndrome. Can it be removed please? --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

People, come on. The Misplaced Pages does turn away people who are "content experts and good writers" and cannot collaborate, and this is intentional, or at least an inevitable effect of our structure. There's really nothing to do be done about this, for better or worse. Part of "collaborate" is "accept the good-faith contributions of others, even if they don't leave the work the way you, personally, would have preferred". If someone is putting in false information or messing with the refs or pushing a POV or deleting whole good paragraphs or whatever, OK, it's good to get upset. But if someone puts in an infobox and this is causing you to become emotionally upset, I would recommend seriously that you toke up or something.

And the alternative to that is defend your work (which is sometimes necessary), by which I mean engage the editor, and if necessary bring in other editors to consider the matter. If the other editor's contributions clearly and incontrovertibly and prima facie make the article worse, your defense of the status quo will likely be crowned with success, right? And if they don't clearly and incontrovertibly and prima facie make the article worse, maybe the other editor is right. Or maybe it doesn't matter.

In a case like this (infobox/no infobox), where about ten editors are saying Yin and ten are saying Yang, then the changes do not clearly and incontrovertibly and prima facie make the article worse (or better), so how about just letting it go?

I know, I know. I have favorite articles that I wrote or worked on a lot that other editors have changed and I look at them and say to myself "gee, I kind of liked it better before". On the other hand, this is balanced and greatly overbalanced by the favorite articles that I wrote or worked on a lot that other editors have changed and I look at them and say to myself "wow, look at that new image/new ref/new external link/new cat/cool new way of organizing the information/whatever, that rocks". That is Misplaced Pages. Herostratus (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

IMO having no infobox on all classical musician articles might do harm. Love 'em or hate 'em, infoboxes are a standard part of Misplaced Pages's look and feel. When this one corner of Misplaced Pages defies convention, a casual user who clicks on Mozart, for instance, will be surprised by the inconsistency and will think the article looks incomplete - I know I did. This is a violation of the principle of least surprise and can detract from the user experience. (and greatly so if that user decides to add an infobox, and then gets their comeuppance!)

Someone mentioned this being a question of states' rights, and I think that's a good description. Sure, WikiProject Composers or whatever has some say over the look and feel of the articles within their scope, but doesn't Misplaced Pages have a say over the look and feel of the site?

I'll bet if you put a poll over the picture of Mozart asking "Should this article have an infobox?" or some such the answer would become clear. --JaGa 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

null set = intersection of people capable of writing vital articles to FA quality of content/prose with people willing to put up with Wiki aggressive antics. Decide what you want. My hope is that Sue fixes some of this crap. New sheriff in town and all that...

Also with opera singers as well. Spidey665 00:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Thanks!

	A belated thank you
	Thanks again for coming out to The Children's Museum of Indianapolis last month! I wanted to share some WikiLove, courtesy of my son Teddy: Misplaced Pages Song by Teddy Teddy (Age 3) made up his own song about Misplaced Pages. Problems playing this file? See media help. LoriLee (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, here are the images from your visit: Commons:Category:Jimmy Wales at The Children's Museum of Indianapolis. LoriLee (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I brought this back because I have a fun response... coming soon.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

After much anticipation, having had to wait to return home to listen - I can safely safe the Jimmy version defied all expectations. Teddy thinks it's "so silly!" which is high praise. "Silly" is his version of what others would call "epic" or "awesome." Thanks for the smiles! Made my week! (Month?) Best-- LoriLee (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I made this with an app called "Songify" and I assumed when I did so that the default songs in the app would be under a very open license compatible with CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0. However, I thought just now that I should look into it, and so far I'm unable to find any information. So, there's a chance that commons will have to delete it. Save a copy. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for the heads up. In other instances of listening to "his song," Teddy has gone on to say "HOW funny is THAT?" and go off on extended bouts of chuckling. I regret that I didn't get this on video, but you'll have to just imagine a very happy three year old. Thanks again! LoriLee (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Lori, if you want to develop the Children's Museum of Indianapolis to GA I'll be happy to review it as I did with the art museum.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A question about truth

