Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 14

< Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Lists/Index lists)
Latest comment: 17 years ago by 72.193.221.88 in topic Community Bans
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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 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

Wikipedia:Notability (schools)

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A reminder to editors that there is still an ongoing discussion about creating a guideline to define school notability. This has been a very contentious issue for Wikipedia in the past. Ongoing debates include

The inherent notability of all secondary schools
Criteria for primary school notability
Determining acceptable sources

In order to judge consensus, editors are invited to review the proposed guideline and give their views. Eusebeus (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability(People) issue

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

It has been proposed to eliminate the additional criteria from WP:BIO. I'm concerned that only 8 people have participated in the discussion, as this is a huge change that will affect a lot of articles. I'd like to get more people involved to decide what actually is the consensus about this. Horrorshowj (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The overall discussion is here but the specifics of the proposal are here. The original conversation taht brought up the need for reform is Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Hole_in_Bio. But a clarification needs to be made, the proposal is not to get rid of the additional criteria section, but to relegate it to an essay level and then similarly invite diffent projects to write "essays" on what they consider to be notability guidelines within their own area of expertise. By relegating additional criteria to an essay status, we won't have to worry about Wikiprojects making their own notability guidelines that conflict with WP:N. Balloonman (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

To avoid a conversation fork, please respond at the original conversation.Balloonman (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some pretty confusing essays in here; for instance, Wikipedia:Notability_(breweries), which appears to say that it's OK not to have reliable sources if a brewery is "unique" or, at least, "an editor is able to write a full article on the beer or brewery.". --- tqbf 03:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Which is why it would be relegated to "essay" status. Projects are going to write their own notability criteria, why not embrace their efforts/expertise in a manner that channels it and appropriately classifies it's authority. By clearly labelling it as an essay, it can be cited during an XfD, but doesn't contain the authority of a guideline. Some project essays are going to be better than others (some will be better received than others.) But again, it would be easier to have this conversation centralized at one location rather than creating a parallel discussion.Balloonman (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Index lists

Latest comment: 17 years ago54 comments17 people in discussion

We have a growing collection of index-like "lists of articles" and "lists of lists" (which I'll collectively call "Index lists", as specifically differentiated from "encyclopedic-lists" such as List of Polish flags), and we need to revisit some past discussions about how to handle them, and what namespace they belong in. I'll start off with the examples (4 of our best sets are those covering mathematics, geography, philosophy, and film, so I'll use those), and then give the points for consideration.

The lists are generally one of 3 types:

  1. An alphabetical index
  2. A list of "basic topics" in a reference-card/cheatsheet format
  3. A listing of lists

Index lists: the problems and options

Scope
(there are a lot more than 40 lists of lists - they number in the hundreds. See [1], [2], and [3]    -TT) —Preceding comment was added at 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Unsourced
  • Most of these are unsourced, and represent only what is currently written about within Wikipedia. A few of these can be sourced from academic and professional course lists (eg. The Transhumanist is trying to find appropriate sourcing for List of basic geography topics), but most of type #1 and #3 are inherently unsourcable, by their nature.
Wiki-project-like
Disambiguation-like
  • e.g. Lists of languages was recently tagged as being a disambig page. Is this what we should do with all the "Lists of lists" (type #3)?
Portal-like


Background
Notes
  1. ^ a b c d suggestions added by Francis Schonken

Index lists: discussion

Slowly-considered feedback would be very much appreciated. I've tried to summarize all the current suggestions, but read the links given above for further background. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing my thoughts:
  1. Indeed most of these pages do not belong in Main namespace (full agreement with Quiddity on this first point I suppose);
  2. The problem is in most cases structural, meaning: by their very intent and content many of these pages don't belong in that namespace;
  3. Portal namespace is a suitable venue for most of these pages, including the use of these pages as a coherent navigation utility, with an already largely standardised access from main namespace;
    • Note also that there are several links to portal namespace from Wikipedia's Main Page (by far the most visible page of the entire encyclopedia). From the 13 links highest on top of that page no less than 9 lead to portal namespace.
  4. Other existing namespaces seem less suitable in most cases, although, arguably, some of these pages could be kept in Project ("Wikipedia:") namespace (linking to project namespace is less restricted from Portal namespace too while links to WikiProjects in project namespace are expressly foreseen to be placed in portal namespace, but largely discouraged from main namespace per WP:ASR) and a few others (like disambig pages, and WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:NPOV conforming lists) can be kept in main namespace (where they can link to portal namespace as described above); the possible overlap with category namespace is no part of the discussion here;
  5. Creating a new namespace for these pages would probably have more downsides than advantages (e.g. decreasing visibility rather than increasing it on the short term, and needing to go through a lot of hoops before we even have the first page in such new namespace started, etc);
  6. We can disagree on whether the "Portal" solution is the "least bad" or the "very best" solution we currently have available. But it is currently the best known immediately available solution and I propose to start implementing it without delay. I'm not interested in a "least bad" vs "very best" debate (which would be largely loss of time), and I can only encourage those who see better solutions to persue them, but that shouldn't keep us from proceeding with the best we can *with the available namespaces* (and their rules) we currently have. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a simplistic comment. I like the idea of putting navigation lists in the applicable portals. If there were some way to develop a simple convention to put them on their own pages somewhere, like to-do lists, then they could be transcluded for more than one purpose, if desired, without the headaches of maintaining redundant pages. RichardF (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

