Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 5

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • 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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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: 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

Leaked tv episode

I have a question about leaked episodes. If an episode of a TV show was gotten by hacking the stations Website and posted online, can people cite that in an article or not? What policies concern a situation like this? The Placebo Effect 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wherever you're getting the episode from has to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. If a third party source that satisfies the aforementioned policy and guideline comments on the hack, then that certainly can be included, but if you're citing a Youtube video, then no. As such, it varies. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Revisit WP:ROLE ??

Perhaps it might be time to reconsider the role of banning role accounts in the smooth operation of things round here? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:OrbitzWWCorpComm for context (anyone can change that to a permalink if it gets archived as it will shortly)... but we have a case of a corp wanting their PR bunch to meticulously follow our policies but as a role account. We have one role account exception. Which appears to do little, or so it was said if you follow the links to WP:ROLE's talk page. Are there any pros to changing our policy? any cons? ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it needs to be changed. While that account mentioned was not necessarily disruptive, we need to look beyond "is this directly harmful?" and remember what this project is: an encyclopedia edited by the general public. I don't like the idea of having it "general public and corporate PR firms." I'd rather have advertising than explicitly allow such accounts. Some say ads would control content; at least advertisers would not actually edit the content themselves. If accounts like that can be kept away from the articles about the companies they work for, I'd be okay with it, but these accounts are made up of professionals paid to promote their company. They are not being paid to "create the sum of all human knowledge" nor are they being paid to write a balanced account of their company. Perhaps I've become a bit of a cynic about this from spending too much time at CAT:SPAM, but IMO - we don't need accounts like these. Mr.Z-man 13:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there also a legal issue? The individual editors own their copyright and have to label their edits separately. Maybe a corporate role account could be approved for edits only being done with the corporations' approval, but that's something WMF lawyers have to define. (SEWilco 14:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

Permalink http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=168000130#User:OrbitzWWCorpComm ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 01:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why couldn't the edits just be copyrighted to the company, under work for hire? I mean, of all the objections to corporate role accounts, I never imagined that copyright/attribution was even an issue. —Random832 17:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Unlikned Photo/picture eating too much HDD storage

Unlikned Photo/picture eating too much HDD or mass storage in Wikipedia.org central facility. While ask of donation appears on top of every page recently, Wikipedia allows some numbers user's up load Photo/Picture and keep that too much number of picture as if his/her own Photo album. Many photo is not linked to article and kept as personal photo album. Photo eat too much storage space of server site of Wikipedia than text. Sysop should warm to Photo Author to be deleted.

The photo Up load should have some rule. ( also User self introduction also should have size limit, for example up to 10,000 characters)

My suggestive idea is:

1. Up loaded Photo is not linked to article within 30 days, it will be deleted automatically.
2. Article which is small space or less description allowed to have up to three photos.
3. Article with large space or much description may have up to Five photos.
4. Photo gallery allows up to 10 photos, and more than that it should be discussed which one to be deleted, or Delete vote system stub to be implemented by order of each photo.
5. User page photo should be up to three.

Unless some rule like above is not set, Wikipedia need more and more donation more than to keep healthy quality of information source. Waste of storage space under donation system should be reviewed ! --Namazu-tron 03:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have access to the servers and know this for a fact, your suggestion seems quite unnecessary. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Without looking inside of HDD or a fact, it is true to say, relatively that the un-linked photo(s) are wasting storage space and this is a suggestion based on Japanese Philosophy Mottainai--Namazu-tron 03:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still unnecessary. Photos are very small, and some aren't even hosted on Wikipedia. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Really, space is not an issue. A single 1TB drive (retailing for about $300) is enough to fit all of Wikipedia's image files with plenty of room to spare. There are a large variety of technical needs and limitations that Wikipedia has, but raw storage space is something the foundation has an abundance of. Having enough file servers, processing power, and network redundancy to handle 30 thousand requests per second is a much more complicated issue, and largely independent from how much hard disk space one has. Dragons flight 03:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the image wouldn't free up that space for use by something else; everything still exists, just not somewhere that is visible to the average user. Every page and image I've deleted are accessible to any admin that peruses through my logs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, deleting files saves no space, even if it were an issue. You can preserve a byte here and there by uploading on commons rather than on wikipedia (assuming it's not fair use), since images tend to get moved there eventually anyway, which means that we then have 2 copies of the file on the server (one deleted, one in use). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Shock Sites

