Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 58

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (proposals) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). 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 · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214

Requested moves for templates

There's a discussion that has started at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#renaming a template regarding which process would be best to use for moving/renaming Templates. Participation there would be appreciated.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing warnings from one's talk page

(This general category is listed as a perennial, I must disclose first. But activity on this front seems to have stopped two years ago. See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings, and its talk page.)

My proposal is that users's right to remove warnings from their talk pages be limited to warnings older than a set age, such as 1 or 2 or 3 months. That way there should be no concern that warnings would stay permanently on user talk pages.

Simultaneously finding warning users as helpful to Wikipedia and its users, and on the other hand allowing warned users to remove warnings at will is self-defeating. Though it doesn't redound to a 'no warning' policy, it burdens the conscientious warners too much. That's because it requires that the latter scour users' talk pages for the history of warnings users have received in order to be sure what warning levels to use, without that exercise's revealing much about each previous warning: did the warned users even object to warnings which they removed, or did they remove warnings simply as attempts to cover their tracks?

Therefore, for the warnings that they shouldn't be allowed to remove, warned users should be encouraged to provide their retorts, if they have any, right there, below the warnings—which they're free to do now. Users who are about to issue warnings should in turn be instructed to read those rebuttals, if any, before issuing their warnings.

Is this a good middle ground? SamEV (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose due to the fact that this would require editors (even admins) to submit to dumb, troll-ish, WP:DTTR etc. drivel staying on their talkpages. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 22:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  But your objection would logically apply to any such messages that are non-templated, doesn't it? SamEV (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  What does that even mean? All I'm saying is, if Troll553 comes along to my talkpage during a content-dispute and, solely for the larks of giving a false warning, posts {{uw-npov1}}. I'd have to keep it there for months (and what about archiving, anyway, by the way?). Ridiculous notion. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 22:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to re-write my reply, but an edit conflict prevented me.

Your tone is very hostile. Would you dial it down, please?

I'll think about your objection before addressing it again. SamEV (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote, if you contest a warning, you can write so. Bad faith warnings would be just as removable and punishable as they currently are, and just as any message that anyone can write on a talk page: including those that are not templated. But warned users would be required to make the case why any warning that falls within the protected period is bad faith or misaddressed or whatever, and thus removable. I think of the editor who committed clear and obvious vandalism, but who currently has the right to remove a warning just as much as does the good faith editor who's falsely accused of something. I don't think they deserve equal benefit of the doubt. SamEV (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I will not "dial down" my tone, which is not hostile, it merely reflects my feelings towards your absurd and unworkable proposal. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 08:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I lived through the era when we required people to retain warning messages. It led to some of the dumbest edit wars I can ever remember (e.g. edit wars about removing warnings about removing warnings). Requiring people to retain warnings they disagree with inflames too many tempers to offset the small gain of making it easier to keep track of vandals. No thanks, let's not try that again. Dragons flight (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very surprised to learn that a 'no remove' rule existed before. Your answer is helpful. SamEV (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's interesting, Dragon's flight. I'll also mention, SamEV, that at least as far as anon IP editors (with whom I largely deal), that hiding warning messages doesn't work very well, because it's easy for an established editor to guess they're doing it, and simple to check whether they have. Also, when evaluating a new anon IP, this activity is an early hint that they aren't willing to play by the rules. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But it would be far more useful if you could look at those (unexpired) warnings on the talk pages, along with whatever objections were expressed by the warned users. SamEV (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• no, no... The purpose of a warning is to warn a user of something. If the user removes the warning, that only means that they are sufficiently warned (whatever that means to them). Forcing them to keep the warning on their page is punitive rather than productive - might as well just create a set of Scarlet Letter templates so we can brand them as undesirables for all the world to see. Not a good idea. --Ludwigs2 23:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Ludwigs2. But the point is to make things easier for the editors who do the right thing by issuing warnings (and I'm not claiming that issuing warnings is mandatory). And why should we be so preoccupied with not 'punishing' misbehaving users a little? We shouldn't be blasé about it, but it should not be fatal to measures aiming at improving how Wikipedia works. SamEV (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Sam, and the road to Hell really is paved with good intentions. We punish people where people do harm to the encyclopedia (and usually that 'punishment' merely consists of preventing them from doing further harm, temporarily or permanently). removing material from a user talk page does not in any way harm the encyclopedia, therefore it's not a punishable offense. QED. --Ludwigs2 05:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The removal of warnings, especially when done by vandals, do harm the encyclopedia, because as a result too many vandals get weaker warnings than they would otherwise, especially from warners who are not very experienced; which means that too many vandals are free to roam around Wikipedia longer than they should. SamEV (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If a user repeatedly removes warnings in order to avoid receiving higher level warnings, it's unlikely that this would go unnoticed for very long. I check the talk page of users I've recently warned to see if they've gotten any further warnings, and I'm probably not the only one. If they've been repeatedly removing warnings in the hopes that no one would notice that they haven't stopped their disruptive behavior, someone watching their talk page would notice. Reach Out to the Truth 16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the truth (mild pun intended). But that's no help to any warner who's new to the talk page. SamEV (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't even worth thinking about, to me. Sorry.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Anyone can comment, just as anyone can put forth proposals (I think). SamEV (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What was the purpose of that message, and the tone behind it, SamEV? ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 08:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Request for information: Is there presently any convenient way to check for a user's warning history other than his or her talk page and its history? If so, the proposal seems almost moot; if not, I can see why such an external data source would be desirable and might be preferable to immutable warnings on the talk page -- assuming a high level of transparency, right of appeal, etc. etc. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Under the current understanding, standard warnings are supposed to expire and be forgotten after roughly a month. Editors who have talk pages which are active enough to make checking back a month difficult are unlikely to be getting standard template warnings. persistent vandals (who stay under the 4 warnings per month limit) are a minor annoyance who will eventually get bored if they don't get noticed and blocked. petty vandalism from months or years ago shouldn't count against an editor who is (maybe) trying to edit productively now. I don't even see a reason for an external resource. --Ludwigs2 05:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • If the persistent vandal keeps deleting warnings, then doesn't that put a burden on the person issuing the warning to reconstruct history to see if they've been issued 4 warnings per month? Isn't that the argument made in the paragraph beginning "Simultaneously finding warning users as helpful..." in the proposal above, or am I misunderstanding it? - PhilipR (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
      • The thing is, "warnings" themselves are effectively meaningless in reality. Their designed more as a courtesy/civility tool in order to prevent people from honestly being taken by surprise when it comes to administrative action. In the case of purposeful vandalism, they normally do more harm then good in that they provide the vandal with the attention and feedback that they crave by vandalizing, but in the end I think that we've (correctly) chosen to live with that drawback in order to prevent "damage" to the (optimistically) 1-2 out of 1000 editors who are mistakenly labled as vandals due to some mistake/misunderstanding (normally, in my experience, caused by language issues). It's generally better to err on the side of caution with things like this, after all. Personally, I'd think that some sort of proposal to "police the policeman", a process to review the use of warning templates and "vandal fighting", would receive more support and possibly even be worth doing, but then I'm somewhat predisposed to think that way....
        — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 06:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
      • When I patrol, my usual routine is to revert, then go to the Users talk page to leave a warning. When I get there, if the 'discussion' tab is redlinked I leave a level 1 warning and move on. if the 'discussion' tab is blue (meaning that the the page was created but is currently blank) I click the history tab and glance at recent activity, leaving a warning at a level that seems appropriate or sending the user straight to the admins if there's a lot of recently deleted templates. I leave any worrying about correctness to admins (vandal patrollers are traffic cops; admins are the judges). it really doesn't take much time or thought. --Ludwigs2 07:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what benefit there would be in this change, and I can see several new areas of contention that it would open up:

1. It would muck up a lot of people's archiving
2. Incorrect warnings would become a lot more contentious. For example I frequently move new articles to correct their capitalisation and as a result I sometimes get the "warning" when the article is tagged for speedy deletion.
3. Sometimes the boundary between warning someone and informing them that you don't think their article meets our notability criteria can get a tad grey. {{G3}} and {{G10}} will almost always result in warnings, but several of the other speedy criteria currently cover a range of good and bad faith articles, if we start differentiating between notifications that one can remove and warnings that we can't then New Page Patrol suddenly gets even more overcomplex.
4. We have a philosophy that anyone can start editing here without learning our ways, if we want to make warnings "sticky" then that is another thing that we have to communicate to newbies.
5. Some IPs are dynamic, others may be shared. The person who deletes a warning from a fortnight ago may be doing so because they have taken over that IP, and if so they might baulk at being told to reinstate a warning that they consider was given to someone else.
6. For the last four reasons I predict that were we to do this, the result would be a troll feeding frenzy.