...and a simplistic answer: "Template:" namespace is more than any other namespace intended for transcluded content, especially if you want to standardise layout (like {{Navbox}}). But that's not the topic here (like a discussion of how this relates to "Category:" namespace isn't). The discussion regards which of the "Index"-type pages (as described in the intro) are displayed in which namespace (and under what page name). If you have a template (or use another page in whatever namespace as transcluded content), there still needs to be a page where one displays (transcludes) that content: well in what namespace should that content be? The only tangent regards the "search" function, that won't find transcluded content from another namespace than the one(s) one is searching. In other words, trancluding such content from "portal" or "template" namespace in main namespace would not yield any search results based on that transcluded content with "default" settings for the search. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


I think this is looking better than it used to. {{Contents pages (footer box)}} now lives mostly in Portal: namespace and doesn't raise my hairs for {{self-reference}}. To my mind, type (3) lists of lists are fine, and we don't need to do anything about them just as long as they are strictly treated as WP:DAB. The problem is the "list of [basic] $TOPIC [topics|articles]" articles. I cannot for the life of me find any usefulness in type (1), List of geography topics or List of mathematics articles or (sob) List of mathematics categories (they must be compiled by people who haven't yet noticed that Wikipedia is searchable and categorized). But type (2) "cheatsheet formats" like List of mathematics topics can actually be useful as long as they are intelligently arranged and not alphabetized. So, my solution would be: {{move}} the type (1) "$TOPIC articles" pages to "$TOPIC topics" and convert them into something useful where possible ({{merge}} the "basic topics" into "topics": "basic" vs. "non-basic" is not a distinction we should be making). Where such an approach doesn't work or meets opposition, {{move}} the list articles out of article namespace, either to Portal:, or to a newly defined Index: or Contents: namespace. dab (𒁳) 19:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re. "move", see Portal talk:Mathematics#Stalled move request... thus far 2 (as in "two") people expressed an opinion in Talk:Lists_of_mathematics_topics#Requested_move, a fortnight after the start - a third one asking a question. Seems very hard to get people interested in such move proposals. Not even a third party could be found to close the move request, for reasons explained here (5th bullet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
update: Talk:Lists_of_mathematics_topics#Requested_move somehow managed to get in a wrestle, after an admin had closed it yesterday. Feel free to weigh in - I primarily want the page move procedure closed (with no discrepancy between the comment on top of the closed poll and the actual name of the page, even if that means ammending the closing comment without further moving the page). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Linking directly to portal-subpages from mainspace is (I think) the main concern that TT was raising. I agree that it should be (or become) acceptable practice.
    • Anyway, I don't think any guideline (or policy) page would need to be changed for this to become an acceptable practice (for instance with the template, observing "This template is meant to be placed at the bottom of the article in the "See also" section", from the {{Portal}} guidance). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Type #1 pages are primarily useful to editors, partly for the "relatedchanges" function, and partly for collecting suitable redlinks. More obsessive readers will also find them useful, for reading through our coverage of entire topics. (They exist mostly because our category system is still so rudimentary, e.g. can't display subcat contents all on one page. But also because it's weblike and not finite.)
  • Also, I've now removed a thread concerning a new namespace, as it served only to distract from more realistic options.

Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

above copied from Wikipedia:Lists/Index lists, where I'd asked for preliminary feedback to get the questions clearer.
  • To split lists up over multiple namespaces could get confusing - it may not be immediately clear to editors that some lists go in the main namespace but others do not. Lists of lists are in essence lists that couldn't fit on one page and had to be expanded. Lists are subject to expansion and splitting just like other articles. Many lists are expanded without renaming them to "Lists of" - they remain "List of" even though they are lists of lists. This reflects the standard article expansion protocol. For an example of list expansion, see List of dog breeds. The Transhumanist 21:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The list of lists of dog breeds by category may remain an article since these are defined by an international organization which may be cited. The lists of subjects, on the other hand, were compiled from various conflicting and overlapping sources, and perhaps the editors' own opinions. They may be useful as finding aids, but they are not the work of an authority or organization outside Wikipedia. GUllman (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If redirects aren't allowed to the portal namespace from the main namespace, you may find editors re-creating the missing lists. See Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. The Transhumanist 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It is disturbing to see the maginificent Lists of mathematics topics (a featured list) mentioned in the same breath with List of timelines, since the latter seems like merely a navigational aid to Wikipedia's content, whereas the former was irresponsibly characterized that way when it was up for feature list status, and those who called it that needed to be told they didn't understand what they were talking about. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • What happens to the featured list status of Lists of mathematics topics if it becomes a portal subpage? The Transhumanist 20:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • To be fair, timelines are a more open-ended subject than a list of mathematical topics. I agree, though, Lists of mathematics topics is interesting. It is more a bullet-pointed overview of the subject, or a reading list, than an article written in prose. The word "list" is so inadequate to describe the reading and learning process going on there. I wonder if we can come up with a better name than "list"? It is still a navigational aid though, but designed more for browsing than for looking up an entry in an index. Carcharoth (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • many mirrors and forks of Wikipedia do not include the Portal namespace. Removing lists from the main namespace effectively removes them from those mirrors and forks, partially crippling them. For this reason, Lists of lists (all the types mentioned in the proposal above), like other lists, should remain in the main namespace where they will prove to be the most useful for browsing the encyclopedia. The Transhumanist 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, then they should be using the original site! Most search engines place the Wikipedia article near the top of the list of results, and any mirror site should include a link to the original article. If they're using a mirror site for a quick lookup of a fact, they're not interested in browsing the broad subject field anyway. GUllman (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • re sourcing in particular. I think that for the most part the organization of content in index lists is uncontentious, and occasional inclusion disputes can be resolved through reasonable talk page discussion (as they have been from time to time). Another difference is that index lists invariably link to more specific articles on whatever material -- so if two people are in disagreement about, say, whether Zizek can be considered a postmodernist, it can effectively be treated as a dispute on the Zizek page and evaluated based on the sources there. Imagine if we didn't use sources directly in articles, but only in talk page discussions -- it could work in theory, but it would be inefficient and unorganized where controversial subject matter is involved. In this case I think it's feasible since disputes are uncommon, and although sources normally aren't explicitly referenced in the index list, they're usually just a few clicks away. As long as no one abuses their right to challenge (which I haven't seen with any index lists), I don't think it's a major issue. — xDanielx T/C\R 02:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How about leaving the final decision to the various wikiprojects? This allows for some continued experimentation in style and presentation, and if someone hits on a particularly charming and well-designed way of doing this, the meme will spread, and others will copy. I see no great need to overly formalize this at this stage. linas (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • These lists typically represent the entrenched view of what can be a small number of participants, and can easily degenerate into a walled garden.--in this they resemble WikiProjects. But I think Wikiproject is a necessary way of compartmentalizing the work on this extremely large overall project, and most t of them seem to be adequately open. But they aren't in WP space, and there is no pretense that they give an encyclopedic NPOV in the same sense as articles. Same with portals. Same with these lists. They cannot go into article space. where they go is a matter of convenience. They're so close to portals in function that I'd say that's the most convenient, and we can find workarounds for the minor technical issues mentioned above. I'm not concerned about the mirrors. For full functionality, we're the place. DGG (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion from WP:RM

Note from Dekimasu: this conversation occurred at Wikipedia:Requested moves, but as the discussion is really broader than a "move request" and the subsequent closes there have been to little avail, I am moving the dialogue here rather than simply deleting it from WP:RM. Take it as you will.