I agree with the fact that wikipedia must contain information about shock sites, to be classified as a true encyclopedia, but as it is a trusted website, shouldn't there be some protection on someone just editing a page to link to shock sites? I propose that a page can not contain any links to any shock sites UNLESS it is in the category shock sites. These pages would require users to agree that there is a link to a shock site on the page, and to be wary if they do not wish to go onto a shock site. A list of shock sites could be created (I agree with something lik shock sites the list will be ever changing and not definitive, but any protection is better than none at all) and these links banned. Thank you for reading my consideration. 78.150.127.87 09:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandals would just add the category in the same edit, or add the category then add the link. We'd need something like the bad image list for that to work. (Which might not be such a bad idea - as a general feature, have it be implemented as an article-specific spam-blacklist-whitelist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random832 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point, but couldn't it be a protected category (if such a thing exists)? Even if this wasn't the case it would an extra level of difficulty that would deterr minor vandals, and those without wiki-editing knowledge wouldn't invest the time in learning how to add the category.78.149.2.236 17:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Excessive literalism

This might be subtitled, "The misuse of policies like WP:V and WP:RS and guidelines like WP:REL to cover an attempt to push a POV, by claiming WP:OR, and interpreting guidelines as rules and rules so narrowly as to violate common sense. It seems to be a favorite tactic of some editors, and seems to need at least an essay that could evolve into a guideline, and then into a policy. It seems likely to have been discussed before, but so far I haven't found it.

It can take various forms. Here are are a few:

• 1. The article name is a phrase "word1 word2 word3" and an editor rejects any source that does not contain that exact phrase, even though it contains synonymous expressions or descriptions, or leaves out a word as a way of abbreviating, or separates or reorders the words in ways that are synonymous, that anyone who knows English would recognize as synonymous.
• 2. Insisting on treatment of the article as only about the usage of the name rather than the object or denotatum of it, and that the thing denoted didn't exist before it was named. Then rejecting under WP:REL anything about the thing known by other names.
• 3. Delecting an entire paragraph or section because a cite that supports the entire paragraph or section is not inserted after every sentence or phrase.
• 4. Insisting that two policy statements, expressed as independent sentences, must both be satisfied. An example would be to insist that the first two sentences of WP:NOR#Citing oneself must both be satisfied, rather than either of them.
• 5. Inserting material that is obviously incorrect, because it seems to come from a reliable source. E.g., a statement that an event occurred on "April 31" when that month doesn't have a 31st day, the correct date "April 13" can be easily seen from the rest of the source, and then, if another editor wants to just delete the date, or say "in April", he deletes the entire passage.
• 6. Rejecting even the most obvious summarizations as OR. E.g., having a source that says "A came in the room." Then says "B came in the room." And the editor summarizes as "A and B came in the room." But the obsessive editor insists on a source for "A and B".

I could go on, but others can probably think of others. It could become an essay or policy WP:NEL -- "No excessive literalism". Jon Roland 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is in regard to Constitutional militia movement‎, of which this editor is a prominent leader. As an involved expert he is asserting that the movement is whatever he says it is, regardless of what the few available reliable sources say. The editor does not seem to understand the need for verifiability, or respect the limits imposed by WP:NOR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It is partially inspired by my experience with that article, but I have also looked at what some of the same adverse editors, and others that seem to be allied with them in their methods, are doing on other articles to which I have not contributed. A couple of them have also been following me around to other articles I have edited, including this one, and on the basis of that I charge them with violation of WP:HAR. The above entry is not responsive to the problem posed by the article, and seems to have been made only to annoy and discredit me. I interpret policies like WP:NOR differently than they seem to, and I think more in line with the way they were intended to be understood, that is, reasonably and with common sense, not rigidly and literalistically. If no one can point me to where this question is already addressed, I will create an essay on it. Jon Roland 07:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

When you disagree with the interpretation of a policy, as you do with how other editors are interpreting WP:NOR#Citing oneself, the best solution is to propose a rewording of the policy that clarifies its meaning (that can be done in a number of ways, including just doing it, and seeing how people react, then taking the matter to the policy talk page), or to initiate an RfC regarding its meaning. I really don't think another essay is going to help. And Wikipedia has a dispute resolution process for content disputes (which this is); that's also a better alternative than bringing a list of arguments to this page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and of course I intend to pursue other alternative for any particular disputes. However, there seems to be a general problem for which an article is needed that editors can cite to as a way to make their points. It is really just a way to urge editors to use common sense, which every policy and guideline article also urges, but for a few editors who seem bent on excessive literalism, as some seem to be, including some with which I have never engaged and am never likely to, there seems to be a need for an additional general guideline that covers all policies and guidelines. We don't want excessive clarifications of existing policies and guidelines, either, trying to anticipate all the ways anyone might try to misunderstand them, because they have not been written to be nitpicked. That would make them too long, and most of them are okay in their present state if interpreted in a common-sense, plain-English way. Excessive literalism is a tendency that has appeared and been debated for centuries in many fields, especially theology and law. There should be a single article that focuses on the general problem and allows discussion there of what is and what is not excessive literalism on policies and guidelines. Jon Roland 16:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is already Wikipedia:Use common sense, and, more generally, Wikipedia:Consensus, which says, among other things, It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice.. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the internal links. I added them and some others to the article at WP:NEL. Jon Roland 03:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think John Broughton has it about right, but I could add the most helpful policy to this difficulty may be WP:IAR anyway. I certainly don't think we need a new guideline or policy.Obina 14:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

