Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Village pumps: Policy • Technical • Proposals (persistent) • Assistance • Miscellaneous
Village pump (policy) archive  
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions | Archives: 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

Contents

[edit] No original research

There is a proposal to replace the primary, secondary and tertiary sources section. It has gained a broad local consensus as a move in the proper direction, after a long period of the policy being edit-protected. Please review the discussion and proposal, and leave a comment whether you agree or disagree. An RfC has also been posted to draw outside comment. Cheers! Vassyana 08:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question on copyright

If I find a reproduction in a book (which is still within the copyright period) of a picture which is old enough to be out of copyright, can I reproduce it on Wikipedia?

Apologies if this question has already been asked and answered. --rossb 11:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If the book was published in the US or other countries where we may presume that rules analogous to the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp case apply, then yes, {{pd-art}} should apply. Just note that in some legislations such rules do not exist or are contentious, so the reproduction may itself attract copyright. Also note that the book's copyright holder may not be the copyright holder (if there is one) of the illustration, since it may be usage "by permission". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eMule

A couple of questions have arisen to me regarding this edit[1]. While this statement may be true (i.e. that the file is obtainable using eMule or some similar file sharing mechanism), is it appropriate to mention it? And while Wikipedia isn't censored, is this type of statement implicitly (or explicitly) promoting the theft of intellectual property as this particular product (the miniature ruleset I Ain't Been Shot, Mum!) is still being sold commercially? Thanks. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If it has been officially released as a PDF then it can be mentioned. If there have been sources discussing the illegal download (and copyright theft) of the product then it can be mentioned. Specifically stating a source for an illegal download is not allowed, so the mention of eMule is not acceptable. violet/riga (t) 13:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. Is there a specific WP policy that I can point to when I remove the statement from the article to show the other editor that he shouldn't be stating "the file may be downloaded using a free filehost such as eMule"? (Yes, the product in question is available as a PDF file from the makers, but that's not the point here. Basically, as I said above, I think that posting such a statement as this editor did is a tacit plug for downloading the file for free, violating the maker's copyright, depriving them of the sales, etc, etc). --Craw-daddy | T | 16:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works Raymond Arritt 16:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriateness of Link ?

Hello All---

I was directed here by a deleting bot. I had tried to add an external link to the sci fi show, "Eureka" article, and the bot message said something to the effect that this is a site frequently brought up/ suitable for deletion. I enjoy the site, which is why I posted it, but I'm not heavily invested here. The site is www.visiteureka.net It is a site that seems to be semi-officially run/moderated by people connected with the show, ie. it has some official facts, including interviews with actors, not included on the site run by the sci fi channel (which is on the list of external links), it does have a forum for fans, but one does NOT need a password to read the posts or to enter any area of the site, and I am not connected to the site personally at all. It seems to me that this satisfies the conditions under which a link may be posted. Please advise. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.140.35 (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It reverted you because you added [[http://www.example.com link title]] to the bottom of the page. Read the edit summary carefully to get a better idea and be sure to check your edits. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Repectfully, I think it reverted because I have now discovered that there was a huge fight about it on the Eureka discussion page, and it automatically reverts that link. I wrote a note there, and hopefully, the writer(s) of the article or those more passionate than I will rethink their reasoning. But thank you, Some Guy 21:36 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.140.35 (talk)

Well, that would be a good reason too, but the example.com link is why the bot reverted you. Someone else no doubt would have anyway, but just make sure to differentiate the two. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting Talk Pages

I have edited two talk pages. Talk:Steve Ballmer and Talk:Russia. I did this with every intention of helping, but I am puzzled as to Wikipedias policy on this. Could you help me?--Dwarf Kirlston 01:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In short, it is bad. You should undo it. New topics go at the bottom so people can easily find them. Your system, while an admirable attempt at structure, screws up that system. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
But there are discussions which are ongoing and others that are "please make this edit, done". And people don't put real titles on their topics and it looks awful. Could you link me to the official wikipedia policy on editing talk pages? --Dwarf Kirlston 01:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


WP:TALK - in general, you don't edit talk pages in the fashion you did on those pages. As Someguy said, you should undo it. Collectonian 01:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou both.--Dwarf Kirlston 12:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all I did not seek consensus. I worked hard and honestly to reformat/refactor/whatever those talk pages. I (did) not wish to undo because I consider that the work I did was useful.