  • Like I said, I've done that already. Literally asked at 3 policy talkpages, 1 rfc (posted for double-length), the pump (policy), the mailing list wikien-l, and individually asked a few admins. Like dab says, TT is a hard-sell ("filibustering") on whether we have consensus already (I believe that there is: 11 editors (5 of them admins) vs 2 (TT and Phoebe), if counting). Regarding this move, he even posted on ANI (plus 4 other places). If you want to remove this request from this page, that's fine by me (I didn't due to involvement, and instead just added context). If you'd like to help with the discussion too, that'd be even better :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I apologize for my lack of reading comprehension. I think what happened is that I noticed the move request from mainspace to portal space for the mathematics topics in the backlog below, and I believed that discussion there should be superceded by the outcome of this one... but looking through the linked talk pages, it didn't appear that discussion was ongoing, or that a conclusion was reached, so I typed a generic suggestion without examining things further. Dekimasuよ! 04:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Lists of mathematics topics → Portal:Mathematics/Lists - decision of the closing admin overturned by a party involved in the survey, see Talk:Lists of mathematics topics#No consensus at all was reached on this move. This is bogus. Asking that (another?) closing admin / uninvolved party reviews the situation, and for instance:
Confirms the move back to its original place, in which case the rationale on top of the closed poll should be ammended;
-or- undoes the overturning of the closing admin's decision;
-or- re-opens the poll, seen the fact that I tried to get more mathematics people involved only yesterday (see Portal_talk:Mathematics#Stalled_move_request and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Stalled_move_request)
-or- ... (whatever seems best) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This should probably be negotiated through the admin who closed the request, but let us know if you're having trouble with that. Dekimasuよ! 10:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, see User_talk:Angusmclellan#Lists_of_mathematics_topics_.E2.86.92_Portal:Mathematics.2FLists_WP:RM --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It says "decision of the closing admin overturned by a party involved in the survey". THAT IS FALSE. The decision of the closing administrator was "no consensus". The usual "do not modify" tag was added. Then the same admin came along and overturned his own decision, saying, absurdly, that there was a broad consensus for the move. That is nonsense. I moved the page back, thus leaving intact the closing admin's obviously correct "no consensus" outcome. The closing admin claimed there was another page where a broad consensus had been reached. That other page tangentially mentioned the issue twice. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics had not been told of that other discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Index Lists is an attempt at a summary of this complex issue. It concerns pages in mainspace like List of timelines, List of basic mathematics topics, and List of film topics. Its scope is currently a few hundred pages, and potentially a few thousand pages. Feedback would be appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(End of section moved from WP:RM)

Index lists - remaining issues

An attempt to summarize. (Again, I'm just rounding up the things I've seen repeatedly argued, and trying to form some conclusions about where the consensus is at).

  • Type #2 lists (basic topic lists) will be discussed separately at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics.
    • Either they get sourced (eventually), or they get WP:IAR and left to grow as is, or they get moved to portalspace (as navigational, not npov or sourced).
  • Type #3 lists (lists of lists) are difficult. No likely consensus on any suggestions, due to variety of pages in scope.
    • Need to be properly categorized (in Category:Lists of lists) before anything else can be determined (See #Scope, above). I'll work on that, and would welcome assistance.

Those last 3, regarding Type#1 lists, I'd like feedback on. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Index lists and primary sourcing

I have skimmed the above discussion. I think it should have been conducted at Wikipedia talk:Lists. A wider discussion would have ensued.

The primary complaint seems to be that some people believe that index lists are not sourced. I beg to differ. They use primary sourcing. That is enough for something as noncontroversial as whether a wikipedia page exists. If the link is blue, then it exists.

I don't see a problem with leaving the lists where they are.

Concerning moving any lists to portal space, list space, etc.. I am against anything that lessens the access of lists to more readers. Otherwise the lists will not be maintained well. It takes a lot of drive-by editors from the hundreds of millions of wikipedia readers to keep up the millions of wikipedia pages and lists. Especially lists.

Please read the discussions about unified login to understand what happens to wikimedia projects that are inaccessible, or even partly buried. Due to difficulty in finding the project pages, linking, signing in, lack of unified login, lack of unified watchlisting, etc..

By the way, I have over ten thousand edits on wikipedia. I don't bother with other projects except the commons where I have thousands of edits. I am a low-level admin at wikia.com in one obscure topic. I know from experience how little gets done on projects outside the vast user base of wikipedia. Please do not bury lists, or even slightly lessen access to them. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

given the variety of human information-finding strategies, and the inadequacies of search engines, It would be foolhardy to remove any of WP's navigational methods without actual evidence that they were either unused or actually harmful. As long as they are maintained, they should be continued and, just as Timeshifter says, kept visible and not hidden. If one percent of the people who access WP use it, it is millions of people a year. that's surely enough. All that's being asked is not to interfere with those who want to help those million users. DGG (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Proper location for discussions which belong ion different places, but are really one discussion

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Currently, in Wikipedia, there are Category:Felines, Category:Feline stubs and {{feline-stub}} about animals in Felidae. I want all four to be consistent - either all Feline, or all Felidae. However, the discussions in the matter would need to be in three different places - [[Felidae would need a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion, Category:Felines would need a Wikipedia:Categories for discussion discussion, and the other 2 need a Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. What's the proper procedure? Od Mishehu עוד מישהו 11:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a wikiproject you could try to have the discussion at in a central location? Maybe the folks at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Tree of Life may have some insight, or perhaps that would be a good central location to have it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats? -- SEWilco (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

When to use the "cite web" template and not?