PS For what its worth, when I block editors I don't just look at their current talkpage and I suspect most if not all admins have a similar MO. ϢereSpielChequers 18:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• • PhilipR, you understood well: I propose that we make warnings more effective and cease burdening warners so much. SamEV (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • ϢereSpielChequers, most of those seem like good arguments to me, for now at least. Not the first one, though. That potential problem can be avoided (i.e. other than by not adopting this proposal — and it might indeed be rejected...) by doing as WP:UWT recommends: "Warnings should be grouped by date under the heading "Warnings"." So my proposal would pose no trouble for archiving, either by humans or bots, as warnings would be found in one section, with the older warnings at the top of it. SamEV (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  Firstly, I haven't ever heard of that rule, and am a vastly experienced editor (Twinkle doesn't follow it either). Secondly, it's not a rule. It's not a policy. It's not even a guideline. I don't know where it came from, but it has no standing whatsoever! ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  Heya TT, I'm not sure what the history is here with you, or between you and SamEV, or whatever. I just though that I should mention that your own tone in this discussion has been fairly strident right from the get-go. It'd be nice if you could back off a bit here, as I don't see how continuing with this open animosity here in front of everyone is really helpful. You could always take it to his talk page, if you think that it's really important.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks, Ohms law.

  I can't recall having ever interacted with user Treasury Tag, or to have even seen his name anywhere. SamEV (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  • • That assumes warnings are issued in accordance with that guideline and I doubt they are - most are simply added to the end of a talkpage. But some active users have to archive on quite a frequent basis simply to keep their talkpages editable. Not all of them would be able to increase their archiving interval to the number of months that you want these warnings to stick for, and a bot that had different archiving intervals for warnings and other threads would be overly complex and risk hiding warnings away from other relevant contemporary threads. ϢereSpielChequers 16:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Warners should be made more aware of that guideline, despite the fate of this proposal. When I used to warn more, I did use that "Warnings" header. And btw, I don't see why bots that currently do cleanup or other tasks couldn't be programmed to create that heading and gather the warnings under it. For example, SineBot could be programmed to gather them when it leaves a message on a user page. (I name SineBot just as a blind example.)
        

I don't understand what you mean by "hiding warnings away", though. I take your word for it re: complexity, since I'm not versed in programming. :(

SamEV (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose most of the reasons are listed above. As to the concern about looking for removed warnings, this is one reason that warnings should include an edit summary. If the edit summary includes "Level 3", "Level 4" or "Final warning" it's easy to get an idea of what's gone on before with a quick scan of the talk history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube lurker (talk • contribs) 18:14, 19 January 2010
  • Many, maybe most, warners don't leave those edit summaries. Besides, what do you learn just by looking at the edit summaries? What if the warnings were undeserved? You wouldn't know it just from the edit summaries. You'd have to look at diffs, one by one, to see what was said about each warning, if anything. Per my proposal, you'd get a much better idea of which warnings were merited and which not, and you'd know it faster, because warned users would explain themselves on their talk pages and those comments would remain visible as long as the warnings themselves. The reason warners would usually explain themselves is because simply removing the warnings would no longer be an option.
  • Maybe one day a technical way can be found to add warnings which cannot be removed by users, but by admins and/or automatically, once they've expired, by the software/bots. SamEV (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

    If the warnings were undeserved, then they most certainly should not be forced to stay on the talk page. A lot of people uses automated tools like Twinkle for warning users, which indicates the warning level in the edit summary. Looking at the page history gives a pretty good indication of what sort of warnings the user has received in the past. Reach Out to the Truth 16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose There are some wizards who are not good, Harry ... oops. Some folks have been known to give out toally unwarranted warnings. Frinstance, folks who give out 3RR warnings and final warnings after a single edit on a page. Absent a real need to alter current policy, let's keep what ain't broke. Collect (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Reach Out to the Truth, and Collect: I concede on the autosummary point. But with respect to undeserved warnings: As I said above, bad faith warnings would continue to be punishable, and admins could remove them. In any case, I think it would be preferable for an undeserved warning to stay, with the warnee's objections, instead of a deserved warning's being removed with no justification even attempted. SamEV (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  "I think it would be preferable for an undeserved warning to stay" – *groan* ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hand up* May I ask a question? When the proposer was a hall monitor in junior high a couple years ago, did he ask the principal to make those who had been admonished for not having a pass wear a piece of paper recording how many times the person had been previously admonished so the hall monitor could calibrate his degree of sternness when he caught them again? alteripse (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • All the time. SamEV (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Ha. I am disarmed by your charm (seriously), perhaps enough to support the keeping of block notices by administrators, but have been here enough years to have run into people whose "warnings" on my talk page didn't merit reading, let alone prolonged residence. alteripse (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll take it! That's the closest to a "Support" vote I've got so far. :) SamEV (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I'm as tired as the next guy of IPs getting away with murder by blanking their userpages month after month, but the cons of this proposal (trolls having one more policy to point to, people putting up with garbage, and the historical record pointed to above) simply outweighs the possible good. If no one is watching these IPs blank their pages now and keeping track of them, no one will notice if this goes through. --King Öomie 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose We've got better things to piss our time away on (such as an encyclopedia) than in trying to gauge whether a warning template can or cannot be removed. We don't need another level of bureaucracy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Propose to amend our FlaggedRevs proposal

In lieu of the BLP deletions, I consider our current FlaggedRevs proposal outdated and passed by by reality. Instead I propose we immediately adopt the german model. Reasons

1. It requires no developer work to make the specifics from our original request possible. This is much kinder on Aaron who is doing a lot of work to make some rare situations possible in the FlaggedRevs extension, that will likely only be used for what was gonna be our test period. A wast of development effort if you ask me.
2. It is in the interest of our BLP articles
3. Why do we need a test if if it's already clear that BLP will trump everything ? Statements by arbcom members and Jimmy Wales clearly indicate a full endorsement of the BLP deletions. Some of those deletions might have been prevented if we had adopted the german model 2 years ago. To protect people against slander and to keep the Wikipedia growing, we clearly also need FlaggedRevs going into the future.
4. Why should we want to limit the test/usage of FlaggedRevs to biographies, if the rules and concerns of BLP are not limited to biographies ?
5. Why do we need metrics on the test phase of FlaggedRevs, if this is clearly the way we are going ? What are we gonna do? Reverse position on BLP issues if it affects our readership too much? Seems unlikely.
6. Why do we need to wait for interface improvements ? The usability team is always working in parallel, why should this part of the software be any different ?

I think that counters all of the reasons that have caused our earlier calls for immediate deployment of flagged revisions to be ignored does it not ? Focus on making sure it is stable enough for en.wp and let's just run that code. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose. This is impractical, because we have too many articles. Ruslik_Zero 19:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose for the same reason Ruslik0 does - between the number of articles we have and the level of editing, we would either have an enormous backlog of unapproved edits, draining our volunteer editors' time and in practice often denying anonymous users the right to edit, or else we would have an enormous number of edits approved without scrutiny, causing potential harm to the encyclopedia and (again) denying anonymous editors the right to actually fix the problems caused by approving harmful edits. Most likely we would have the worst case scenario - both at once. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose. First, political reasons: it took a lot of argument to reach the current plan, and I'd prefer to not have to repeat that. Second, the English Wikipedia is by far the largest wiki. Even if the rate of backlog is acceptable on dewiki or Wikinews, there's no guarantee it wouldn't be a problem here. Third, now that we've committed to the current plan, it makes little sense to abandon the development work that's been done to further it. I share the concern and frustration at the delay, but I'm sure that a more usable, more open version of FlaggedRevs is in the interest of long-term use and adoption. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC) (iPod edit)

   Thanks for the background. I take it this and this is what people are currently working towards, based on this March 2009 poll. Correct? --JN466 21:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, that is the current general plan, and that poll is the one that confirmed the current plan. There was an earlier poll on using a more German-like implementation of FlaggedRevs, but at around 60% support it was deemed that there was insufficient consensus. The flagged protection and proposed revisions (FPPR) poll was closer to 80%, which is generally taken as enough of a supermajority to be a rough consensus. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Support. I don't see what the number of articles has to do with it – while the Germans may have fewer articles, they also have far fewer editors.
   • Note that people who approve harmful edits would very quickly lose their user rights enabling them to approve such edits (it is not enough to have a registered user account, you need to be registered as a "trusted" user, and that privilege can quickly be withdrawn if it is undeserved).
   • Approving a new article version after edits by IPs or novice editors takes just as long as looking at the diff when the article pops up in your watchlist -- it just adds a mouse click to the process to confirm that you have seen it ("sighted" it). Really not a problem.
   • Articles that have had edits by IPs and novice users and need sighting show up with a red exclamation mark in Recent changes, and in your watchlist. You click on "Sight", get a diff, and click OK if it's okay, or on revert if it's vandalism. Having the red exclamation mark immediately helps you tell apart edits by recently registered accounts and trusted users.
   • The Wikis that have the system (Wikinews; German WP and 3 or 4 other WPs) do not experience backlogs. --JN466 11:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WebCite for New York Times

The New York Times is one of the more widely cited sources on Wikipedia, partly because it's freely accessible. Recently it was announced that this will change from 2011, so efforts should be made to use WebCite to preserve access to key sources for ongoing content verification and expansion. This will be particularly necessary, perhaps, for old NYT sources (pre-1990, let's say), where there are less likely to be good alternatives online.