The problem I was trying to fix was (from WP:TALK)

Keep headings on topics related to the article
Make a new heading for a new topic:

The First which (nearly) everyone ignores and the second where people instead Make a new heading for an old topic whenever they feel like the discussion was not going according to their plan - It would be as if I made another question (the same really) just because I wanted people to think it was a new topic and therefore deserved thought.I believe WP:RTP is in fact what I was doing when pages got too long and ugly. from WP:RTP

Refactoring, unlike editing, saves the entire original intent and meaning of the author(s).
Content to remove
Redundant - Separate discussions of similar or identical topics.
Superfluous - Content that is entirely and unmistakably irrelevant.
Content to alter
Outdated - A discussion that has reached an unalterable conclusion.
Poor formatting - Misused or underused indentation.

from WP:AATP

Unlike the permanent link archiving method, the archive can be edited for clarity. For instance, headers can be renamed to be more helpful, unsigned comments can be noted, irrelevant comments can be moved to a more appropriate place, chit chat can be removed, etc. (However, this kind of editing might be considered a mild form of refactoring.)
Discussions can be archived by topic, rather than chronologically. This may be appropriate on talk pages where certain topics have a tendency to come up again and again, and it is convenient to have all past discussion on an issue in one location. Archiving by topic is usually less appropriate for personal user talk pages.

Could (for Russia) the talk page be made into a disambiguation page to the talk of different topics (especially History and Demography which extremely long). Someguy0830 called it (my attempt at structure) admirable. As I said, I intended to help. New topics should go at the bottom, and I agree! I have kept it so that it stays like that, but within the topics of history, within the topics of religion, rather than letting separate discussion of the same topic get spread out all over the talk page.--Dwarf Kirlston 12:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Update Someguy0830 has reverted my edits of Talk:Russia and Talk:Steve Ballmer--Dwarf Kirlston 13:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Refactoring is only relevant when discussions are relatively active and very long. You archive pages like Russia if it gets too long. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for your help, and for taking the initiative in reverting the edits. It was well done. --Dwarf Kirlston 01:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When is it acceptable to delete comments on a talk page?

My impression was that deleting comments on talk pages was controversial, and was only suitable in cases of death threats, private personal information, racist abuse, etc. Yet at Wikipedia Talk:Spoiler, we've had a couple of editors deleting a comment which accused one of them of 'unprincipled behavior'. See the diffs here and here.--Nydas(Talk) 17:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are differing views and policy certainly suggests that it can be done [[2]] but hints that perhaps it should not. However, it is also seen as inflammatory to do so.
I've been involved with a page where an admin stated that anything that hinted of personal attack would be deleted, and I think if the ground rules are set then it can be a very good way of cooling the situation, but it needs to be set down and the person doing the deleting has to be seen to be acting fairly.
I'm for it, but also recognise that you need to also be aware that people then adapt to more subtle ways of driving you mad. Spenny 17:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Discussions on article Talk pages occasionally become nasty and confrontational. It's not always clear that these fit the definition of personal attacks. I wouldn't object if someone were to move such a 'confrontational' comment to the User talk of the person who made the comment, and then left a link in the article Talk. The person who made the comment might consider that their views were being suppressed. It would help if, should you decide to relocate their comment, you could replace it with a summary of what they were bothered about. EdJohnston 17:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't normally find it very useful to remove an individual posting just because it's nasty or incivil or otherwise objectionable. It's like trying to punish the specific editor for being nasty, which is not very helpful. What I do support, however, is removal of threads of discussion when they have been sidelined into off-topic banter, and then especially if it contains nastiness. The criterion is not: should we protect the oh so sensitive souls of the present disputants from the shock of reading the nastiness (chances are, by the time you remove the posting they'll have read it anyway, so it makes no difference and the removal is of merely symbolic value.) The criterion should be: now that we've all had a go at each other, does this thread really save any useful purpose to be archived for future generations of editors who want to actually discuss the article? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
It is very poor behavior indeed to blank sincere comments from your talk page. It is however allowed. I don't think it should be, but there is not a consensus to disallow it at this point. One can not however deny someone access to their talk page. I suggest that if someone has the habit of blanking comments and warnings that you use a very descriptive edit summary so that it can be easily spotted by people checking the history. 1 != 2 18:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, all that I just said it in reference to user talk pages, article talk pages should not have content removed unless it is for an archive or very innapropriate. 1 != 2 18:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As an illustrative example of what I meant, I just happened to have done this [3] a couple minutes before I saw this thread. I'd stand by my opinion that such removals are sometimes useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
In this case, we have a post which is pretty tame by Wikipedia's (or any) standards. What should be done in such situations?--Nydas(Talk) 18:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
It says in WP:RTP that you can remove "Reduntant" and "Irrelevant" articles while refactoring. If the comment was irrelevant as well as a personal attack then there is even more defense for it. Personal attacks of any kind can be deleted and should. Wikipedia is not a stage for personal vendettas--Dwarf Kirlston 19:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I've recently run into a situation where someone was starting to delete as "irrelevant" comments about the policy implications raised by the article. Every once in a while I see good faith comments deleted as "unhelpful" or something that's already been decided. We should probably put in an admonition that deleting good faith, nonconfrontational comments from an article talk page is often inflammatory, and should be avoided unless they are causing some kind of a problem. Most of the rules in the talk page guideline are helpful hints on how one can better contribute to a productive discussion, and are not meant as a filter for what can and can't be deleted. It's one of those things like verifiability where, if you take a strict and extreme interpretation of the rules (and a few do) you can start deleting 80% of the content there because you don't like it.- Wikidemo 20:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Good faith comments that are considered "unhelpful" or about something that's already been decided, assuming that they are in sections that aren't active, should be archived. I see no excuse for deleting them. The (controversial) practice of deleting personal attacks has a clear rationale - they fail the "discuss content, not contributors" rule, but "unhelpful" and "already decided" comments are still about content; the right thing to do is archive them, if in fact they are quiescent. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRL problem has a solution that is to make a sockpuppet. What's a person to do?