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I edited the article Epaulette mate some time ago, using the template {{cite web}} to list the references. Now I can see that this edit has been (more or less) reverted: Diff.
Not a huge deal, but anyway... Question: what's the WP policy in situations like this? And if I (or the reverter) did anything wrong when using (or not using) the template in this specific situation, how should we have done it instead? ~ Tommy Kronkvist talk contribs 05:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried asking him why he reverted? --Carnildo (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I have now... :) I also mentioned this discussion, in order to be fair and open. Furthermore I had made a big mistake in my edit of the article – I sort of went blind for a second, while pressing delete – so it's not at all a bad thing that (s)he reverted some of my edits. As for the {{cite web}} edits I don't blame anyone for anything. I simply want the issue on the table, in order to understand (the intention of) the WP style guideline better. Tommy Kronkvist talk contribs 07:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The guideline can be found at WP:CITE. The suggestion is that you use a consistent format through the article, and that that format should be either Harvard referencing or citation templates like {{cite web}}. While inline citations (which is what the revert changed it back to) are "ok", it is highly recommended to go to one of the other two methods. --MASEM 05:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Err, actually, what it explicitly says at WP:Footnotes is "Use of [citation templates] is not required; see WP:CITE." Also, at WP:CITE itself, "The use of templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline." Given that, and the accidental removal of info which occurred at the same time, a reversion seemed like by far the most straightforward course of action. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's absolutely fine to mix citation templates and inline plaintext footnotes in the same article, as long as they are the same style (in this case, all footnotes were not done with Harvard referencing). Just because someone starts footnotes one way doesn't force other editors to do it the same way. And while I think it's a waste of time to edit someone's else's footnotes simply to change style, I think it's okay if going from plaintext to template. The other way around - not so good, I think - absolutely no value added. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
To restate what John Broughton has said above, there is a) nothing wrong with using the templates, and b) nothing wrong with not using them. Converting untemplated references to the cite web template, or visca-versa, is OK, but should be handled with caution, since information is easy to lose or mess up. Generally, use the same format that the article has already established, and try to keep it all uniform, but take SPECIAL care when messing with the references others have added, it can be easy to inadvertently mess up the reference in some way. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:WITS

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My contribution to the WP:PSTS debate. Comments welcomed at Wikipedia talk:No original research#WP:WITS or at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is a tertiary source --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Evaluating sources

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We are exploring the creation of a page about sources, as a replacement for WP:PSTS (which lives at WP:NOR), at Wikipedia:Evaluating sources, as a way to resolve the on-going debate about primary/secondary sources.

The idea is to:

  1. Create a PSTS page in which the subject of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is explored in general
  2. The page will have specific sections about the application of source typing to WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and any other pertinent policy
  3. Create summaries of these sections that can be featured in the main policy pages as per WP:SUMMARY
  4. Create sections about the application of source typing to different topics

Editors' comments and input is welcome ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (media) fizzled out

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It looks like the proposal for a new guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (media) has not gained much support from the community and has fizzled out. My feeling is that the exigencies of several AfD debates drove the proposal, but that in the end no suitable guideline could be produced. I think that the community should evaluate the progress and decide whether this is now a failed project and should be marked as rejected. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Reject. Like many other subject-specific would-be notability criteria this does not appear to actually add to or clarify WP:N in any significant way. The primary notability criterion is quite sufficient to tell if a media outlet is notable enough for an article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that Crystal Ball?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I knew crystal ball is prohibited. However, "prediction", "forecast" or "target" from the news sources should or should not be consider as crystal ball? Is major confusion and it is relate whether it can be include in Wikipedia articles. --Aleenf1 06:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally, if a reliable news source posts speculation, it can be (briefly) mentioned in an article about the subject, (ie. The Hobbit (2010 film)). However, full sections on speculation are frowned on, and entire articles based on speculation should be avoided. The latter two should only be created for projects that are confirmed to be in development, but whose details are subject to speculation (ie. Duke Nukem Forever). -- Kesh (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Where should general criticisms go?