An essay can supplement or explain an interpretation of policies and guidelines, so that people who feel other editors "just don't get it" can link to an article that sums up what they are trying to say. The trouble with WP:IAR is that, for people who have trouble with common sense, it seems to be contradicted by rules they can invoke while ignoring it, with its admonition that it is more important to write good articles (for the people who will read them) than to adhere fastidiously and narrowly to rules and guidelines that are intended only to be used with discretion. But who knows. If enough people start citing to WP:NEL it might become upgraded to a guideline or policy. It is intended to expand on what has gone before, and make more clear what has been intended, by referencing to the long history of "excessive literalism" and what can be learned from that. Jon Roland 17:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that you approach Wikipedia with the perspective that we are writing an encyclopedia. You may want to see the general advice of where to start. It appears that instead you are approaching Wikipedia from the premise that you may use it to advance your political manifesto, and that you are finding frustrations while using Wikipedia for this purpose. Also, I recommend reading the Wikibreak and the Wikistress essays. SaltyBoatr 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the motivations and background of the original author of this essay are, I think most of us who have been here for any length of time probably can agree that excessive literalism as described does occur, and can contribute to a difficult editing environment. And yes, the most typical targets of literal interpretation do seem to be WP:RS and WP:OR. (For me, the most memorable experience of this was probably the first three sections of Talk:Hipcrime (Usenet), though I've certainly seen it happen elsewhere too.)

The ideal response, in such a situation, is simply to accommodate and work around the excessive demands — find a source that says "the sky is blue", in those exact words if necessary, or settle for a wording that you can source to the hilt ("diffuse sky radiation consists mainly of the shorter wavelengths of light"). Eventually, if you can keep producing every reference and shrubbery demanded, the person (there's usually just one; if there are more, consider the possibility that you might be the unreasonable one) insisting on a literal interpretation will either get tired or be satisfied.

Of course, the problem is that doing all this can be immensely exhausting and exasperating, and it might be you who tires first. If you don't feel you can meet the demands on your own, and feel the issue nonetheless affects the quality of the encyclopedia too much to just let be, the solution is the same as for any editing dispute: ask for outside opinions. This will probably not convince the literalist editor that they are wrong, however strongly the consensus might be on your side — they'll be too convinced that they are right, that they're defending the encyclopedia against misinformation and that "consensus does not override policy" — but it can provide useful insight as well as additional editors willing to discuss and work on the issue when you get tired. Ultimately, here as in other cases, the real strength of reasonable editors versus unreasonable ones is that reasonable people can form a consensus and work together to achieve it, while the unreasonable ones stand alone against the world.

Of course, the corollary is that if you find yourself standing alone as the "sole defender of the encyclopedia" against the unwashed hordes, and nobody seems willing to share the burder with you, you ought to seriously reconsider whether you might be in the wrong — or, even if you are right, whether continuing the struggle is really worth it. This is known as a reality check, and it's something any sane person ought to take from time to time. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"WP:V doesn't allow for reasonable doubt." I don't know what to say to someone who argues that. -- llywrch 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD Close on Sub Article / Main Article

Some content was split off from Manchester Airport to List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 etc. These are now subject to an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (2nd nomination). If this AfD closes as delete does that mean the information can be reintroduced into the main article? Most of the deletes are pure WP:Trivia/WP:NOT calls. One editor thinks the AfD applies to the articles, not the content. I disagree and think it applies to the content not the article. Could I ask for other's opinions? Thanks, Regan123 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is deleted in AfD, reintroducing the information in the article would not be appropriate. That's just trying to get around the result. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the particulars of the article in question. In some cases, material that is not notable to stand on its own is valid to be a subsection of an article with larger context (for example, biographical information on the non-notable relatives of a notable person, where such information does come from reliable sources). In other cases, some information has no place at Wikipedia in any form, whether as a stand alone article or as a subsection of another article. I want you to know that I am taking NO stand here over where this specific article fits, however, I do want to empasize that each article and set of facts needs to be adjudged of its own accord, and not based on some grand set of principles that may or may not be applicable to each individual case. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I agree that you can't just have a golden rule. Thanks for your thoughts. Regan123 21:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR and WP:EW

Ten days ago, and after a major rewrite, Wikipedia:Edit warring (WP:EW) was upgraded to official policy. A few days ago, a debate about the merits of merging WP:3RR with WP:EW started at Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Merge. See also Wikipedia_talk:Edit_war#Demote_to_proposed_until_it_gains_wider_consensus.