Please comment here. Thanks ScienceApologist 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scroll bars

Something like [4] is bad, right? Anyone care to revert? --NE2 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would not say that scroll bars are bad, but that application of them certainly seems inappropriate. I don't see what you buy by scrolling 98% of the article text in a small window. Vegaswikian 05:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Scroll bars are not inherently bad, but they are almost always used badly, and very seldom have a place on Wikipedia. They can hinder accessibility by breaking screen readers; they make printing articles difficult; they can screw up formatting in some browsers; they take up valuable screen real estate; and long articles get scroll bars on their window anyway. Concur with removing them in this instance and most instances. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has placed the scroll bar back on the page. It is certainly out of place there. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I wondered what the next step would be if the person refuses to comply with the prevailing view? D3av 10:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In brief, take it up with the editor first, then escalate if necessary. Powers T 13:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Just my 2 cents: Why not, instead of wasting time and efforts in a long dispute, engage in further developing the Wiki frontend to eventually leave the choice to the user whether he wants to have table contents scrollable or "full". Of course it would take some time to find the best possible solution, like "full" being default (for compatibility and printing reasons), but I am pretty sure the final result will make everyone feel a lot better than having won or lost an edit war. --217.232.218.170 11:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research and Spoilers

Over at the Meerkat Manor article, we are running into an issue of what consitutes original research and I'm seeking some additional guidance from folks not emotionally involved in the article. For the short background, Meerkat Manor is a documentary series about the Whiskers and several other meerkat groups being researched by the Kalahari Meerkat Project (KMP). Since the show is a documentary about real life meerkats, it was agreed by a general consensus that the KMP website is a valid and extremely useful source for providing additional information about the meerkats on the show, particularly updates on their lives (or deaths) between seasons and on the count of meerkats in each group.

The problem, however, is that Animal Planet has renamed several "major" meerkats, but neither Animal Planet nor KMP have released any kind of list that states "X meerkat on the show's real name is Y." However, in several cases, you can easily figure out a meerkat's real name just by looking at the KMP site. For example, on the show, a meerkat named Maybelline left the Whiskers, taking some other meerkats with her, in a split to be a dominant female of a new group called the Aztecs. On the KMP site, in the information about the Aztecs, it states "the Aztecs group was formed in March 2007 as a 15-strong splinter of the Whiskers family, but all adult males returned to the Whiskers within a month. Since then, the Aztecs have consisted of three adult females, led by the oldest, Monkulus, and four pups." Monkulus, therefore, equals Maybelline. For a simpler example, on the show the dominant male of the Commandoes is Hannibal, a big one-eyed meerkat. The KMP site explicitly states that the Commandoes on the show are "played" by the dominant couple of the Vivian research group, which would make Hannibal's real name "Jim Bob" (further evidenced by a picture of Jim Bob, who is a big one-eyed male.

My question is, does this constitute original research because the site does not specifically say "Jim Bob's name was changed the Hannibal" on the show? Must there be a verifiable source that does stay a rename exactly before we can use the information, even if it "seems obvious"?