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

In reference to Maple (software), suppose I have a reputable source (an AMS article) that cites criticism in general against proprietary software in mathematics, but that this isn't considered a specific criticism against Maple in particular.

Where should I put this criticism instead if it's not specific to Maple?

Thanks Swap (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a screaming gap for it at [[5]]. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
But this is not a criticism against any proprietary software but against mathematical proprietary software in particular, where the very nature of mathematical proof bears strong weight in the argument. Even then, should there be some sort of link between Maple and whatever other article I move the criticism to? Swap (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Surely the criticism is not against proprietary mathematical software, but against those that choose to use proprietary software to construct mathematical proofs. Maybe Computer-assisted proof is the place. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If there were a legitimate use for proprietary software in mathematics, then we could criticise only the illegitimate uses of it. Critics of proprietary software in mathematics don't see legitimate use for it or for its existence (or perhaps you know of a critic who does?) Swap (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Community Bans

Latest comment: 17 years ago25 comments14 people in discussion

In the recent Arbitration Committee case, the committee urges the community to "develop a coherent policy regarding the method by which community bans are to be imposed." Case remedy

The current "Community ban" policy reads, from Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community ban:

There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she has been blocked long term, usually indefinitely, and there is no longer any administrator who proposes unblocking them. Such users may have been blocked as a result of the blocking policy, or the community may have discussed their behaviour on a relevant noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard or the now-inactive community sanction noticeboard (which was created for such a purpose), and reached a consensus not to unblock the user. When discussions fail to achieve a consensus due to disagreement amongst administrators, the cases are referred to the Arbitration Committee. Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" and listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users.

So my question is, is this policy coherent, effective, and accepted by a consensus of the community? If not, which areas need to be fixed, and is there some sort of policy that can be adopted to make everyone's life easier, while keeping the wikilawyers, trolls, etc. at bay?