Is there (or should there be) some wikiproject or taskforce to take this on? Just spreading knowledge of WebCite would be a start, eg making a WP:Wikipedia Ad and spreading that around. Rd232 ^talk 16:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

see also User_talk:WebCiteBOT#URGENT:_NY_Times_and_WebCiteBOT. Rd232 ^talk 16:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody ought to negotiate free link access to NYT from WP.--Jarhed (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Image Resize Bot

Hey Guys,

I wrote a bot to resize images in Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request. There has been some controversy on how the bot should opperate. Right now the bot works as such:

• If the image's longest side is greater then 400px and the aspect ratio is greater then 1/3:

• Resize image so that the longest side is 350px using the Mediawiki resize algorithm (I.E. [[File:Foo.jpt|350px]])

The bot is in trial, but I would like some more community consensus before I proceed. The discussion is at the bot's request for approval

Thanks, Tim1357 (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Words...

First off, before anyone blows a gasket, this is a fairly tongue-in-cheek suggestion (I say "fairly" because I do sort of wish that something like this would happen). But, I'm quite aware of the perennial proposal which sort of addresses this.

Anyway, first I have a bit of an admission to make: I'm a horrible speller (realistically, if I'm not being self-deprecating, I'm probably slightly above average, mostly because I've become a decent typist over the years). It really makes little, if any, difference to me if the word describing "The spectral composition of visible light" is spelled "color" or "colour". To me, I personally learned "color", those who I have the most day-to-day exposure to use "color", and most importantly my (en-us) spellchecker doesn't flag "color"! Realistically, while it may bug me for a short period of time to start seeing "colour" all over the place, it would be easy enough to get used to if it weren't flagged as a damned misspelling.

So, with the above established, I'd like to humbly suggest that we develop a "en-wp" dictionary, distribute it to anyone and everyone who will take it, and use that here. The hell with ENGVAR, we'll write our own variation and stick to it! While we're at it, we may as well lobby for the banning of Webster's Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary as well. I think we've all had enough of their divisive shenanigans! Who's with me?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea /in theory/, but of course, who will decide if it's color or colour, and how much bitching will there be that 'their' way is the better way? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, there's an easy solution to that, we simply develop our own spelling convention, just like our buddy Noah Webster did! For example, instead of "color" or "colour", we spell it "colur"!

In all seriousness, something along these lines is likely to happen "in the real world" eventually you know, if it's not already underway. The web being a written medium, which brings those of us in various disparate parts of the world together, simply has to have a profound impact on the development of the language and writing in particular. Of course, thre's quite a bit of "dwell time" to things which are put online, and that put together with the fact that we as people are naturally somewhat averse to change means that there certainly won't be a change overnight, and there likely will never be too drastic a change (for example: old English to modern English). A change will surely develop though, and likely as not to Webster's more "Americanized" spellings. I don't say that out of any sort of national pride or anything like that, it's just that "our" words our shorter (nevermind the fact that the 'net and media are flooded with American writing...). I can hear people howling about that through my computer, putting down "txt spk" and the like, but the fact is that groups of people will always seek the path of least resistance, and fewer characters to type is that path. Anyway, I'm not sure what prompted this interest in the subject, but I figured that I may as well talk about it. *shrug*
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If the object is to create a dictionary which could be used in spellcheckers so that valid variants would not be flagged, the answer is simple, include both (or all valid) variants. Both "color" and "colour" would be included. Indeed, simply taking a good US English and a good UK English dictionary and merging them (and removing dupes) would be a good start. We might want to add Wikipedia-specific terms like "ArbCom" and "copyvio" that come up on talk pages a lot. DES ^(talk) 16:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Extension of "recent event" tag to cover programmes about to start a new series

For contemporary events in the news, there is often a tag at the head of the article, stating that the article covers a contemporary event and that information may change with the passage of time. In the same way,does any one think it may be worth having a similar tag at the start of articles on radio or television series about to begin a new series? In my home country of the United Kingdom, on BBC Radio Four, a new series of The Write Stuff is going to begin this week (i.e. the week beginning January 25 2010) and it would be nice if there were a tag at the head of the article stating something like: "This article is on a programme about to begin a new series. Information may change as the series progresses". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. I also think that it's a great idea to add an optional link to Wikinews so that relevant stories could be linked to from the mbox as well. Both of those ideas seem to meet with resistance though, just so you're aware of it. I'd go ahead and create the template, just don't be surprised when someone sends it to TFD is all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

{{future television}} used to do this, and it was deleted: Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Deprecating_"Future"_templates. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically, the current event templates are for use on articles where information is changing rapidly. I can't see a situation where the progression of a television show's season would necessitate this. What I could see though, is if there is a main article for the show, and a child article for the season, using something along the lines of {{Current sport-related}} to point to the child article for updated information. Resolute 15:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that any series that is still running is in that sense a current event. Mangoe (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why this would be necessary would be most programmes. The only purpose I can see for it is if the TV programme's plot summary is in lengthy prose as oppose to an episode by episode table. This would mean that the prose is subject to change, whereas an episode table means the information can be edited for each episode, meaning the template is unnecessary. TomBeasley (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for movie articles re:Rotten Tomatoes.

Quite a few if not most articles use Rotten Tomatoes to show readers how well (or badly) a movie has done. The thing of it is, movie ratings often fluctuate so quite often someone has to edit the ratings (yesterday it was 25% now its 27%). My suggestion is this: instead of constantly editing the percentage number, why not link directly to the Rotten Tomatoes page for the movie and just use a term like 'poorly rated' or 'moderatly well rated' As an example: 28 Days Later:

Reception

The film was a considerable success at the box office and became highly profitable on a budget of about £5 million ($9.8 million). In the UK, it took in £6.1 million ($11.89 million), while in the U.S. it became a surprise hit, taking over $45 million despite a limited release at fewer than 1,500 screens across the country. The film garnered around $82.7 million worldwide. Critical views of the film were very positive; the review site Rotten Tomatoes rates it 88%. On Metacritic it received a 73 (out of 100) based on 39 reviews.

Doing it my way it would look like this:

---

Reception

The film was a considerable success at the box office and became highly profitable on a budget of about £5 million ($9.8 million). In the UK, it took in £6.1 million ($11.89 million), while in the U.S. it became a surprise hit, taking over $45 million despite a limited release at fewer than 1,500 screens across the country. The film garnered around $82.7 million worldwide. Critical views of the film were very positive; the review site Rotten Tomatoes rates it high. On Metacritic it also recieved a very positive view.

---

...or something like that. Then we wouldn't have to constantly 'fix' the numbers, in effect they'd be self-repairing. HalfShadow 01:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't include inline links to external sites in article text. The way to solve this problem is for movie editors to use "as of" dates when writing the text; the difference between 25% and 27% isn't worth changing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Inline external links should be avoided at all costs regardless, but especially in this sort of usage pattern. This makes Wikipedia inappropriately reliant on external web sites, of which we have absolutely no control. I don't knock the underlying sentiment, but this is not the way to go.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 01:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Fluctuating success rates are an issue across many article types. A more pressing need for something like this would be stating how profitable a business is, for example, as that's a more frequent and wide-ranging fluctuation; and we don't throw up our hands in that case and say the information changes too frequently for us to keep up. Directing readers off to an external site for frequently-changing information seems like the beginning of turning Wikipedia into a link farm, rather than an information source in itself. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:38, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I'm in consensus with what others have said here. I feel that using "as of" is an appropriate enough indication to either prompt someone to update it or to inform the reader to check for themselves whether this has changed. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not simply a portal by which to find information from elsewhere. TomBeasley (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Give New Editors A List OF Easy Tasks

When a new user signs up and

1. edits their user page (unlike drive-by vandals), or
2. goes to their "my contributions" page

a set of links should be temporarily added to the bottom of that page. Those links would include simple, easy maintenance tasks and HowTos that can help them get up to speed as a contributing editor.

I've had a login here for years. It's been like pulling teeth to find anything worth editing - I don't go wandering through random stuff that I'm not interested in without someone saying "Hey, this needs spelling or grammar checking, source verification, bit rot checking," etc. So my login has sat unused.