Editors' comments are welcome at these discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Help create a manual of style for maps and diagrams

Right now it seems that Wikipedia provides no guidance on the best practices for creating maps and diagrams. These types of images are rapidly proliferating on Wikipedia. In fact, the Wikimedia Foundation has just started a grant program to pay illustrators to add new diagrams to articles in need. It would be nice if most of these additions followed similar styles and conventions instead of continually reinventing the wheel (with various degrees of success). Although I don't believe Wikipedia needs to enforce one particular style on all maps and diagram, there are some helpful conventions that I think we should put into writing somewhere. Wikipedia:Image use policy doesn't seem like the appropriate place for this, so I've decided to be bold and create a proposed Manual of Style page for maps and diagrams. Right now it is mostly blank as I would like to know what suggestions the Wikipedia community has to offer. Feel free to hop over there and edit it to your heart's content or add ideas to the talk page. Thanks! Kaldari 01:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

While I know it can be a difficult place for English Wikipedians to navigate (at least in part because of the multilingual aspect), this is probably a much better discussion for Commons. One problem with developing a localized MoS for this is that you'd need to redraw any map originating from another project in order to achieve uniformity, and I'm fairly sure that there are a lot more maps available on commons than on any other wm project. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding maps, see m:Maps, m:Wikimaps, Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps, and Commons:Commons:Project Mapmaking Wiki Standards. For diagrams, see Wikipedia:How to create graphs for Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox screenshots

I've thought for a while now that we should have a standard fair use rationale for intertitle screenshots used in TV show infoboxes. See here for a rough draft I made of one. However, I've often wondered how these types of screenshots are justified under the "critical commentary" stipulation of WP:NFC. It always seemed to me that these screenshots are just used for simple visual identification of the show, which is what I put in the draft. So, my questions are:

1. How, if at all, are infobox intertitle screenshots justified under WP:NFC?
2. Do you like the idea/wording of the standardized rationale, and do you have any suggestions for improving it?

--CrazyLegsKC 06:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You might want to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Listing of multiple translations after title of articles, headings, etc.

I work on many of the food and drink articles on Wikipedia and especially take interest in editing cuisine articles. Although this hasn't been a huge issue with me in the past, it has been something I would like some assistance with for policy as it has become hinder some on some articles I have noted. My earlier notes come from articles such as Korean cuisine, Chinese cuisine, Japanese cuisine and other Asian cuisines that have both the english and foreign language translations on their pages. As mentioned, if it sticks to one language it doesn't seem to be an issue, but I would like to know if there is a policy that regulates this because I seem to recall someone telling me there was when I wrote the French cuisine article and was told I should use all English terms when possible. The current dilemma builds though when an article such as Chili oil comes under multiple languages and we end up with numerous translations in the heading for the lead. This does not seem correct to me and would like to have a discussion about it here with those who may know this realm of policy better than I.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 07:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no response to date, may I suggest you might want to discuss this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink? Also, for lead sections, the talk page at WP:LEAD may be a good place to ask a question. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the English Language Wikipedia: therefore foreign names of entities should only be included if they are relevant - i.e. likely to be used by an English speaker, recently Anglicised from a foreign term, or of course in illustrating articles about a concept such as liaison. Translations into multiple languages of course are useful on wiktionary. Rich Farmbrough, 11:50 18 November 2007 (GMT).

No open proxies

I've been doing some research as of late into the status of Tor nodes on Wikipedia. I'll spare you the boring details, but as of right now, there are 1,378 Tor exit nodes in the Tor network. Out of those nodes, we have only blocked 16. That means, essentially, that there are 1,362 ways to anonymously edit Wikipedia.

So, how do we deal with this? I've written a prototype bot that can take all unblocked Tor nodes and block them, but the current no open proxies policy doesn't detail how Tor nodes are to be blocked, only that they should be blocked. I've heard ideas on both sides of the fence. One group of users believes that the nodes should be softblocked, in order to allow legitimate users to edit, but another group points out that softblocking disables the autoblocker, allowing malicious accounts to edit until a CheckUser can be found to get the underlying IP and block them. In this regard, they believe that hardblocking is the best approach.

Any thoughts? If we ever want to see an adminbot created for this purpose (and that's my next project in the future), then we need to clarify how open proxies should be blocked. Shadow1 (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

To paraphrase the famous quote... "block them all, Jimbo will know his own!" Blueboar 04:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That sound like "Cædite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" - Kill them all. Let God sort them out.[1] -- Jreferee t/c 17:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an underlying IP for a vandal or sockpuppet using proxies - every node is equally available to every vandal and take seconds to change. If there is a need for CheckUser to hardblock one of them then there is a need to hardblock them all. An open proxy CheckUser hardblock is absolutely useless if any others are being softblocked. Incidentally, the current policy does not say that they should be blocked, but that they may be blocked. Due to the abuse we get from Tor nodes in general however, they usually are. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT

Recently WP:FICT has been changed and the following section has been added:

"To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons).[3] In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should still strive to provide real-world content."