Is this quote which was attributed to you correctly attributed?: "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view." if it is then how does that relate to your statement on my talkpage that "Truth is a huge concern, and the new version makes that clear".? To me this looks like a contradiction, although I guess it might be a matter of context. In any case the first quote is a very big part of what I find Misplaced Pages to be about - presenting different views weighted in accordance with their level of acceptance, not presenting truths. I think that the proposed policy change basically suggests that notions of objective truth or untruth trumps views to the contrary. Perhaps I am wrong again, but maybe you could explain to me why?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

One part to focus on is this: "What people believe is a matter of objective fact...". We are deeply concerned with truth. Another part to focus on is this: "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe..." It is not the only way, just perhaps the easiest way.

We want everything in Misplaced Pages to be verifiable. We also want everything in Misplaced Pages to be true. Because people may not always agree on what is true, we very often need to 'go meta' in various ways, one of which is to write about what people believe.

Another way you might think about this: because we want everything in Misplaced Pages to be true, and because we write it using an open process of dialogue, a useful set of techniques for getting at the truth include depending on reliable sources (which are judged to be reliable because they say true things more often than unreliable sources), and going meta when beliefs about what is true differ significantly. Far from verifiability coming about because we don't care about the truth, verifiability is useful because we care so deeply about the truth.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. In my world there is no "truth" only well supported claims and hypotheses. I consider truth to be for religious people.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a number of people insist on retaining the "verifiability, not truth" formulation in the first sentence of WP:V, which causes a great deal of confusion on this subject. Hopefully, the current RfC will produce a consensus on a compromise that at least moves these words out of the lede. Neutron (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If I'm allowed to comment here, the "go meta" approach that Jimbo speaks of can be summarized as: truth is approximated in Misplaced Pages by following the neutral point of view, with all its ancillaries, starting with basic verifiability of statements, but paying attention to the reliability of sources, and avoiding the synthesis of conclusions not supported by sources. Alas, some see a conflict between NPOV and NOR. E.g. when a source says "the earliest use of word X is 1909", but when a Misplaced Pages editors finds on a Google Books search a source from 1901 using it, then it has been argued that NOR—and more specifically SYNT—prohibits mentioning the 1901 occurrence in Misplaced Pages because it obviously contradicts the secondary source, even though the NOR policy gives considerable leeway for choosing sources: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Interesting enough, at least some of those wanting to keep "verifiablity, not truth" in WP:V argue that secondary sources should always trump primary sources, even though that's not what the NOR policy says. I suspect it's the desire to have a simple rule that drives them to embrace such a position. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

An interesting if WP:TLDR dispute can be found in the RS/N archives . Basically the abstract of a paper had contracted "GDP per capita" to GDP, and there was an extremely long discussion mostly among editors who did not have access to the full paper whether WP:V and WP:NOR should trump common sense. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hobbies

Just a general question: what do you generally do on Misplaced Pages, aside from being the owner and/or responding to discussions on your talk page? (unrelated: I like playing Asteroids on Misplaced Pages with my asteroids script. (use importScript('User:LikeLakers2/asteroids2.js'); to have it automatically add a link to play it in your toolbox and topbar (where the edit button is), and click it to play)) LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 16:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's why I get so many database errors when I try to save documents! Looie496 (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I lol'd. Also, I think ''that's'' looks better than ''that'''s as ''that'''s looks a bit wierd, with the ' being slanted, but not the s. (Feel free to undo my change of it if you want, Looie496) LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 17:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not the owner of Misplaced Pages. It belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation, which I founded in 2003. Anyway, what I like to do on Misplaced Pages apart from my work is edit articles relating to the UK House of Lords.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Truth panel