It's not that I'm incapable, but I'm not going to drill down into a bunch of trivia to try and find a single page to edit. I have yet to find even a list of pages that need checking, if there is one! The only reason I found the "Village Pump" is that a friend told me that was what the suggestion board was called here. Otherwise I would have spent even more years not knowing it was even there!

The presence of simple yet neglected task lists for new editors to do, along with HowTo guides, would help people to feel useful and contribute more.

RavanAsteris (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Not quite what you're asking for, but there is User:SuggestBot. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply To Cybercobra - While User:SuggestBot may eventually be fairly useful to me, it presumes that I have already done enough edits to have a statistical pattern of past contributions. I guess I would consider that to be a good intermediate tool, for those with an already established passion who were looking to expand their horizons. Also, it is not easily available to the new editor.

Another general neo nitpick: I consider "users" to be people who come and look things up and read them - they "use" the encyclopedia. Editors are people who write or "edit" pages. I realize that the terms aren't used that way here, but it's screwy from a functional descriptive POV.

--RavanAsteris (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea, I think - to provide suggestions automatically to new users. It links with a suggestion I made to allow users to request random task suggestions: Wikipedia:WikiProject community rehabilitation/Idea/RandomTaskCompetition. It's perfectly doable, but someone has to do it... Rd232 ^talk 21:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, in the mean time, there's Wikipedia:Maintenance. Rd232 ^talk 21:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community portal and {{opentasks}} are more appropriate. Fences&Windows 01:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm always partial to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Other options. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what'd be easy for beginning editors? Reviewing pages created by non-native english speakers. I found a few on some obscure battles between Russia and Japan, or about Cuba that had many small errors throughout. Pages like that can greatly benefit from the ear of a native english speaker. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Now this sounds cool! It's low hanging fruit, and it doesn't require a lot of jargon to do. The drawback is what happens if the new editor is also not a native English speaker? --RavanAsteris (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

*shrug* Have other options? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, give the person several choices. Hence, a list. --RavanAsteris (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but it does require tailoring to the individual. I believe that many editors come here because of a particular interest and putting them in touch with the most relevant project is a good start; Perhaps the list could have a tailored search box to make it easy to find projects that they are interested in? Other easy entry areas are Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery, and one I'd like to see started - a project to add pictures to articles where the English language article lacks pictures but there is an article in another language version that has a picture. For some new editors who come with a more academic but less technical background perhaps reviewing articles at wp:FAC would be a good start. For others installing wp:Hotcat and starting at Category:Uncategorized pages might be possible - though I suspect that for most this would require quite a familiarity with our categorisation logic first. ϢereSpielChequers 13:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor above me is onto something with the search function. I know for a fact that I hardly ever edit any articles other than those related to comedy and comedians as that is what I have an interest in. If I happen to be browsing and find something in another category that needs editing, I will of course do it, but I don't really actively seek editing outside of my field. For this reason, I think it would be ideal to add a function into which a new contributor could add one of their interests and be directed to the appropriate category page or project. TomBeasley (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The ability to find tasks or a list of tasks suitable to interest and skill/comfort is part of the problem that I had. Wikipedia is a HUGE place, and just trying to pick an interest, much less what to do within it, is like looking for a particular shaped needle in a large haystack full of oddly shaped needles. Hence, a list of stuff like the suggestions above, and the cool search box concept. Maybe make it part of the welcome page thingy. --RavanAsteris (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Change of format for MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist

As it currently stands, it is unclear as to where new additions to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist should be placed. At the bottom of the page the EDIT link gives you? Or above the next level 2 heading. I propose creating a standard template similar to that used on the page used for reporting vandals for admin attention, which will be something like the following:

{{{1}}}
*Page it will be used on: [[{{{2}}}]]
*Reason for request: {{{3}}} ~~~~

This will result in a format something like

Address to whitelist

• Page it will be used on Page to be used
• Reason for request: <reason here> Rich^(Contribs)_{(Talk to me!)} 21:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It will create a standardized, easy to read format that will still allow admins to comment on it, by using second level bullets, etc, and will also avoid the problem of the additional level 3 headings. The actual talk page will need examples of usage, but this should be trivial, as it can be based on the previously mentioned vandalism reporting page. I'd go ahead and start implementing this myself, but I'm not sure how appropriate that is on a page intended mainly for admin use. Rich^(Contribs)_{(Talk to me!)} 21:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've created an example of what I mean at User:RoadieRich/whitelist request, and a testing page at User:RoadieRich/Test Whitelist. Other testers and comments are appreciated. Rich^(Contribs)_{(Talk to me!)} 21:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of the requests we get on the whitelist are from newbies and spammers who quickly screw up the page due to lack of knowledge on wiki markup. I guess this is a good idea as it may reduce the amount of screwing up that occurs (and hopefully reduce the number of bad faith requests as it forces the spammers to come up with a reason why we need the link). MER-C 02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, comments made on template talk page about formatting. DES ^(talk) 16:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Posted on the whitelist talk and WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 11:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea a lot. I often scan through the whitelist requests and it is often quite fiddly to see what the actual reason for whitelisting the page is. This uniform system would make it so much easier for the admins and for the people requesting. TomBeasley (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reached what I consider to be a final prototype of the template at User:RoadieRich/whitelist request. I'm not sure if the {{error}} is appropriate for the missing argument, and also, whether it should test the two arguments (page and reason) or just the reason argument (as it does at the moment), and it's considerably less than perfect, but I'm now opening it up to the floor for improvement. Should I just go ahead and move it to the template space? Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} 00:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• To be honest, I was looking at moving the whole thing out of MediaWiki talk namespace to Wikipedia:Blocked external links, but haven't had time to process it. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

NFCC Bot

Hey guys,

I just wanted to let you know that I have proposed a bot to remove nonfree images from namespaces other then the article namespace. See the discussion here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 5 Thanks, Tim1357 (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested articles template pages for watching individual subjects

Would it make sense to convert the lowest level sections of the Wikipedia:Requested articles tree into included templates (much as the way the Peer Review section is now set up). That way those of us with a particular interest in certain subjects can just keep a watch on just those templates, rather than having to watch the entire page? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello?—RJH (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to test this out at "Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Astronomy and cosmology" (included at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences#Astronomy and cosmology) and see how well it works.—RJH (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sitenotice for Britain Loves Wikipedia?

Hello. What would you think to having a site notice up for Britain Loves Wikipedia? Something like:

Britain Loves Wikipedia - a free photography competition - is running in 20 museums across the UK throughout February. Join in, take photos, win prizes!

One concern, I guess, would be that this would only directly apply to 10% of the people that see it - but that's a fairly large percentage. It would of course be nice if it could be geolocated so that only British users could see it, but that isn't currently possible. I know that Wikipedia:Geonotice exists, but that appeals to a different audience than this (regular users cf. occasional visitors), and this is an event that would appeal to both really.

I know that this is a bit unusual, but I figure it's worth discussing. Mike Peel (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I say go ahead and do it, with one caveat: I'd ensure that the message was geolocated, somehow. While it's interesting to me that the Brits are doing this, as you essentially pointed out yourself there's no easy way for those outside of Western Europe to actually participate. I thought you guys used some sort of geolocation targeting for the fundraiser?
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 14:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, someone at the launch event today was from the US. ;-)

The fundraiser was a bit different - it was displayed to everyone, and when you clicked on it it was geolocated to determine the next page that would be visited. To do geolocation here would mean doing it on every single pageload, which would probably take the site down unless the WMF put some money into preparing it. I have filed a bug report requesting this, though.

So, the question here is: can we run a UK-specific sitenotice with no geolocation? Mike Peel (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it's really impossible to geolocate site notices, then that's that... I still think that it should be run, as long as the notice doesn't last for more then, say, a couple of weeks. Also, be sure to use the same CSS Class as the fundraiser ads did so that those of us who have bothered to disable those with the gadget still receive that benefit.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 19:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume that no objections == consensus, and request this again later this evening... Mike Peel (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This ought be done through the WP:Geonotice. –xeno^talk 20:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Geonotice is seen by a different group of people, though. It is only displayed on watchlists, which requires people to actually have a watchlist - hence long-term users. BLW is something that will be of interest to less-active users or passers-by. A geonotice is already running, but it would be much better to have it as a sitenotice. Mike Peel (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientific dependencies

I think it would be very useful if maths and science articles listed their dependencies. e.g. Understanding of multiplication depends on understanding of addition. And in turn multiplication is a dependency of understanding exponentials.

If this system was applied to maths and science, it could be an invaluable aid to self-learning, curriculum design, knowledge management and analysis.

For example, if someone wanted to teach themselves trigonometry, the list of dependencies would tell them where to start. And the list of topics that depend on trigonometry would tell them where to go next.