I see a problem with this as it seems to potentially go against several other established guidelines and policies such as:

WP:NN

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

WP:WAF

"Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information."

WP:V

"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

WP:NOT

"Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot"

Personally I do not feel that the change in WP:FICT was correct - although it may well reflect the current state of Wikipedia - but if there is a consensus for this change it should be consistent accross Wikipedia. Having guidelines and policies that contradict each other will not help people to build and contribute to a high quality encyclopaedia and will hinder the processes that rely on these polcies and guidelines (WP:AFD, WP:FA, etc.)). [[Guest9999 11:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Um, WP:WAF is an manual of style, not a content or notability guideline. WP:WAF doesn't dictate who gets an article, but how you write about that article once you have created it. As for FICT, you pulled a single section, which is meant to incorporate the times when articles become too long and need to be split off. Secondly, the real world content still needs sourcing, which is the only thing the FICT section neglects to mention.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I acceptt that WP:WAF is a style guideline, however by creating articles on a purely fictional topics with no real world notability it will be impossible to write the article (about fiction) in the way that the guidline on writing about fiction recommends. The fact that such articles exist - and are accepetd - should require a rewrite of WP:WAF to take them into account (if there is an actual consensus for these articles to exist). Secondly, this type of sub article is not mentioned in any of the above guidelines or policies - if these exceptions are allowed then they should be. [[Guest9999 13:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Just to reiterate - may main point was not that the change to WP:FICT was a bad one (although I think it was) but that several other policies and guidelines (both content and style related) must be updated in order to take it into account due to the current contradictions. [[Guest9999 13:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

• The disputed section complies with all of the above to my eye, since it states Even these articles need real-world information.... How exactly does it not comply with the policies and guidance? I can't see any reason to change long-standing policies at this time. Hiding Talk 13:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Guest9999, it says in the section--"editors should still strive to provide real-world content"--it isn't saying you can split off a plot section that is too large, it's talking about sections that require real world information to begin with, just becoming too large for their parent article. Secondly, if every policy and guideline said the exact same thing, we wouldn't have a need for the plural, we'd have just one page that said everything that needed saying.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole problem of sub-articles is a bit vexed, since for a long time we, on a software level, pushed for 32kb articles. We don't do that anymore, but as a result sub-articles and breaking off articles took root in the culture. For the most part, I tend to think that the aforementioned change to WP:FICT is a poor decision because it spins off bad permastubs of articles, and that most of these minor characters would break off better to list articles. But I tend to think that this is often a good idea - sub-articles based not on topics but used more as figures and illustrations - split off large tables, large lists, etc. Ideally these would go into a separate project called something like WikiData that would exist to hold (sourced) data that is not quite appropriate for WikiSource. In practice, though, this is all a very big change, where as the change to WP:FICT seems to be an acknowledgement of reality and current practice. Phil Sandifer 13:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought we still enforced a 32k limit, for both technical, style and readability issues. Hiding Talk 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

But 32 kb isn't the recommended split line any longer, it's like closer to 50kb.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think there's also a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works as well. You write that "The fact that such articles (discussing fiction from an in-universe perspective) exist - and are accepetd". They aren't accepted as finished articles. They aren't approved, their status isn't affirmed, the way they are written is not locked in stone. Such articles do indeed exist, simply because people have created them. However, the goal of Wikipedia is to collaboratively create an encyclopedia, so the goal of Wikipedia is to write in an encyclopedic style. Therefore, part of the Wikipedia process is that we collaboratively edit such articles to better comply. Articles which do not currently comply with those standards should not be taken as evidence that the standards do not apply. They should be taken as evidence of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. Hope that clarifies. Hiding Talk 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• By that standard I do not think that any article is truely "finished" - I don't think that even the best featured articles can be considered perfect and may be improved by contributions from the community. My point is that articles which are to be "treated as a section of another article" - and rely on that article for their claim of notability - do not neccessarily have to show - in themsleves outwith of the "parent article" - any evidence that they will meet the current guidelines for article inclusion. If this is the case should the other policies and guidelines not be updated in order to take this into account? [[Guest9999 13:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