A secondary question relates to "spoilers" and namely, do non-fiction TV show articles need to be tagged with spoilers if we are including publicly released info from AP or KMP, such as when the article noted Flower's death weeks before the episode aired in the US because AP made press releases about it and the episodes all air in the UK before they air in the US? In general the consensus on the article has been "no spoiler tags" per the guidelines, but we have at least one editor who disagrees (though he doesn't actually contribute to the article, and is speaking solely as a fan). His latest round of arguments can be found on my talk page since he took it there for some reason. Collectonian 01:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unless a reliable source says "X = Y", you cannot infer the information from the two sets of data. Saying "X is true" and "Y is true" does NOT mean you can say "X therefore Y" without an external reliable source making that connection. It should be noted that Meerkat Manor is NOT identitical to KMP. The latter is a scientific project whose primary interest is to present facts; the former is primarily an entertainment show whose primary purpose is to sell advertising time on a cable TV network. It does not mean that Meerkat Manor is necessarily false, however stories told in Meerkat Manor cannot be assumed to be purely fact in the same way that information related by KMP is fact. There are certain dramatic liscences I would expect the TV show to take that the research project never would. Even if the TV show is not actually taking said dramatic liscences, it is reasonable to think that it would, and thus would be an unreliable source for anything EXCEPT its own storyline. That is a longwinded way of saying that while the Show is based on the Project, one cannot assume that the Show faithfully reports the results of the Project. It may, but I wouldn't count on it, UNLESS a reliable, independant source says that it does. If no source exists, you can't make that conclusion yourself. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree on the X=Y, but I wanted to make sure it wasn't just me being much of a hard nose. That fits with what I was already thinking myself, that unless a reliable source says "X=Y" or Animal Planet didn't alter the name, then that info can not be used.
I would, however, have to disagree that KMP is not a source at all and I don't think the KMP data should be completely excluded. It is still a documentary and a non-fiction show, despite the dramatic narration, which would seem to say that it should be taken as fact unless a valid source proves otherwise (as have been noted in the differences section). Other documentary articles work from a presumption the documentary is factual, do they not?
Also, other non-fiction show articles include additional information from outside sources and are not limited to just what is in the show. Animal Planet is not reporting the results of the project, true, but they are reporting the events in the lives of specific meerkats under the project scope. The article shouldn't be pure KMP data and some of the first edits done in the clean up of the article was to remove all KMP meerkat individuals and groups that were not actually featured on the show and other outside information that had nothing to do with the show itself. However, I think information from KMP on the meerkats Animal Planet does choose to feature is a valid secondary source of information. KMP can confirm Animal Planet's telling of events, fill in gaps where Animal Planet sometimes forgets meerkats, to provide additional information about the history of a meerkat, or to point out one of those "creative licenses" such as using two groups for one. Collectonian 02:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
See, I would disagree with that, and I wonder why the article needs that. Honestly, there is no need to "fill in" any information. List the "characters" as the show reports them, name them, maybe mention the fact that it is based on the KMP, but what is the need to add the extra information? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Because they aren't characters or fictional elements, but real life meerkats. They are the "cast" of a non-fiction show, not the "characters" of a fictional one. The additional information is relevant to their roles in their groups and the show. If it were a documentary about a group of people on an island, is it not relevant and proper to include some background info about each person in the article to put them in a proper context of where they are in the article and to maybe include follow up about them afterwards? Almost everyone who appeared on Survivor not only got background info added, but they got their own articles. If such information is unimportant for non-fictional shows and those articles should only include exactly what is said in the show, then what is the point of having the article at all? Just watch the show. I thought part of the purpose of Wikipedia was to expound on a topic, not just act as an episode guide? Collectonian 03:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Articles about other shows with multiple versions point out differences. Without checking those articles, I expect several BBC shows which have aired in the USA have articles with differences mentioned. I recently looked at one of the articles about The Office and think I also saw comparisons between the separately produced versions. I'd suggest MM deal with what shows on AP, with linked mention of its KMP parentage. In KMP put all the KMP details, and at the bottom of KMP start an X,Y table of significant similarities with MM. See where that goes. (SEWilco 03:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
The KMP article once had all the details of their meerkats, including those not on MM. After some discussion between the few editors who have bother much with that article, it was removed under the grounds that it wasn't "encyclopedic" and just a repeat of the KMP site. To quote one editor "It's a study of meerkat ethology. Although the meerkats and the groups are given names, this isn't for the purpose of making them into film stars or soap opera characters, as someone watching Meerkat Manor might be led to believe." The article has since been greatly expanded, but info on specific meerkats is still out unless someone else wants to go argue the case that it is valuable information (I tried and failed).
So, the desire seems to be to keep most MM stuff out of the KMP article except to mention the show features their meerkats (along with some other documentaries), with links over to the show. With that idea implemented and following the somewhat confusing TV project style guide, an overhaul of the MM article began to try to vastly improve and expand it. I do think it is much better than it was, as it now has actual information appropriate for a TV show article, such as production details and reception, and removing a lot of fancruft. There are sections listing differences between the show and "reality" (as well as the UK/US differences).
To further add to the mix/confusion, there is now a book out called Meerkat Manor: Flower of the Kalahari with covers Flower's life and the other Whiskers. If the KMP info is to be excluded, should then anything from the book be excluded as well (which is by the KMP researcher)? Also, the spoiler issue is separate from the KMP issue (most of the "spoilers" have come from UK viewers or the official show sites), so feedback on it is also appreciated.  :) Collectonian 03:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Non-fiction elements cannot be "spoiled". Flower's death, for example, is a fact, being the real death of a real meerkat, reported on in news sources, and it would be a disservice to fail to note that simply because the death hasn't been documented on a particular program. Game shows and reality programs are a bit of a grey area, because the reality is being presented for entertainment purposes. However, in this case, the death of Flower was not a scripted element; it was not planned for its dramatic effect, and thus nothing is "spoiled" by finding out she's dead. Powers T 14:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't think the spoiler tags belong at all. The issue on the KMP data is still very much in the air though. Per the discussion so far, no more KMP data has been allowed to be added until a consensus was reached, but now quite a few other editors are upset because the article is presenting incorrect information. In particular, the new book that came out appears to correct quite a few things mistated in the show, or adds details not mentioned in the show, and now that it is available, several editors are wanting to put in "corrections." Originally I would agree, but after this discussion, I'm more conflicted. I can see both sides of the issue. I personally prefer having the info because it authenticates and enhances the show's topic, but the article is about the show and not the topic itself, so in that regard, the other stuff doesn't belong. Collectonian 15:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm the one who suggested a syllogic argument (i.e., if A=B, & B=C, then A=C) is not original research, so I'll comment on your question about original research. I would say this is a case of the letter vs. the spirit of the policy. One important reason original research is discouraged is because very often the person who wants to add it believes only his conclusions are true & all other possible interpretations are wrong. In other words, the intent of the editor is not to open further discussion on the matter, but to limit it.
So what to do in cases where it is "obvious" or "clear" that X=Y? I'd say that this is a case where you should use a conditional statement, e.g. "X may equal Y" or "It appears that X=Y". Obviously, this is an attempt to move out of black & white absolutes into shades of grey, that it takes the first few steps down the slippery slope, & all sorts of related cliches that indicate this approach is open to abuse. (For example, "Gary Ridgway is a convicted serial killer, but he may have been a kind human being.") This suggestion requires some maturity & care to use properly -- but as long as conditional statements are used in uncontroversial cases where there is no reasonable alternative interpretations, one shouldn't go astray too badly. -- llywrch 19:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interpretation of WP:NFCC