And I reckoned, what better place to do this than Wikipedia?! Not only is it publicly accessible, and probably the most-used reference work in existence, but it is also possible for a machine to read it, and this hierarchy of knowledge could be used by third-party applications as an analysis tool.

--Norman (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• WP:SOFIXIT. If it's worthwhile your edits will remain.
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 12:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  I doubt that such a deviation from standard practice would remain even if it were worthwhile. I think this proposal could even be considered a disclaimer. It's best to discuss it here first, IMO. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:09, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)

  humm... I guess you might be right, depending on how exactly it's implemented. When I read this this morning I imagined a series of links simply being added as either hatnotes and/or in the See also section. If the planned implementation deviates significantly from that then yea, we should probably discuss it.
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is not meant for "self-learning, curriculum design". That's why we have Wikibooks and Wikiversity. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree there -- wikipedia is "meant" for whatever you want to use it for, especially, I would say, self-learning. What's an encyclopedia for, if not learning things on your own? I'm still not sure about the proposal though, because we generally don't make self-references within articles. We just present the information, without any kind of notation about how to use it, which I still think could be considered a disclaimer. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:13, 2 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is "meant" for whatever you want to use it for, for sure. I've just re-read what Kaapstorm wrote above again though, and I'm just not seeing where the self-reference criticism is coming from. I mean, we do include internal wikilinks, hatnotes, and see also links to other articles, and from what you're saying those could easily be considered "self-referential"... I think. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, which is totally a possibility!
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 20:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, no one is prevented from using Wikipedia in any way. However, someone who wants to learn (to take the example provided by the author of this proposal) trigonometry and doesn't yet know anything about geometry (as opposed to someone who needs a short reminder about some theorem or someone who wants to learn the history of trigonometry) is going to need not just the articles of Wikipedia, but some exercises as well (and their solutions, the material given in some specific order etc.). In short, that "someone" is not unlikely to find a textbook (something from Wikibooks) more useful than encyclopedia. And it just so happens that Wikibooks includes a book b:Trigonometry and it includes a chapter b:Trigonometry/Prerequisites and Basics. Thus, the proposal has been implemented elsewhere already. That answers the original question ("[...] what better place to do this than Wikipedia?!" - yes, I understand that it was meant to be rhetorical). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

7SeriesBOT to put the "speedy" into CSD-G7

It is proposed that Bwilkins (talk · contribs) operate an Admin-bot that deletes strictly-complying pages tagged with [[WP:CSD-G7]|]. All other CSD-G7 tagged pages are ignored.

Any entry in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user is checked for simple compliance with CSD-G7: a single contributor page containing {{db-g7}}, {{db-self}}, {{db-author}} or {{db-blanked}}. Complying pages are deleted. Checks against the category are run every 30 seconds.

CSD-G7 allows for pages other than those with a single contributor to be deleted (no substantial contributions from others), but that requires judgment and so the bot will only delete those with a single contributor.

For the related discussion, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/7SeriesBOT. Josh Parris 12:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Commons content

As per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Time_to_remove_placeholders.3F and the issue of how to deal with unsuitable commons files .I've mocked up Wikipedia:Removal of Commons content Gnevin (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, so far! My immediate reaction was that it needed a name change, so I've moved it to Wikipedia:Management of Commons content. Like I said on the edit summary: We probably shouldn't lock ourselves in to just one aspect in dealing with Commons content, here.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 20:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I can't help but think that this has been an awful lot of effort to solve a problem that hasn't presented itself yet. –xeno^talk 20:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but he did a decent job starting the page at least. I just essentially rewrote the lead to more closely match what I envision may be more palatable, but Gnevin at least started it all off. Regardless of the reasons why, we really should have some policy on dealing with trans-wiki content anyway (remember, there's Wikisource and Wikinews in addition to Commons, so I could see this possibly growing into a general trans-wiki management policy)
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 20:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some lack of insight into policies and procedures of Commons, which is needed for a project like this one. Proposing to block spam fails to acknowledge that spam is already a reason for deletion at Commons itself. Same for photos of non-notable people: if they are not notable and the file is not in use (it may be in use nevertheless, check eyepatch for example), deletion requests usually consider such files out of project scope, and delete them. It's also a misconception to think that consensus of this project are not followed because of only concerning with copyright: the real reason is that all projects are free to develop their own local consensus, and one of the codes of conduct of Commons about that is to guarantee such freedom. If a project decides not to use a file, but other does, deleting the file would impose the consensus of one project to the other; on the contrary, the mere existence of such file does not force any project to actually use it. MBelgrano (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. However can we keep all discussion on the proposal talk from now on? Gnevin (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC).

Time to remove placeholders?

Nearly 2 years ago it was agreed not to use place-holders (File:Replace this image female.svg and File:Replace this image male.svg). CON was split over how to proceed as some wanted to wait till a replacement could be devised this has not happened. These should be removed from wiki post haste Gnevin (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

From:Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders

— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 17:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The text on the images themselves says different

There was significant opposition to the use of images such as Replace this image male and this one. 35 editors (66%) agreed with the question, "placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles", however, only 14 editors (45%) agreed with any particular recommendation. Gnevin (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Gnevin is correct. The 'nutshell' above was added recently and it doesn't accurately represent the (very long) discussion in which I took part.--Kleinzach 06:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to fight that fight, go ahead. If you're right then you shouldn't have any real issues with WP:FFD... I don't really care one way or another, personally. Although, thinking about it, the placeholders are not only nice to have, but their "ugliness" actually serves a purpose in that it ought to prompt some people to upload (appropriately licensed!) images to take their place.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a major issue with a FFD. As the image is on commons and as far as I know the only legitimate reason for deletion from common is copyright issues. Gnevin (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

So what can we do here? Add them to the blocked images list? --Golbez (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Humm... I hadn't realized that they're on Commons. We should probably have a discussion about that in particular; with a wider focus though (not limited to only those images). You're correct of course that they shouldn't be deleted from Commons simply because we may not like their use here. I'm not really sure how to accurately express this point, but while these particular images, and similar ones, can live on Commons because they have a compatible license, their content is distinct in that they're... more functional? They're not really content on their own, in the sense that an image which could potentially become a "Featured image" is "real content". As long as that sort of distinction is clearly made, somehow, then I wouldn't have any real issue with a policy stating that those images should be avoided in most articles here in en.wikipedia. (on the other hand, I'm somewhat hesitant to sanction the creation of yet another item of busywork for some editors to immerse themselves in...)
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Also commons doesn't care about the likes of WP:OI. If its free its ok Gnevin (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, and they shouldn't either, which I touched on above. I think that my main point here is that, as far as I'm aware of, we don't have any formal policy on dealing with the use of Commons content here, and we probably should. We simply need to be cognizant of the widespread nature of such potential policy. We can't create policy stating that these specific images aren't allowed to be used any longer (well, we could of course, but that would be a mistake because it would be overly specific, and people will take that as a wider policy statement regardless of any intent).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't FFD use to mean File for Discussion? Can't we modify FFD and block unsuitable commons images, basically extend the current FFD process rather than create an entire policy for commons images ? Gnevin (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The end effect that a new policy would cause would naturally be a change in the FFD process, I'm sure. From an organizational point of view, I'm personally leery of "backdooring" new policy by changing the manner in which certain processes operate. The manner in which a potential policy would affect Wikipedia is clearly demonstrated by this very discussion, which demonstrates to me that we're talking about new policy here rather then some relatively minor process wonkery.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 12:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you suggest we proceed? Gnevin (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just posted a note on the talk page at WP:FFD. Hopefully someone there will come and comment. You're free to create Wikipedia:Use of Commons content if you'd like, of course (with the appropriate {{Proposed policy}} tag at the top, obviously).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 14:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Is blocking of commons images possible for a technicial point of view? Gnevin (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

From a technical standpoint, we could upload a 1x1 transparent pixel under the same name, but I don't think the elimination of these images is as cut-and-dry as the original post states. The consensus seemed to be to deprecate the use but not to eliminate them where they exist. See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive552#Massive AWB use to remove image placeholders. –xeno^talk 15:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets put the original suggestion on the back-burner for now and pretend we've a commons image that we've 100% agreement to remove but it isn't copyvio how do we deal with it Gnevin (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow. We could bot remove it or as I said put in a single transparent pixel on the Wikipedia page with the same name as the commons image. –xeno^talk 18:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