• • But, the way you are wording it sounds like the guideline is saying it's ok for anything to be split. This isn't the case. The section may need clarification, but it wasn't meant to advocate for those minor characters to be split off on their own. It was meant to advocate for entire sections to be split off on their own. Like, if for some reason a special effects sections becomes overly long, but contains all valid, encyclopedic information, then to save space in the parent article you would split off that section. The new sub-article still needs real world content--I think the guideline says "strive" and that makes it sound like it's ok if you don't have it at all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• The wording in the article states that in these articles editors should "should still strive to provide real-world content." - this clearly indicates that said sources whilst clearly highly prefrable are not a neccessity for this type of article. This contradicts with the polcies and guidelines listed and with the general principle that any article should be built around reliable sources. [[Guest9999 14:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]
  • That's what I just said, and I said "strive" gives a false impression and it should not do that. It shouldn't be there, and I will go remove it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You seem to have a different reading of the line Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability to me. That line makes it clear that all articles are expected to "meet the current guidelines for article inclusion." Hope that clarifies. Hiding Talk 14:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• What the sentence actually says is ""Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material" - this basicly says that either the real world content doesn't have to be contained within the (sub)article or it does not have to be directly about the contents of the (sub)article. Both of these go possibilities would go against other polcies and guidelines - [WP:NN]] in particular. [[Guest9999 14:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

• I don't agree with your reading at all. It reads to me that it has to show notability, although some evidence of its notability may be found in the parent article. Hiding Talk 15:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• I'm also not sure how it conflicts with WP:NN, which in some part defers to the subject notability guidance pages, and states that articles which do not meet the guidance outlined should perhaps be nominated for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for 5 days. I would suggest there and then you have your answer as to what to do with any articles you feel are affected by the contradiction you seem to be reading into the policies and guidance. I would suggest you not worry about it and trust the wiki process to sort it out. Hiding Talk 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons).[3] In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should still strive to provide real-world content."

• The concept in mind when we discussed that section was that presently, most in-universe fictional articles lacking sources are basically written from a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fancruft standpoint (the "other stuff" being most of sub-pages from The Simpsons which actually contain real-world notability information within the sub-articles). The goal is to try to instead of taking a few fictional media and immediately writing a new article for every character, setting, episode, object, and the like, is to try to help editor write articles from the outside-in: start with what is notable about the fictional work, including the reception, criticism, release information, and the like, that can be backed with sources, and then only delve into the plot as much as necessary to gain an appreciation of the work as to be able to understand those prior notable statement. As a result, it may be necessary to go into character details or other fictional elements which can only be provided by the primary source (in-universe), and even rarer still it may be appropriate, per summary style and WP:SIZE to consider making that section, with the acknowledgment that it is primarily in-universe, as standalone, though that editors should continue to strive to obtain notability that can be made for such sub-articles (such as what Characters of Final Fantasy VIII provides). This doesn't mean that by the guidelines people are free to write individual character articles for any old reason, and it puts onus on editors to take this as an absolutely last resort (to the point I suggest that we include a rationale template as one does with non-free images to explain why such an article should exist without out-of-world information). Mind you, there's still more we'd like to add, but between discussions at WP:N on notability guideline merges and WP:WAF on working in tandem with them on additional details. --MASEM 14:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• In this discussion so far a lot has been made of real world information, I think it is importnat to remember that real world information is not the same as "significant coverage by reliable, independant secondary sources" - which is required by WP:NN. The fact there might be a lot of real world information about a topic - say from fansites or the author - does not therefore confer notability (per the primary notability criteria). I think the current section is badly worded in that it is in some ways contradictory and doesn't really explain how these (sub)articles are diffferent from a typical article. [[Guest9999 15:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Fansites are not typically a reliable source. Anything sourced from them should generally be removed per WP:V. Hiding Talk 15:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • True, I know I that when I say "real world information" or "out-of-universe" I'm implying significant coverage by secondary sources. A list of characters supported only by citing who the actors/voice actors with the rest in-universe are is not significant coverage. --MASEM 15:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to keep bringing up the point but I'm still slightly confused; the crux of my arguement can be summed up in WP:V, which states - "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". To me it seems that going by the new wording of WP:FICT this will no longer be the case. Am I correct in interpreting the change this way? If so then I think either the changes to WP:FICT should be reverted or altered or changes could be made to other policy and guideline pages. This would be neccessary so that there are potentailly confusing contradictions between polciy pages. If this is not the case then I am sorry to have wasted your time by misunderstanding the rewrite. [[Guest9999 15:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

• You're dealing with "ifs buts and maybes". What the guidance and policies are stating is that on occasion sub-articles will be broken out of larger articles per Wikipedia:Summary style. These sub-articles should be built in such a way as to discuss an aspect of the larger article in keeping with WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and where applicable the WP:MOS and should be about WP:N|notable aspects. However, in certain circumstances the notability of the aspect may be ascertained more easily by referring back to the main article. I'd be encouraged to hear how you can summarise real world information without finding a third party source, by the way. Hiding Talk 16:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe you can't summarise real world information without a third party source but you can definately do it without a reliable, independant third party source. I think with fictional aspects it can sometimes be quite difficult to assertain what is a first, second, third party source but it is often easy to see what is an indepenedant source. There are many, many articles on fictional topics entirely sourced by fansites - which are not considered reliable sources and information and interviews with the auther or publisher - which cannot be considered independant. [[Guest9999 17:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