Your comment that we often need to 'go meta' reminded me of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and its usage panel, providing information about usage for selected words. For example, see the usage note at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/can. Perhaps, Misplaced Pages can have a truth panel for reporting percentages of the truth panel supporting each of the main viewpoints in an article where editors disagree on what is true. In many cases, the differences in viewpoint show no sign of disappearing. When Misplaced Pages has a neutral presentation of views, then its readers can make informed decisions about what to believe. (See also Teach the Controversy.)
—Wavelength (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• I am leaving space for Jimbo to answer above, but I think you have raised a complex collection of issues. WP allows multiple articles to reflect opposing, or various, alternative viewpoints. However, to reduce "text-spamming" or flooding main articles with fringe theories, the tactic has been to lump fringe theories into an "umbrella article" such as "Titanic alternative theories" about the sinking of the R.M.S. Titanic in 1912. Using that umbrella article, then the curse-of-the-mummy theory is not mentioned in every major article related to Titanic nor in all of the ship's crewmember articles. However, just because a theory is rare, and kept from flooding other articles, does not mean that it is "less true" but rather only that the theory is "less publicized" which is a major effect of judging notability by the number and prestige of reliable sources which mention a topic. For example, during the sinking of Titanic in April 1912, some crewmen reported that water was seeping under the bulkhead walls, rather than over the top, even though Titanic had a double bottom to the hull (not double-hull walls as added to sister ship R.M.S. Olympic afterward). Eventually, a new theory arose that the rivets, which held the hull plates together, were made with weaker metal which became very brittle in icy water, and so accordingly, the cold rivets snapped as more water entered, and made the outside damage to the hull worse than the original impact with the iceberg and ice field. Logically, that theory seems plausible, but it should not instantly replace the original idea that the iceberg made a very-long gash in the hull which allowed huge amounts of water to enter. Eventually, a new theory can become the mainstream view. A broader theory changed in viewpoints about dinosaurs, where during the 1960s, many people were taught that dinosaurs were "reptiles" and the animal group which never "ruled the world" were birds (and then, Hitchcock's film The Birds). Nowadays, the prevailing view is that most dinosaurs were, instead, birds (not reptiles), and the dinosaurs-as-reptiles viewpoint could be considered a fringe theory currently. That is why it is good to have multiple articles about such theories. As for a "Truth panel", there could be multiple WP:WikiProjects (along with the 2,000 WikiProjects already formed) which ensure that all published theories, for their subject area, are mentioned, in proportion to the reliable sources. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

These WikiProjects seem to be relevant here.

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Alternative Views
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic gender bias
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Notability
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Misplaced Pages reliability

(The article "Dinosaurs" classifies dinosaurs in the class Reptilia, but, if you have evidence that they should be classified as birds, then you might wish to convey that information to the members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Dinosaurs.)

—Wavelength (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there might be an incentive for POV pushers to "push" the "truth percentages" in their own direction. I suggested several possibilities in an essay WP:Advocacy articles including the simplest one of all -- allow an article to be as one-sided as editors wish, but to be so labelled, and to alow a countering advocacy article for the other POV. Collect (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary - Misplaced Pages links

I am not sure if this was ever discussed, but I was thinking of how often a more direct link to Wiktionary would be extremely usefull. For instance, some words have wp articles with direct links to other language wikipedia´s found on the right column, but if you want to check the definition found on Wiktionary, you need to leave wp or open a new tab. We could have a Wiktionary link included in the same list, or perhaps some other way of having the direct link between the two projects. Huge number of en.wiki users are not native English speakers, and anyway, even for the ones that are, the definition found on Wiktionary can be usefull. Did anyone ever thought about this before? FkpCascais (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Wikimedia sister projects.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Touré

Hello, Jimmy. The subject of the Touré article, whom I've met and photographed twice in person, requested that his surname not be used in his article. As it is the practice to comply with such requests for reasons like privacy, I have taken care to keep it out of the article. Another editor asked about this on the article's talk page and now Touré has asked me to remove mention of it from that talk page, which I have. Can the edit that first introduced it be removed from the talk page's edit history? Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