The article Anzu Mazaki has eight images. WhisperToMe and I have come to an agreement to remove two images, but that still leaves six. WTM argues that the six images are justified as the media and the appearances differ and that removing the images would deterimental to the reader's understanding of Anzu. However, I think that WP:NFCC#3a limits this very severely. Would like a third opinion and whether my interpretation of NFCC is correct or not. hbdragon88 23:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you could remove 2-3 more without any noticeable harm to the encyclopedic coverage of the article. I'm a manga / anime novice, mind you, but I just don't see why the very slight (to me) differences in appearances between the character from one series to the next are all that important to understanding the character. If they are important, that would warrant more discussion in the text. As it is, one infobox picture, one character design sketch, and one picture of the completed character in the text seems plenty, perhaps one more if it's from a completely different genre and there's some supporting prose in the article to explain (e.g. US production vs. Japanese, anime versus manga, etc).Wikidemo 00:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The info box image, the first character sketchings, and one shot from the anime are sufficient. The rest add nothing encyclopedic to the article at all and are just redundant and cluttering things up. In general, with an anime/manga character article one manga image and one anime image are sufficient unless to illustrate a substantial change (such as the article on Sesshomaru showing his anime, manga, and full demon appearances, or Sailor Moon's article having multiple images due to her multiple forms). Actually...looking closer, that first image may need to go. It is has an incorrect licensing and its fair use rationale seems sketchy to me. I've tagged it for possible COPYVIO violation. Collectonian 01:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The character design sketch was speedied, so we just have three manga pics (two in color, one in B&W), one from the 1st anime, and one from the 2nd anime. WhisperToMe 04:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the sketchings had invalid fair use rationales and appeared to be copyright violations. I would recommend removing the other manga pics. The one in info box is good enough, and its unnecessary to have both a color and black and white version. Only one pic from the anime is really needed, despite the minor color changes between the two series. The character design section is not detailed enough to support two, which is where they would appear to belong per the image guidelines. So I'd keep one and move it up to that section, aligned to the left. Right now, all four are badly placed. Images should enhance the sections they are in, and none of the extra four relate to her "Romance with the Yugis" Collectonian 05:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the B&W is actually from a different story arc; it is NOT in the same arc as the first color image. I also included it as there was no color image from Millennium World that I found. I'll see if I can move some pics in the front. Also, the reason why I have the two series pics is that one is derived from the character design in the earlier manga and one is derived from the character design of the later (not Millennium World, though) manga. WhisperToMe 05:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Being from a different story arc doesn't make it different, nor are the character designs so very different that five images are necessary, or appropriate. Every single iteration of the character isn't necessary unless there are actual major changes. The first three are close enough that only the infobox one is really necessary. You can make a better case for the two anime ones, as they are slightly different. I've modified the article as a suggestion that would keep the two anime ones while putting them in their proper context. Feel free to revert, but hopefully you'll find its a good compromise to allow illustration of the differences without overloading the article with excessive images. Collectonian 06:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I decided that I do not mind if the B&W is gone - I still like the other manga color image since the face in the first chapter is drawn differently than the faces in the rest of the series; even the animated series do not have an equivalent. WhisperToMe 19:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Geotagging