←I'd say that it should simply be removed from any use in the article namespace (other namespaces shouldn't be a concern at all, here). I don't think that we should pick out specific images/files which shouldn't be used, although that's one possible approach, but we ought to develop a category with clear inclusion criteria. Adding a hidden maintenance cat to the File namespace page which holds the image would facilitate tracking. I think that the English Wikipedia page for a commons file can hold our own categories for the file, but if not I'm fairly certain that we could coordinate with Commons in order to create an appropriate category there.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Any category system would be open to massive abuse,unless the page was fully protected after and bot knew only to remove files from the category and the page was fully protected Gnevin (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

humm... this seems to be coming out of left field, can you explain better? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it sounds like you're saying that if people were to disagree with you adding the category to an image and they removed it, you feel that it's your right to judge them as abusing the system somehow. Protection doesn't exist to resolve content issues, after all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not saying I'd judge them . I though you where suggesting that after a FFD like discussion ,we'd place a Category:Barred commons image on the wiki image page. We would a bot which would maintain to ensure the image wasn't used after the FFB (File for Barring) discussion had been completed. Now for the system above to work we'd have to page protect the image page Gnevin (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly right - if there's solid consensus to remove an image but the image itself isn't intrinsically bad, then just go around and remove all instances of it in article space. Deleting files (or templates, etc) in order to remove editorially disputed content is a bit inefficient, and not really what FFD is designed for. Shimgray | talk | 19:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing the back links is fine until the file starts to pop up again and again and again. Why have WP:OI and other policies and guidelines if we can't remove original images which by there very nature would be copyright free Gnevin (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to any systematic removal of these images both on procedural and substantial grounds. Procedurally, any wide-ranging change to thousands of articles needs consensus first, and it is clear that there is no current consensus to remove these placeholders in all instances. Substantially, I am a frequent reviewer of the photo submissions queue at WP:OTRS, and a majority of the submissions there are about articles that have the placeholders. Moreover, the submissions for such articles are of higher quality, usually giving more or less useful info about copyright status and licensing, while other submissions tend to be more like: "hi this is an image of joe please use it!". This has convinced me that the placeholders are very useful for their intended purpose of encouraging freely licenced illustrations, and I support their continued and more widespread use.  Sandstein  09:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I too oppose per Sandstein. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly support the systematic removal of these image. Really, this issue has been running for far too long. Wikipedia is becoming more and more schlerotic, we need to fix problems and move on. --Kleinzach 03:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose removal on the grounds that those involved with images seem to think they work, but am equally opposed to adding these images for addition's sake. In other words, I endorse the wording of the template above. WFCforLife (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tangential issue: election templates

A master summary template (which I don't particularly like) has been created to take up a huge piece of real estate on every page that covers a specific political election (e.g. New York City mayoral election, 2009 or United Kingdom general election, 2005). On many of these templates, there are one or more rather unattractive "No free image: do you know of one?" placeholders (see for example, Syracuse mayoral election, 2009). I didn't follow the original discussions referred to above, so I'm not completely clear on the issues involved, but would they have any bearing on placeholders for pictures that may not even yet be in Wikimedia Commons, as opposed to pictures that have been removed for copyright or usage reasons? —— Shakescene (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume that you're talking about {{Infobox Election}}? This started by essentially advocating for the removal of all instances where File:Replace this image female.svg or File:Replace this image male.svg are being used here on en.wikipedia. However, since those images are located on Commons, this discussion has morphed into a discussion on handling the use of images from Commons in general, which is a wider issue which I think is worth discussing regardless. So, in the case of Syracuse mayoral election, 2009, those placeholders would likely be removed from the infobox.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 12:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I Want a Drama-Free Version of Wikipedia

I'm tired of all the pointless edit-warring, POV-pushing, personal attacks, etc. on Wikipedia. I know that I could just simply refrain from editing controversial articles, but I lack the self-discipline. Some articles are like a train wreck. I know I should look away, but just can't.

Therefore, I propose a system whereby editors can voluntarily opt-in and any article marked with a NPOV, OR, BLP, AfD, etc. tag would be blocked from view by said editors. This will allow editors to continue to contribute to Wikipedia in non-controversial articles and without getting inadvertently dragged into the mud. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would even be possible without a complete overhaul of the software. If you want a drama free encyclopedia, my recommendation is to get some paper and start your own private one. More than one person involved and there will to be drama--Jac16888^Talk 05:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

While this would be a lovely idea, to leave the drama queens to their own wasteland, in practice it soon would all be wasteland, because some cannot stand being denied an audience. IME, if you try to leave the drama queens behind, they pack up and follow you. If you keep finding that you can't look away, play the game of "predict the plot" for the soap opera. It makes it more laughable. Yes, I'm cynical - I've dealt with volunteer fishbowls for a long, long time. -- RavanAsteris (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, Soap opera game sounds like fun, must remember to try that--Jac16888^Talk 05:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In all seriousness, this really is the only way to deal with the problem. I've got the same T-Shirt as RavanAsteris, and so I wanted to echo his advice.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 13:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Avoid everything but the article pages, including article history. BOOM, drama-free. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Until you make an edit without knowing that "consensus" is against it. BOOM, drama comes to you. You can't escape it--Jac16888^Talk 05:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What! A drama free Wikipedia? I've a good mind to create a drama over that! Unfortunately, it wouldn't be practical. It's impossible not to encounter disagreement. And frustrating as it can be to all involved, a great deal of the knowledge that we now take for granted has a fascinatingly controversial history. It is true that some discussions can get heated. But sometimes, if you can get a bit of heat out of the arguments, some good progress comes. Some progress comes despite the heat. And some progress would ironically come because of the heat. It's probably a matter of trying to optimise one's entering and leaving of the kitchen, and which flavours we want to try when we do go in. Regards Wotnow (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You can always try Citizendium. There's not enough people working there to create drama. ;p ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

But isn't that because they geek anyone who so much as coughs in the vaguely general direction of the Mona Lisa? :) —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 09:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We could do a culture shift and eliminate the drama from around here (get people used to firmly stamping on it wherever it breaks out), although I'm not sure how to produce such a shift without creating a lot of drama about it... Seriously, it could be done though, if we wanted. Though I'm not sure if enough people want - a lot of them seem to enjoy the thrill of the fight when the argument gets personal. --Kotniski (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why my proposal would require a complete overhaul of the software. In pseudo code, the algorithm is pretty straight forward:

if (user is on drama free list) if (page has NPOV, OR, BLP, AfD, etc. tag) redirect to 'Article is blocked for your own sanity' page endif endif A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just put it in your custom javascript, or if that does not work try rose colored lenses. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• You're essentially saying, "I don't want to edit Wikipedia at all." Drama is inherent in human society, you'll run into it anywhere you go. Your "solution" is more easily implemented by looking at the page; if it has the tag, move on. Otherwise, try to edit, but expect drama to explode if you do something someone disagrees with. Or a troll stops by. Or a vandal. Or... well, you get the idea. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Umm, I disagree that disagreement is inevitable...:) Wotnow (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Even for someone with the idea of not involving with disputed articles, this would be a bad proposal. Part of the work in wikipedia is web-building, which is filling and fixing categories and linking related articles at other articles. Even if not desiring to make major edits, you may still be randomly interested in specific and trivial edits, or know the exact article name to link it somewhere else. MBelgrano (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't aware that we could custom Javascript. I'll look into that. Thanks, I think I can implement my proposal at least for myself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiFun

I suggest we restart WikiFun. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor watchlist innovation: 'changes since last page-load'.

When you look at 'recent changes' or 'related changes' the list of edits is displayed and at the top of the list is the time and date of when you requested the list (see where it says "show new changes starting from [time - date - year]"). If you click on that link it will only show you changes made since that time and will renew the link with the date and time of clicking it so that you can repeat the process. This essentially means you can ensure that you view all changes to those lists throughout the day (and into the next) if you want to. For some reason your 'watchlist' doesn't have this facility. I propose that we request the tech team to add it. --bodnotbod (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually never noticed that link. Might be useful for watchlists. There's a user script that'll do that for you now though: Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Watchlist_since. Visit your monobook.js page and add this line:

importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Watchlist since');

Equazcion ^(talk) 11:45, 3 Feb 2010 (UTC)

That's excellent; tried it and it works. Thank you, I shall use it all the time. Still, perhaps it's worth discussing whether we should push for this to be a default? --bodnotbod (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The usability initiative could take a look at that. In the mean time, the author of that script could push for that to be upgraded to Gadget status, so anyone could turn it on in their preferences. --King Öomie 19:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The original author was User:Lupin, but they aren't active anymore. I've contacted them anyway along with User:Ilmari Karonen, who was another major contributor, and is still active. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:02, 3 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Bod: This is actually a default setting (on wikis, I think); it's simply turned off on Wikimedia because of the load on the servers (so far as I understand). --Izno (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The user script version wouldn't burden the server since it runs on the client side, so it could be implemented as a gadget. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:39, 3 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Good deal in that particular case then. --Izno (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there shouldn't be any real performance issues with implementing it in MediaWiki itself; that's been on my "to do" list ever since I (re)wrote that script in 2006. (The main difficulty is/was that doing it properly would need a few more changes to the watchlist code besides just adding the link, and back when I last looked at it years ago the code was a mess. I don't know if it's gotten any better since.) Anyway, pending a proper server-side implementation, I'd certainly be fine with making this script a Gadget, or even adding it to MediaWiki:Common.js unconditionally. However, note that there's also another script which provides a superset of the functionality and might be a better candidate for inclusion. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Help desk for getting access to hard-to-find resources

Resolved

 – rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Lack of access to journals, databases, libraries, etc. might sometimes hinder an editor from writing a comprehensive article or from being able to verify sources in existing articles. For example, here an editor pointed out how access to materials gave him difficulty when writing an article; and I myself have written articles, such as Chinese classifier, in which many of the sources are not easily available for the average user to see. Those of us who are fortunate enough to have access to a big university library, like I do, can get just about anything, but many users don't have that.