• Gald you agree that WP:V isn't invalidated. See below for more on how it all fits. Hiding Talk 11:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The real problem here is that WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Summary style (and WP:SIZE) are unaware of each others' existence. As a practical matter, we keep articles under 50K or so, and spin out large sections into their own articles. This is good. Then those articles get arbitrarily purged at AfD. This is bad. You are right that there's an unresolved conflict here, but it's in a different area from where you're focusing.--Father Goose 18:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the real problem is that articles have an excessive length due to sections full of non notable info (either in-universe or trivia), and people then decide to split this off into its own article instead of reducing the non notable stuff. It is only logical that such articles get deleted at AfD, and there is nothing arbitrary about it, it is the basic application of WP:NOTE and the fact that we are a tertiary source and need independent reliable secondary sources for all our articles, and that articles should not exist of plot summaries or other in-universe info only (or mainly). Fram 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Couldnt disagree more, its the overall subject which is notable, there is no such requirement for specific content. If the article needs to be split for convenience, then it should still be judged. The various conflicting WP policies are combined on the basis of reason and common sense. the very point of specific policies is to supplement the main policy, and when they exist, they are the authority for the subject. If wpedians in general think they are out of line, they should get interested in the specific discussion and try to change it. Why else would we have any policies more than a one line listing of each, for free interpretation. DGG (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I originally proposed the wording a little bit ago when WP:FICT was under some heavy fire from a lot of users (and not just your fly-by-night users, but even users like Radiant! had come to the talk page to question if the guideline had actual consensus.

The idea goes back to the whole concept of articles and sub-articles, and if it really matters if it's a separate document or not. We're talking about data here, and it's often an arbitrary definition about what is its own article or not. This is why the additional text specifically asks editors to treat a sub-article without real-world information as if it were a section in the main article (literally). If it is too much, or if that summary is simply not needed, then remove it and redirect the article.

(Sometimes we have a single "list of characters" for more than one book or show, presenting a situation where it would be practical to have a centralized list as a part of "basic info". But that's probably a lesser example. It's also, to a lesser extent, meant to look out for those weird articles like a list of episodes, which provide borderline "real-world" content, but seem to be considered basic information. These two examples are just my own thoughts, so I'm not sure if others would agree to that same thinking, but it is a small part of what I had in mind.)

So what we really have here is the debate about long articles vs short articles vs multi-articles, etc. I do fear the wording being mistaken, and that part of WP:FICT becoming a weak point, which is why I want to create a form of example table like the ones found on WP:CANVAS#Types of canvassing or WP:BADLINKS#Link assessment table, or something to that extent. -- Ned Scott 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Look, I think what we're dickering over here is a small subset of articles, for which the ultimate answer is to build a consensus case by case. Otherwise it is all "ifs buts and maybes". Here's how it is all supposed to work. A new editor wants to create an article, so they checks up on our guidance or they don't. If they do, they find out that the best thing to do is to be bold, or they don't and at any rate the article gets created or it doesn't.

• Are you still with me?

• So we have an article. Now, let's assume it doesn't need wikifying or anything else, let's assume it falls into the narrow band of articles we've got to worry about here. Here's the checklist:

• Is it all plot? If so, can it be rescued, merged or should it be prodded or deleted, or shall I do nothing? All based on editors judgement, but all will involve consensus through collaborative nature of Wikipedia. That's WP:NOT out of the way.

• Does it cite sources? If not, tag for clean up or prod or afd or do nothing. All based on editors judgement, but all will involve consensus through collaborative nature of Wikipedia. That's WP:V almost out of the way.

• Are the sources from a third party? If not, should the article exist? Either list for deletion, prod or check notability guidance or do nothing. All based on editors judgement, but all will involve consensus through collaborative nature of Wikipedia. That's WP:V completely out of the way.

• Are the sources from a reliable third party source independent of the topic itself? If not, either prod, afd or check through the specialist notability guidelines, to which WP:N bows or do nothing. All based on editors judgement, but all will involve consensus through collaborative nature of Wikipedia. That's WP:N out of the way.

• Is the article part of a chain of information which describes a smaller aspect of a larger work, and the smaller aspect, whilst discussed in very few sources, yet is still critical to the understanding of the larger work, and of such depth that it can't be merged elsewhere, and it's parent article demonstrates that this article is sufficiently sourced to delineate the crucial aspects of this article? If not, either prod or afd or do nothing. All based on editors judgement, but all will involve consensus through collaborative nature of Wikipedia. That's WP:N(WHATEVER) out of the way.