We nevertheless ought to strike a balance between a desire for privacy or secrecy and the inherent value of producing a complete reference work. This individual makes regular media appearances and hosts at least two television programs. This is someone who is a celebrity; someone who is famous, not infamous. We aren't sheltering the victim of a viral video meme; Touré has diligently sought to build his name and reputation as an essayist, critic, and television personality through more than a decade of publishing and television appearances. To be clear, we're not protecting the identity of Star Wars Kid (about whom I still question the merit of having any article, whether he is named or not). At first blush, insisting that we conceal the last name of Touré seems to make no more sense than deleting the last name of Prince (musician). Absent a clear issue related to personal safety or his family's privacy (one which goes above and beyond the considerations which might apply to any celebrity) we're only left with a question of the degree to which our encyclopedia should conform to a celebrity's preferred personal branding. While I can appreciate that any biography's subject will be sensitive to its contents (and I believe we as a project ought to be sensitive to a subject's concerns), I can't help but find his claims that the inclusion of his surname is 'vandalism' to be somewhat overwrought.

The original (and only) BLP noticeboard discussion took place in 2006, shortly after the BLP policy came into effect, and while the community was still sorting out what it all meant to the project. (Indeed, the discussion is on the very first page of the BLP noticeboard archives.) I would hesitate to rely on that discussion's conclusion to guide us forevermore, for two reasons above and beyond our usual awareness that consensus can change. First, the discussion was in the early days of WP:BLP, and we lacked the body of experience with BLP that we have now.

Second, a major point raised in the original discussion was that issue shouldn't be decided by BLP concerns, but rather was a question about verifiability and the existence of reliable sources. At the time, no reliable sources were offered to support the use of the subject's purported surname. Glancing briefly through the recent history of the article, it certainly appears that this concern remains valid today. Before we even think of pulling the BLP trigger, we need to make sure that article content clears the basic five-pillar requirement of verifiable, reliable sourcing. It is there that the question of including the subject's surname falls down. It should go without saying that the existence of a widely-available, reliable secondary source would also obviate much of the concern regarding a real or hypothetical invasion of privacy on Misplaced Pages's part—the cat, as they say, would already be out of the bag. Absent such reliable secondary sources, the name shouldn't be included purely on the basis of non-verifiability. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Someone who is purposefully famous for their work and seeks to remain as such isn't a private individual. Thus, to maintain our neutrality and our breadth of coverage, we should include his full name, regardless of his wishes. So, unless sources only refer to him with half his name all the time without mentioning his full name, we should include it all. If they do only mention half...well, that's a different scenario that needs to be discussed, but I find it unlikely. Silverseren 15:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for his full name? It does link the name to a profession on BET. Bielle (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you actually have to use a reference for his name in the article, that would be a bit overkill, I think. It just needs to be shown to us editors, not the readers, that RS's use his full name. So, that's one example there, yes. Silverseren 17:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think TenOfAllTrades has produced a classic, thoughtful, and elegant discussion of the issue. The rule can't be "Don't include a surname unless it is ok with the BLP subject" nor can the rule be "Always include a surname, BLP subject wishes and human dignity be damned". Thoughtful editorial judgment to balance valid competing concerns is, as almost always, the right way forward.

I don't know much about this particular example. I could be swayed towards omission if: there is a physical danger to family members, there is doubt about the sourcing, there is a sense that notability happened to the person rather than being sought, etc. I could be swayed towards inclusion if: there are plenty of reliable sources, there is no obvious safety or privacy issue, the person has deliberately sought fame. It's always a lovely thing when there is a simple and easy formulaic answer, but reality is complex so there often isn't one. Thoughtful discussion can be productive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Interface change

I think you should change the interface of Misplaced Pages (and your other Wiki sites) to allow non-admin users to delete their user, user talk and subpages. Spidey665 17:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)