With that in mind, does anyone think it would be useful to set up a messageboard where people without library/database access could request articles that they can't get on their own? For example, if someone has the title and author of an article they think will be helpful but they can't get access to, they could put a request on the board and someone like me could get a pdf of it and e-mail them. This might come in handy for some users. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange? Nanonic (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that looks like precisely what I was thinking. Thanks for the link. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Creation of a new category of established editors called RS-Reviewers

The proposal: Allow trusted and established users who have a keen understanding of what are and what are not Reliable Sources (their past involvement would be evidence) an additional user right (akin to 'autoreviewer', or 'rollbacker'...) called rs-reviewer. RS-Reviewers would be responsible to involve themselves in discussions on issues raised on the reliable sources noticeboard. They would have the additional responsibility to ensure that RS issues on the noticeboard, in general, are resolved within a week, and at the maximum within a fortnight. They would also have the additional power to enforce the changes that are so discussed, on the specific article in question.

The genesis of the proposal: Currently, the reliable sources noticeboard - presumably the most important forum for discussing RS issues - sees issues being raised and previously involved editors debating in the same manner as they would have done on the specific article's page. Many a time, due to an overload of discussions from involved editors, independent commentators - who would have left their comments initially - veer off the discussions. As a result, discussions do not reach a conclusive end. And in some cases, discussions just keep languishing on the noticeboard with extensive commentary. RS-Reviewers would work towards ensuring discussions are undertaken in a concise manner and would be able to mediate the discussions towards the appropriate conclusion within a given time frame.

Benefits:

• The moment editors to an article - who would have brought an issue to the reliable sources noticeboard - note that there is an RS-Reviewer amongst them, their discussions would (in general) be more specific, logical and rationally civic.
• If the RS-Reviewer sees that discussions are not being allowed to reach a conclusive end - due to (perhaps) tendentious discussions - he/she would be able to report the situation to an administrator who, knowing that the report has been raised by an RS-Reviewer, would be in a better position to understand the stance to take.
• Administrators would be subsequently able to give more time for administrative tasks (similar to what happened after introducing the 'rollbacker' system).
• Edit warring on specific articles would also reduce, due to such a formal mediation by designated RS-Reviewers, on the noticeboard, and due to another reason given right below.
• Over time, RS-Reviewers will also involve themselves on talk pages of specific articles as neutral mediating entities working towards a consensus solution.
• Additionally, it would allow established users more involvement with the project (again, similar to what having the 'rollbacker' or 'autoreviewer' status gives) and further trust within the community.

How would RS-Reviewers be selected

• A centralised forum (similar to 'rollback' granting) would be set up, where established users would have to show administrators at least three instances of past involvement on the reliable sources noticeboard forum or on specific article's talk forums, where their comments worked towards consensus with respect to issues related to reliable sources. Once an RS-Reviewer power is granted, a tag would appear alongside the username in the link on user rights. RS-Reviewers thus selected would also be allowed to upload a standard template that announces they have RS-Reviewer rights.

Past similar perennial proposals: Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Hierarchical structures talked about creating different kinds of administrators. Although the suggestion here is not that, it might be seen as some to be that, therefore have listed the link. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 08:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me like basically you're saying, give certain people a "hey, this person is officially sanctioned as knowledgeable about RSes, so listen to them!" indication, which really rubs me the wrong way. Seems pretty against WP spirit to me. It also doesn't seem to grant any actual powers. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Solution in search of a problem. If discussion is veering off-topic then mention it and try to get discussion back on topic, you don't need a special title to do this. If dispute resolution is needed, we have a dispute resolution process already in place. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't see the point. We have admins as they use tools, not to make them special wise rulers. Why do we need to say that certain editors know everything on RSs? Fences&Windows 20:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So basically its a new user right with no actual technical tools or abilities attached to it, but with the power to essentially override a consensus and enforce their own view. And the proposal is to give this out for making 3 useful comments on a board that gets that many new threads every day? I'm not quite sure which part of the proposal I like least. Mr.Z-man 22:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This proposal strikes me as well-intentioned but misguided; it is contrary to the core values of Wikipedia to endow any user with "more say" than the next. Shereth 22:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me as, so to say, unconstitutional, in the sense: inconsistent with our core principles. Like the 'established editors' and so on. The lack of uninvolved editors to help in dispute resolution is indeed a real and persistent problem, but this is not a way to solve it. Cenarium (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This reminds of point two in the Wikipedia:Wikiness essay.. regarding "You're not smarter than everyone else".. Good reading.. the entire essay is.. -- œ^™ 23:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the issue is not about giving another group of established editors any additional tools but with respect to giving them powers to (in?)formally mediate into the reliable sources noticeboard as many a time, discussions continue to be as obfuscated on the RS noticeboard as they generally are on the article's talk page. There is, however, a third-party opinion forum available that editors can use currently. This third-party opinion, I expect, is more or less used for the same purposes that I am mentioning. So is the reliable sources noticeboard. However, I have no issues with not giving the additional tag of an RS-Reviewer to the editor, in case it is seen as not adding to the solution. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary community division; solution in search of a problem. We're not Citizendium and have never had a problem with not having official Experts, I don't see why we should start now. Vive liberté, égalité, fraternité! --Cybercobra (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol :-) ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No. WP:RSN is adequate. RSN also functions best when there's a "permissive" and a "conservative" wing debating what is an RS. Oftentimes, if the source is primary or self-published it is reliable for some topics but not for others. I'd rather editors hear an entire RS discussion than take the first opinion from an "expert" who may be way off base. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Add help links to Special:Preferences

I have just been through Meta's meta:Help:Preferences page to bring it into line with today's preferences pages (some stuff was original 2003 content). Each tab in the Preferences page now has a corresponding section heading, and thus a hash link.

I am suggesting that we add a "help" link at the top of each tab in Special:Preferences, maybe worded "Help on/for these options".

The advantages of this would be:

• Easier for people to get help on what can be a complicated system
• Less need for verbosity on the actual preferences pages themselves
• Reduce helpdesk requests on preferences (currently there is no help link at all)

There are two issues:

• The content is on Meta, not here
  • We have no control over it
  • WP-specific info cannot be inserted
  • Wiki users could get confused about where they have gone
    • Copy the content locally?
      • But then would it get updated?
        • Restart the old bot update service that used to run about five years ago
• Need a commitment to keep the help page in good condition and up-to-date
  • I am happy to provide this

Any thoughts? — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Academic Ranking of World Universities

I have nothing against such an article covering the existing methods ranking of universities, but this article is based on a single system of ranking. The crtieria used can change according to which system is used and the methods used in each may be subject to debate. This is almost like including recipes -however verifiable the source, there will be other methods and the subjectivity of each criterium and the weight applied to it will make the range of possibilities almost endless. I would rather see this article revised to comment on all verifiable methods and for individual articles to be created for each system such as "the XYZ methos of Ranking Universities worldwide. Dainamo (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand (per the article) the "Academic Ranking of World Universities" is the name of a specific compilation of university rankings. The article about university rankings in general is at College and university rankings. You can raise these kinds of concerns on the article talk pages themselves. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection of BLP articles for Super Bowl players

Surfing Youtube, I noticed this video celebrating the "Nate Kaeding Wikipedia hack." Two weeks ago, on January 17, in the 2010 NFL playoffs game between Kaeding's San Diego Chargers and the New York Jets, Mr. Kaeding missed three field goal attempts, and his team lost by 3 points. (Each field goal is worth 3 points.) During the game, two anonymous editors routinely noted this fact at 00:31 UTC on January 18. [1]. For the next 81 minutes and 200 edits, vandals raided this article with disgusting slurs and insults until NawlinWiki installed a 6-hour semiprotection [2] and shortly afterward Zzyx11 "[3] "Changed protection level of Nate Kaeding: Excessive vandalism: Increasing expiry time, since BLP vandalism due to fallout from an NFL playoff game has usually lasts longer than 6 hours" (emphasis added).