Is there any particular reason why it's not possible to geotag an image when uploading it? Surely the upload page should ask for lat/long by default? It also seems impossible to geotag photos that have already been uploaded. Or am I missing something? Thanks Socrates2008 05:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to know, why would you want to? If someone is taking a picture of something in a certain spot, it will presumably be for a specific purpose, and the uploader will no doubt describe what it is of in the first place. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Some people find it interesting to know where a picture was taken. The description is often not accurate enough to find the location in say, Google Earth, or may require considerable time and effort to do so. This is particularly the case with some historical photos. If a 'coord' tag could be placed on the photo page, this would be very useful, but it does not work. I think a more reasonable question would be why you'd NOT want to it, as there's no downside to having it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There'd be several reasons not to: 1, people aren't likely to lat/long every photo they take; 2, just because it's interesting does not mean it's important, and quite frankly I can't see this as being something most uploaders would even think about, much less consider the least bit important; and 3, it is of little relevance to Wikipedia if someone is having trouble Googling a specific location. There is no reason to geotag photos, because their lat/long is not relevant to them. All that is relevant to the photo is its source, a short description of where it is being used, under what circumstance it's being used (PD self, fair use, etc), and other such concerns. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Indeed, and they shouldn't have to. 2. Consider why Wiki articles are geotagged - the rationale is similar. While you personally may not understand or appreciate the benefit, please don't preclude others who do. Socrates2008 06:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Wiki articles do not have to be geotagged, it's just helpful. Also, you're comparing apples to oranges. An image is not an article. It's something a person upload to help the article. There is no reason for them to jump through hoops to figure out the lat and long of the place they took it. What you suggest is simply unfeasible. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're completely missing my point. I'm suggesting the **OPTION** of geogtagging a photograph, and am not suggesting that images **MUST** be geotagged. i.e. Make this the same as for articles, which don't **HAVE** to have a geotag, but **CAN** have one. Seems pretty straightforward, and does not require any changes in practices, so don't understand why you come out so vehemently against this...? Socrates2008 06:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You already have the option of geotagging it. It's really simple too: add it to your summary with {{Coord}}. This isn't a policy concern, and it certainly does not warrant any changes to the uploading interface. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Does not work on Wikimedia Commons Socrates2008 07:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Then you should be asking this question there. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The Commons:Geocoding project is quite active on geocoding the camera locations of images and showing them on maps. The added advantage is that all the images are free, which unfortunately isn't the case here. But even there, so many images that aren't related to a geographical location are uploaded, so there probably won't be a request to geocode on upload, other than perhaps suggesting the possibility of adding one of the coordinate templates to the description. --Para 11:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel war policy discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:Wheel war#Request for comments: Wheel war where a discussion about how we define wheel wars is taking place. A wheel war is a struggle between administrators who undo each other's actions. Wheel wars are extremely harmful to the project. - Jehochman Talk 14:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I note, because this was omitted in this description, that what is proposed is to change the definition of wheel war so that the first revert is wheel warring. GRBerry 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really, that's too mechanical a view, I think. What is proposed is to change the definition of wheel war so that reverting an action (except in certain limited and urgent circumstances) without first seeking consensus for doing so, as has been going on here of late a bit more than is appropriate, is not an acceptable administrative approach. Right now, whoever reverts an action, however well founded that action may be, has the upper hand, even if they did not discuss it with anyone first but just did it on a whim. We need to get to a place where noone has the upper hand. ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policies regarding use of quotations

I have some question regarding the following passage:

In preparation for the game, developers gathered together materials from all manner of sources—"mountains of photographs snapped from ventures outside the dark confines of our office...huge numbers of nature books that our artists use for recreating authentic trees, grasses, and plants." "Texture images, reference photography of architecture, natural formations" that the team has drawn from personal trips overseas also formed a part of the team's sources. "We pull," said producer Gavin Carter, "from as many sources as we can get our hands on."[19] Where, in Morrowind, the chief graphical focus of the team was on water, the chief focus in Oblivion lay on its forests, its "big, photorealistic forests".[21] The inclusion of procedural content tools allowed for the creation of realistic environments at much faster rates than was the case with Morrowind.[22] Using IDV’s SpeedTree technology, for example, Bethesda artists were able to "quickly generate complex and organic tree shapes with relative ease". Bethesda's Noah Berry attests that "using parent/child hierarchies and iterative branch levels comprised of highly modifiable cylinder primitives, an entire tree shape can be created in a manner of minutes, just by adjusting numerical values and tweaking spline curve handles".[23] Instead of Morrowind's artificially smoothed-over terrain, erosion algorithms incorporated in the landscape generation tools allowed for the creation of "craggy mountain vistas" quickly and easily.