• How does doing nothing involve consensus? Well, someone else will do something eventually, and then consensus will emerge. So, to answer the question, does the new section invalidate WP:V. Nope, nothing in the new section states that third party sources are not required. Does the new section state that WP:NOT is invalidated. Nope, nowhere does this section state that an article can exist solely of plot. Does the new section invalidate WP:N. Nope, it can't since WP:N openly concedes more specific guidance in specialist areas can apply. Does it invalidate WP:WAF? It doesn't even come into conflict with it; they cover separate ground. Is there a specific article you have in mind here, or is this just a general point? If the latter, I'd advise you once again not to worry. The collaborative nature of Wikipedia will work it out. Hiding Talk 11:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Ultimately, the question is which policy or guidance is it which determines an article's right to exist. The answer is, funnily enough, usually WP:CONSENSUS, noting that consensus can change. Hiding Talk 11:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that we are not talking about a small sub-set of article, We are talking about tens of thousands if not more. Warcraft all on it's own has had over 50 articles deleted. If the logical progression of what been happening continues eventually all 140 entries in list of warcraft characters would probably have been given there own article. This affects groups of articles about every game, tv show, book. Ridernyc (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Even if sub-article are viewed as an extension of the parent article, the references in the parent article only apply to the sub-article if the references also are in the sub-article. And you know what happens to a sub-article for which there are no reliable source references. -- Jreferee t/c 17:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a matter of sourcing the article, but where we place the real-world information. Lets say we have a section that talks about how different characters of a book came about from a production standpoint, but that information is organized in a way that doesn't blend stylistically with a list of characters (for example, if it's information that's pretty mixed about production, perhaps organized chronologically, rather than by element of the fiction). The article starts to get long, splitting a list of characters off into it's own article could make sense, and it would have real-world information to justify the content. -- Ned Scott (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree to a certain extent, but not enough to argue over here. I can think of certain articles to which this might not apply, but I don't think it is worth worrying about, just as I do not think there are a large number of articles for which this issue will become problematic; most of the articles which fall into this grey area violate so many other policies and guidance that notability isn't the best stick to beat them with. If we applied WP:V with only a minimum of rigidity, say allowing a month to source information, we could clear a remarkable amount of articles from falling into this grey area. But I have faith that eventually the collaborative nature of Wikipedia will work out how to solve this mess. Most of the issues come from structural flaws; instead of splitting off a list of characters, it would be more encyclopaedic to split off an article discussing characters and concepts introduced within the work. So instead of list of New Bloods split from Bloodlines we have Characters and concepts introduced during the Bloodlines crossover. It may be a clunky title, but WP:SS makes allowances for that, and it demonstrates its claim to notability, its purpose and its parentage within the title. Anyway, that's my tuppence, Hiding Talk 15:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. schools)

We are currently having a discussion on this proposed naming conventions guideline for United States schools at WT:NC(USS) to see where consensus and problems are, please feel free to participate. Camaron1 | Chris 18:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Software

Why does it always seams that it is an important thing if software is open source, proprietary or something like that. It is often mention first in articles, in infoboxes, in comparison of different software... I think most people care more about the price than this. How many think about if you can read/edit the source, very few does that. I think it gets a to big role in the articles (it can be mentioned of course, but not the way most articles does). (This discussion will probably not change anything, guess there are too many open-source fanatics here, like GNU/Linux-geeks. Helpsloose 23:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether software is open source is important in terms of licensing and support (whether for better or worse); both of which are significant factors for businesses thinking about adopting new products. Some companies, for example, will only adopt software that has a strong support model, whereas for others the price is a key determinant. These can vary significantly between closed and open source models. — RJH (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There might also be more information available about open software which can be examined, rather than the amount of information which a manufacturer releases. That depends upon the particular item. (SEWilco 03:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

But it plays a too important role in many articles. Helpsloose 17:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you pointed out specific problems, instead of vague claims of the subject being "too important" in unnamed articles. -- 68.156.149.62 12:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he/she means that, besides other things, Open Source is generally considered a political issue, too. So he/she possibly tries to hint at the supposed fact that Wikipedia is too political here. The real issue behind this being, of course, the sad fact that most people are still not aware how much they can, and already do, benefit from the increasing amount of Open Source software. --217.232.218.170 11:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It was actually not my point. I already said my point. It is put more weight on the issue than necessary. See for example here [[2]], almost first in the article, like it is one of the most important thing. Also one of the first in this page [[3]]. There is probably many others. Helpsloose —Preceding comment was added at 17:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Helpsloose on one point: the use of green and red in the chart in the second link to designate open source vs. non-open source definitely puts a political slant on the issue favoring open source. Maybe the community is fine with this, but it's certainly not a neutral view on the topic. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)