I think it is safe to state that a noticeboard for community sanctions is not acceptable to a large portion of established Wikipedians. The current policy gives each administrator wide authority over overturning "community bans". Is this acceptable? The policy as currently written contradicts itself and needs to be articulated and clear. At this point I do not have a good suggestion, but just thought I would try and start the ball rolling towards an acceptable, lucid policy. So I ask, What should we do? Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 17:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The list of banned users often does not have links to discussions of decisions. When you're on the list there may be no evidence that you belong on the list. -- SEWilco 17:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so should there be a requirement for discussion (which there is not currently... it just takes one admin to block someone, and have no one speak up to unblock for it to be a "community ban".), or perhaps, is there even a need to keep a list of banned users? Other than Arbitration Committee bans that are logged elsewhere? --Ali'i 17:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Community Ban" is a somewhat nebulous term because (unlike the ArbCom) the community has no "official" mechanism with which to create such a ban. Absent a solid proposal for such, it would seem that (1) it cannot be a community ban unless there has been extensive discussion on the subject, generally on WP:ANI, and (2) it cannot be a community ban unless nobody can be found willing to unblock. That would serve as a definition, methinks. >Radiant< 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the community are also being asked to uphold a decision made on their behalf, which involves individual community members imposing personal level sanctions of non-interaction or non-support or whatever. All the more reason for individuals to have access to a rationale as well as a list.
Perhaps what we are actually discussing is an administrators' ban on behalf of the community, and a request for the community to respect that by co-operating with it. Alastair Haines 05:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if I follow you... the community has little choice to co-operate (or not) with a ban, since they cannot unblock the banned user. With respect to "bans on behalf of the community", we briefly had a "Votes for Banning" page, twice, and neither worked out particularly well. The present system is not ideal but so far we've been unable to think of a better one. >Radiant< 17:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
And that's what I'm trying to get to the point of. Either 1) There cannot be such a thing as a community ban; or 2) There can be such a thing as a community ban. If we accept number 2 (That there can be a community ban, and by definition, in order for something to be a community ban, the community at-large must agree to it), we have to decide how that can be. As I see it, it breaks down further: a) Someone is community banned through affirmative discussion; or b) Someone is banned through lack of opposition.
So, we have tried a) a couple of times (the sanctions noticeboard, quickpolls, discussion on the administrator's boards). These haven't worked out spectacularly. b) is sort of currently in place. The current working definition of a community ban is an indefinite block that no administrator is willing to lift. One problem with b) is visibility. If an admin blocks someone, they don't always report it anywhere. Also, if this is the definition, individual administrators are given quite a bit of power (one admin can decide that they want someone unbanned, and they are), and adminship becomes more of a "big deal".
So, where do we go from here? Do we want, as a community, to keep trying some sort of community-based banning discussions (that sort of currently take place on the admin boards), where the consensus rules? Or do we want to keep trying the "block that no admin is unwilling to lift" method, where one admin can basically over-rule consensus? Can the two co-exist with no problems? Is there another option that we can try? Are we wrong in accepting the fact that community bans can even exist? Thanks. --Ali'i 18:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that all indefinite blocks should be logged separately in the block logs (how many are there a day? Someone mentioned a figure of around 100 - a list of 100 blocks a day would be easy to review), and that definite blocks should be limited to a year or less. That would make it easier to see what indefinite blocks are being handed out (and to discuss them if needed for banning purposes), and to see if the culture of using indefinite blocks has spread beyond acceptable limits (persistent vandals and so on). Carcharoth 18:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"I'm not sure if I follow you... the community has little choice to co-operate (or not) with a ban, since they cannot unblock the banned user." - a block and a ban are two different things. —Random832 19:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The community neither can unblock a blocked user, nor unblock a banned user... only an administrator can do that. I believe that's what Radiant! means. --Ali'i 19:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Right now a "Community Ban" is an informal act, with a circular definition -- if someone is indefinitely blocked, & no Admin reverts that block, it's a "Community Ban"; the moment any Admin removes the block, that person is not banned. Anyone can see how that's a bad thing. I think Carcharoth is on the right track: we change the definition of "Community Ban" to an indefinite block that is (1) logged, & (2) refers to a discussion that provides a basis for this. Enforcement of this is simple: failure to do this means that any Admin can revert an indefinite block without prior discussion. Howwever, blocks for fixed periods are not covered by this rule. -- llywrch 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so if something like this were to be implemented, would it be a manual logging of the indefinite block to be discussed (perhaps) somewhere, or would it be a technical logging of indefinite blocks (and is this technically feasable/something the developers would be interested in/something that a bot would do)? --Ali'i 20:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If the developers do, or can, tweak the Special:Logs interface, it would be useful to bundle in changes like being able to select options to list unblocks separately from blocks, and to list indefinite blocks separately from definite blocks. It should be noted that the option to indefinitely block is often exercised if a temporary, emergency block is needed to allow discussion to take place before deciding on the final state of the block. This could be covered by the simple formula: "any indefinite block contested by another admin should either be changed or endorsed by a community discussion". The question is what do do in contentious cases when the community discussion is deadlocked or otherwise divisive? My feeling is that deadlocked community ban discussions should either go to ArbCom, or a block of a definite length used instead. There is also the problem of appealing a community ban. If anyone feels that the original discussion was inadequate, should the discussion be reopened? That could lead to perpetual discussions in divisive cases, and again, ArbCom would seem to be the answer there, though it should be noted that ArbCom bans seem to be limited to 1 year. Carcharoth (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This all looks like a developing "dispute resolution" process to handle indefinite blocks. Blocks of definite length can be handled adequately by the unblock template and review process, but indefinite blocks require a better review process. As always, initial discussion should take place with the blocking admin. If they refuse to unblock, then an appeal can be made via a community discussion. If that fails, an appeal can be made to ArbCom. Or just appeal straight to ArbCom (via e-mail) as at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between a block and a ban, no matter how the ban is done. A block is a technical measure. The ban itself is a social contract that extends to the person responsible for that account. Therefore it doesn't follow that administrators' ability to block could or should give them sole voice in a community decision to ban. DurovaCharge! 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

    • If a "votes for banning page" didn't work out, but a present system in which some administrator decides on an indefinite ban of some person DOES "work," then there's something wrong with that picture (And let us pretend it's a person, because Vandalistic anon-IP accounts with no edit history don't seem to have any controversy associated with them anyway). Since something with such intrinsic contention about it, shouldn't be so easy to fix. Quite obviously, what is happening NOW is that somebody is acting unilaterally and mostly out-of-sight, as judge, jury, and executioner. Anybody who does notice the action has strong social motives to just "walk on by". Since administrators are quite heavily invested (both as a matter of explicit policy, and unofficial mores) with the idea of not overturning each other's opinions. The result being that each Admin acts like a feudal lord when it comes to the peons or surfs who sometimes get nailed in a dispute with them, on Wikipedia. I've seen people indefinitely blocked here (one guy with 7000 constructive edits, I kid you not), not for erasing a page and writing "poop" (which you'd think would be one of the few good reasons for such an action), but rather for being on the wrong end of a content dispute with a small cadre of administrators who back up each other's decisions (so as not to technically violate the dictum against blocking somebody that you've having an edit dispute with). The indefinite block reason given being "disruptive editing." Which is informal Wikipedian for: "We don't agree with you."