I believe the author relies too heavily on the developers (quoted) to make his points for him. Which policy(-ies) apply? Manual of Style? NPOV? SharkD 20:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that if there is a fault in Wikipedia writing, it is that we quote too little, not too much. there are many biographical articles in which the subject of the article is not quoted at all. Here, I think the author has done a pretty good job of putting the quotes into context. If I were to criticize it, I would suggest breaking it up into several paragraphs - having quote followed by quote makes it hard to read, sometimes. --Ravpapa 06:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Ravpapa is right here. The use of quotes is not inapporpriate. There are some issues with the tone of the writing, as it gets somewhat informal in places, but that is a small copyedit issue. The use of quotes here seems appropriate for what it is. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the two above views. I dislike quotations as they can be used to advance an agenda. For example, you might have a prominent scientist who says only once that there might be some truth to telepathy, and then in all later works says they don't believe in it. It's all too easy to 'enlist' them into supporting telepathy via quotation. In this example, we have advertising-like langauge sneaking in under the guise of quotation, which is also annoying, although not so insidious. I've written a small essay on the topic: Wikipedia:Don't overuse quotes.--Nydas(Talk) 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, and thanks for the essay. (Must try and contribute something to it if I find the time.) It's a crucial part of the detached, neutral, objective nature of encyclopedia writing (just like of all academic writing in general) that our texts should be in our voice throughout. If a student did something like that in an academic essay, they'd get a fail mark. We talk about our subjects, we don't let our subjects talk about themselves. Every direct quote should be motivated by some function it fulfills that couldn't be fulfilled otherwise. Why can we not say the things ourselves, in our own encyclopedic voice, that we let our quoted subjects say? Quotes framed by an introduction showing lack of distance, like "... says X", or "in the words of X, ..." should almost never be used. Where quotes are overused, it's either out of intellectual laziness, or because editors are trying to sneak something past the NPOV filters by using the quoted person as their mouthpiece. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
In this case, we have the designers of Oblivion saying how great their product is. Was their attempt to make photorealistic forests successful?--Nydas(Talk) 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm uncomfortable with Nyadas' essay. Yes, people misuse quotations in Wikipedia to inappropriately push a given opinion, but (1) that's only one of many tactics those people use, & (2) I worry that this will become a case where because they do it too much, they should be told not to do it at all. (Thanks to Circeus for that link.) Balance against those drawbacks the positives that quotations (1) provide a sense of immediateness that regular text lacks, (2) accuracy of fact, & (3) often the quotation is better written than anything one of us Wikipedians could write. As for the passage quoted above which started this thread, I feel it is simply a case of bad writing: having read it a couple of times, I still have no idea what its point is supposed to be. Is it a description of how a computer game was created? How a given software package was used? Or is it a case where someone wanted to show off their knowledge? -- llywrch 20:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The reason quotes are more immediate is that they're often from a slanted perspective. Balanced accounts can seem distant or dry compared to them.--Nydas(Talk) 09:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I really appreciate your essay and hope that it eventually becomes a guideline or is incorporated into a guideline. Quotes are too frequently used by critics to skew articles toward their point of view. They tend to insert the most damning quote they can find, even though it might have been just one comment in passing in a long newspaper report that mostly covered something else. TimidGuy 11:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Nydas, I offer for your consideration two examples where I used quotations: Iyasu V of Ethiopia & Tekle Giyorgis I of Ethiopia. In both cases I would argue that I used quotations accurately to improve the content of these articles. (One might say that they are the best parts of those articles.) However, to repeat myself -- as well as to indicate that you do have a point -- I would say that what SharkD posted above is an example of a poor use of quotations. -- llywrch 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed you use quotations a lot, Llywrch, but they are generally of a different quality than the type shown here. The tone of the above passage is very news report-y and rather informal, not encyclopedic tone. Usually your quotations are of well-respected historians explaining situations or people in an already rather encylopedic (in the sense that it is a bit detached) manner, and often more eloquently than a Wikipedia editor can be expected to write, as opposed to the use of quotation above, in which someone close to the project is describing it rather informally and personally ("as many sources as we can get our hands on," the use of the adjective "big," "dark confines of our office"). Quotations from the article's subject interspersed throughout an article can be useful when describing an aspect of his/her life or an opinion s/he holds, as well. As for the rewrite by Geuiwogbil below, it's better, but still suffers from the same problems when quotations are used. The first quotation is still in the same style as news reports ("Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet," said X), and would sound much better rephrased into something like: The team producer, Gavin carter, further noted that the team used "as many sources" as possible. The last sentence is also better off without the quotation, as the phrase "in a matter of minutes" is itself too informal and the quotation doesn't really add much. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I've stricken the first quotation; I'm not sure it adds much. I don't believe that I can really improve the last quotation, though. Anything else would either lend too much precision or too much ambiguity to the time estimate. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. I've edited the section now. I do hope it meets your standards.

While designing Oblivion's setting, developers worked from personal travel photographs, nature books, texture images, and reference photographs of architecture and nature; "as many sources," said team producer Gavin Carter, as the team could obtain.[19] Procedural content generation tools used in production allowed for the creation of realistic environments at much faster rates than was the case with Morrowind.[21] Erosion algorithms incorporated in the landscape generation tools allowed for the creation of craggy terrain quickly and easily, replacing Morrowind's artificially smoothed-over terrain.[21] Following the shift in the dominant focus of the Bethesda graphics team from water to flora, a number of technologies were enlisted to aid in the production of large and diverse forests.[22] One such was IDV’s SpeedTree package, which allowed a single programmer to generate a complete and detailed tree model "in a manner of minutes" through the adjustment of set values.[23]

I apologize for whatever inconveniences I might have caused. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soft redirects to Wikia wikis and other non-Wikimedia GFDL projects

Regarding Wikipedia:Soft redirect and Category:Wikipedia soft redirects.