      So yes, an indefinite block of a name-user, especially one with a decent edit history, should not be within the ability of ANY single administrator, or even any single small group of them. It's too much power, and administrators have very little oversight for their actions (which may end up being permanent), and (let's face it) also very little accountability for them. An administrator who unthinkingly blocks some little editor indefinitely as a sockpuppet or a disruptor, and later is shown to be objectively wrong or even to be mostly disagreed-with, doesn't face being de-sysoped and blocked indefinitely themselves, for abuse of power. If they did, they'd have more care about the decision. Right now, Wikipedia operates like a police force where any officer can night-stick any citizen, and the only recourse of said citizen is if some OTHER passing policeman happens to notice, and volunteer to intervene. Image how well THAT would work, with no Dept of Internal Affairs, City Council, Mayor, etc. In such circumstances, it would be best to give your officers very short nightsticks, indeed. It's not as though administrators need the power of indefinite blockage for self-protection. There are too many other mechanisms for that already in place here on Wikipedia. And it's not a place where anybody's ever in any physical danger anyway. If you think your indefinite block of some user wouldn't stick if reviewed by the entire community as though the user were somebody they cared about, then you'd better not be doing it in the first place. And we should set up the Wikipedia system accordingly. SBHarris 01:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to mention it, but I've now been almost completely muzzled by a process that isn't documented anywhere. I've been repeatedly hauled over the coals with maximum prejudice (only once, ever, have I posted something generally agreed to be offensive, and that was while struggling to discover if another editor had a CoI).
Each of the accusations has been accompanied by nasty accusations against me and everyone who dared to oppose my blocking.
For the one offence (above) I was told I had to find a mentor - when each of these found very little to complain about they were driven off by personal unpleasantness.
Because this process was failing to stop me putting good but unpopular information into articles I've had a mentor imposed on me who boasts that all his mentees end up being permanently blocked. As he muscled aside another mentor, he did me the favour of launchign specific accusations - making it even easier to prove they're definitely false. My supposed but non-existent edit-warring has actually led to good information sticking in articles.
As I say, I'm muzzled by a non-process that appears to be wholly and completely based on prejudice against someone daring to call himself "PalestineRememmbered" (though I've taken to signing myself: PRtalk 18:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC))
Here's a thought: on your next snarky message, try not to prove his point. It's easy. 72.193.221.88 (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The List is the stable base of ban procedure

A ban should have documentation of the community agreement. A user should not be banned if not in the list of banned users. An entry in the list of banned users should include a reference (such as a link) to the community agreement. It should be acceptable to remove improperly documented bans from the list (perhaps after a [citation needed] period?). -- SEWilco 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The above is a suggestion of a minimum requirement for banning procedure. How the community decides to perform a ban is a separate process, and discussion on that topic is proceeding above. -- SEWilco 19:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
What happens if the community discussion of a ban (in whatever form it takes) contains harassment, personal information, and otherwise objectionable, unsavoury morsels? Say the discussion has been courtesy blanked... should a link still remain? Where does Wikipedia:Deny recognition fall into this paradigm, if anywhere? Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
There has to be some transparency as to the nature and reason of the ban. Results from the arbitration committee are frequently distilled into brief summaries by the clerks, maybe a similar system would work here. Instead of linking to the debate, the link would go to a summary of the debate generated by an (uninvolved) admin or clerk. That would keep the information and reasoning, but separate it from the shenanigans. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Courtesy blanking would be fine if each discussion were on a separate subpage like CheckUser. Cool Hand Luke 00:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The only workable procedure is the current one

Right now, community bans require unanimous consent of administrators (not agreement, but consent). Any sort of vote where an editor is banned by majority rule of whoever shows up is unacceptable because there is no way to measure whether or not that decision reflects community consensus. There either needs to be an impartial pre-selected jury (aka arbcom) or a unanimous decision. Nothing else could legitimately be called a community ban. Deleting articles based on mob rule isn't great, but it's not the worst thing in the world ... but when we're talking about bans, we're talking about people. --B (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_14&oldid=1142561396#Index_lists"