Apart from the special case of Wiktionary, I can't see a lot of guidance regarding when it is appropriate to create soft redirects to other wikis.

I'm particularly interested in the case of "fan" wikis, e.g. WoWWiki. WoWWiki is a wiki dedicated to World of Warcraft and other games in the Warcraft series, licensed under the GFDL and hosted and run by Wikia.

Now, with World of Warcraft being a hugely successful and popular game, we get lots of people contributing detailed content regarding its gameplay and lore to Wikipedia. And then there is conflict as to whether the subjects of these articles are notable, and some end up being proposed for deletion.

See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles, in which approximately 50 articles were nominated for deletion. This discussion ended in no consensus but many of the individual articles have now been nominated separately.

Anyway, I'm thinking that a lot of aggravation and biting could be avoided if "fancruft" articles like this could be soft-redirected to WoWWiki and other similar wikis hosted by Wikia? Anyone who wanted to contribute to such articles would be smoothly led to another Free Content wiki where their contributions would be welcomed with open arms rather than attacked as being "cruft". Broad articles in Wikipedia could have names of characters, places, etc. as links which lead to further information offsite.

What does anyone think? --Stormie 00:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

At first I was confused, but not any more. I now understand the fiction policy. Because of that I disagree with the proposal, only because if they are written properly to begin with and/or rewritten with the fiction policy in mind. It is really not that hardto write them under policy. I had one of the user's explain to me how the policy works. The only reason they are deleted generally is for not being written from a notable stand point which wouldn't take a lot of extra work to make them pass policy. --businessman332211 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that if the subject of the article isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards, it's not possible to write an article demonstrating their (non-existant) notability no matter how hard you try. This is why there are many obscure topics that cannot have articles written about them in Wikipedia. However, these articles would be permitted in wikis that cover smaller topic areas and can consequently go into more depth about that particular topic.
As for making soft redirects to these articles, it sounds like a good idea although it would be necesary to avoid te soft redirects turning into directories of links to every wiki that covers that particular topic. Tra (Talk) 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that's pretty much my thoughts - there is a large overlap between the set of article subjects which aren't notable by Wikipedia's standards, and the set of article subjects which a lot of people really really want to write articles about. There must be a better way to reconcile it than deleting the articles and hoping their authors start writing about subjects which do fit Wikipedia's notability criteria. Especially when there are Free wikis dedicated to articles on these subjects, and you know they don't get as many editors as Wikipedia! --Stormie 22:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Over a year back I was involved in some hand-wrangling about notability standards for fictional entities. The Warcraft character AfD above was one of the trial balloons (that blew up in my face). Nowadays, the notability standard for fiction is much more akin to what I had hoped for then: that multiple secondary sources that establish notability is the sine qua non of encyclopedic coverage.

That said, I greatly hesitate to link Wikia so prominently on Wikipedia. Wikia is Mr. Wales' attempt to turn the wiki model into a profitable venture. Wikipedia has strongly resisted all attempts at commercial endorsements, and should resist promoting for-profit wikis even if they perform the laudable task of finding a home for articles that do not fit Wikipedia's scope. Nor do I think a soft-redirect to multiple targets, where they exist in wiki-form, would suffice, for what then are the standards used to decide which fan-wikis are worthy? A game like Guild Wars, the last I looked into it, had half a dozen fan-created wikis. Oblivion, and The Elder Scrolls in general, have over a dozen wikis. I would suggest, as a means of avoiding a future mess, of limiting soft redirects to Wikimedia projects.

On the issue of interacting with editors who persist in creating overly detailed in-universe articles on facets of a fictional work, I would say that these editors can be gently nudged in the direction of Wikia or whichever wiki best suits the purpose. This can surely be done without biting them. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An application of BIO

I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Please look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self published sources

There has been a question raised at the AfD for Mitch Clem (see above) regarding the correct use of self published autobiographical materials used in articles. Please see WP:SELFPUB an excerpt from that guideline below. I have mixed feeling on how much of an article should be self refeenced, but I don't at this point see a prohibition. Is there another controlling policy page? --Kevin Murray 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.

What percentage of the "facts" are should be supported by independent sources? What does primarily mean? 90%? 51%? Clearly we have differing opinions among our evaluators. --Kevin Murray 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NFCC 10(c) and backlinks

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Is a backlink required by NFCC 10(c)? regarding what seems to be a discrepancy between the current wording of the non-free content criteria and BetacommandBot's interpretation of them. Any opinions on the matter would be most welcome. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, turns out the perceived discrepancy was based on a misunderstanding on my part regarding BetacommandBot's operation. Feel free to comment anyway, but the matter as such is resolved. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)