Probably thousands of readers visited the article during that hour and twenty minutes. They saw statements that make the Siegenthaler incident seem kind by comparison. For example (emphasis added):

• "like a fucking dumbass" [4]
• "Good Job Loser!!!!" [5]
• "ass faggot" [6]
• "farts and entertainment" [7]
• "Chokerville, Iowa native" [was "Coralville, Iowa") [8]
• "Nate Kaeding has been labled the biggest Pedophile, choke artist, catamite, penis licking pussy in the history of football." [9]
• "Is a damn fool" [10]
• "Nate Kaeding is a total fucking faggot bitch and I hope he dies in his sleep tonight."
• "Kaeding has also been known to wear womens lingerie before important games to help him focus on missing critical chip shots. Nate Kaeding is also Norv Turners lifemate." [11]
• '"Big cock choking Nate" and "Mr. choke"' (was '"Big Game Nate" and "Mr. Automatic"') [12]
• "ass raper" [13]
• Samantha Keading filed for divorce on January 17, 2010 on grounds that he is a LOOOOOSER [14]
• "He currently sucks penis in the back of the van." [15]
• "He was consequently fired after the game in the post game conference." (Actually not true; he is still on the team.) [16]
• "Battle against Shayne Graham" etc. [17]
• "After seeing that their fathers life was crumbling like buildings in Haiti, they [Mr. Kaeding's sons] filed for emancipation."
• "He sucked off his first guy at Iowa. And subsiquently became the gigantic faggot he is today." [18]
• "Currently Dog the Bounty Hunter and company have a bounty on his head by every Chargers fan in San Diego." [19]
• Mr. Kaeding's sons Jack and Wyatt are renamed "Choke" and "Gag" [20], "Suck" and "Choke" [21], "Epic" and "Fail" [22], "Jackchoker" and "Wyattchoker" [23]
• "In his free time he enjoys trying to have sex but missing his wife's vagina wide to the right and listening to gayass music like "Fireflies" by Owl City." [24]
• "Nate and his wife are already on a plane to Haiti to try and see if he can find a job there, since he just got fired for sucking more than a hooker on sunset strip!" [25]
• "He takes dildos up the ass" [26]
• "HE ALSO RAPES BABIEZ AND EATS THUM" [27]
• "After the Chargers' January 17th, 2010 postseason loss to the New York Jets, Kaeding attempted suicide in the locker room by hanging, but missed trying to kick the chair from under himself." [28]

To summarize: Within one hour after the game, our editors broadcast to the world that Mr. Kaeding was fired from his job, attempted suicide, relocated to Haiti, was a "pedophile"; and his wife filed for divorce, and his children filed for emancipation—all false and defamatory statements.

This must not happen again. This will not happen again. We will not allow it to happen again.

I make no apology for copying foul language onto the administrators' noticeboard, which thousands of family-friendly Wikipedia users read. I need to shock you to get you all to understand that thousands of family-friendly readers discover such disgusting words on our high-traffic articles. If you are not shocked, you will not be motivated to prevent a recurrence.

What shall we do?

Super Bowl XLIV ends exactly one week from the moment I write these words. I reasonably predict that one player or coach will do something unfortunate in this game. More than 100 Biographies of Living Persons are in grave danger of a concerted, unrelenting vandalism attack during and immediately after the game. To prevent vandalism from unregistered users, I request that all biographies listed on Template:Indianapolis Colts roster and Template:New Orleans Saints roster shall be semiprotected immediately for the next two weeks, i.e. one week before and one week after the Super Bowl. Mass semiprotection requests are typically declined, but this is just for two weeks, and the articles are indisputably high-risk during this period. Any significant new information may be added by a registered editor, or may be added to the Super Bowl XLIV article.

Note: it took me an hour to put this request together. In that time I could have done many other things to help Wikipedia (or myself IRL). I believe that enforcing high BLP standards is more important than adding individual articles. I ask the community of administrators to support and act on this request. Don't wait until the vandals have already hacked an article for more than one hour before you take action. Chutznik (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This discussion was originally at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Semiprotection_of_BLP_articles_for_Super_Bowl_players.  Skomorokh  12:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments on semiprotection proposal (support/oppose)

• Oppose overuse of large bold text. Prodego ^talk 03:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I'll tone it down. Chutznik (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'm sure we can protect such pages if needed, how about we take a look at what is going on first though. Prodego ^talk 03:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we already know what is likely to happen, we just don't know which player will get attacked. Best to protect all of them preemptively. Chutznik (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support the gist of the proposal, to semiprotect the BLPs of these persons. Oh, and the overuse of bolding too. :) Note I was notified of this thread on my talk. Thanks C. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support this proposal in principle. I saw this mentioned on Lar's talk page too. JBsupreme (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support this idea, and believe we need to be prepared to do the same with other high profile athletes as we come up on the Winter Olympics. Our RC patrollers work hard, and edit filters are helpful, but articles that have both a high viewing rate and are at abnormally high risk for vandalism would benefit from situation-specific semi-protection. Risker (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The policy is explicit: "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred." We can easily and quickly apply semi-protection should vandalism occur. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ya, because that works so well, see the vandalisms listed above... how many nastyisms got through before semi-protection was "easily and quickly applied" in that player's case??? Do you plan to watch each and every player's articles on the roster, then? I plan to watch the game, not the articles. ++Lar: t/c 04:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• (ec) Commment: This should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy at the very least and probably at the Village Pump as the policy reads "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • why is this venue not a good one? ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Because it's not solely up to admins to decide changes in policy. Discussions like these need a wider audience. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • This isn't a policy change. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Oh yeah? You must have a novel interpretation of, ""Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
          • This is a fairly straightforward request to protect pages that are being vandalized. The only question for me really is will it be needed for those full 2 weeks, perhaps just the last few days, or maybe just during the game... Prodego ^talk 04:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
            • They're being vandalized right now? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
          • NeilN: How much you want to bet I can't find at least one preexisting vandalism against each player on either roster? One prior vandalism is sufficient, under my interpretation of policy. Anyone willing to so certify (that vandalism was found by them for each player) at my talk, and I'll protect the whole lot. Also, as a note: [29] ++Lar: t/c 04:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
            • User space is not the same as article space as you very well know. If you protect the whole lot then I believe you will be misusing your tools to push your viewpoint that all BLPs should be semi-protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
              • If someone makes a good faith request to me at my talk I'll take it under consideration and act as I see fit. That's not pushing any viewpoints, it's using my judgment. You might not want to toss around "misuing your tools" so easily, were I you. However I agree, userspace isn't like articlespace. Users presumably know what they are getting into and if they don't want to have their userspace vandalised they can stop participating here and have the lot of it deleted. Users here can call on friendly admins to get their pages protected as soon as they start taking a bit of heat. BLP victims may not even know that they're being slandered or worse until they try to get on a plane, or get a job, or wonder why their reputation is sullied. And it's so EASY for them to do something about it too... if they take the natural first step of going in and fixing it, they likely get reverted and then blocked. OTRS is so easy to use too. Yep, you're right, userspace is nothing like articlespace. Why shouldn't we get all the advantages? ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
                • Are you saying that two instances of vandalism would be enough for you to protect 40+ articles or each article must have a case of vandalism? Also, there's no reason why an IP should be editing my user page; there's plenty of reasons why an IP could be editing a BLP article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Created a list of players this would affect at User:NuclearWarfare/Superbowl XLIV. Using Twinkle, it is possible to batch-protect all of these at once. You can also use this to see a recent changes feed for these particular articles. NW (Talk) 04:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So far, it doesn't look like we need protection yet. Prodego ^talk 04:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I would agree. However, the moment that vandalism starts picking up on any of those articles, it is probably prudent to semi-protect them all. NW (Talk) 04:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I'm suprised anyone would favor Wikipedia policy over what will almost certainly be gross violations against living persons. RxS (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So propose a change to the protection policy exempting high-profile BLPs - you'll get my support. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Like I said, I'm surprised anyone would value Wikipedia policy over easily foreseeable public slander. Why do we need to change policy before protecting a small group of BLP's that are at high risk? That is not a rhetorical question. RxS (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Policy at Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. If people consistently do the right thing, it becomes policy. Written policy often lags. If you think it's a good idea to do something, do it. If it sticks, it was. If it doesn't, don't do it again unless circumstances have changed significantly. ++Lar: t/c 05:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • First, because it's not easily foreseeable that that majority of articles will be vandalized - there's a reason why PP is not pre-emptive. Does anyone have any stats on what happened during last year's game? Second, there's talk about extending this to the Olympics and probably other high-profile events. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Doesn't need to be the majority. All it takes is one edit identifying someone as a pedofile and real world damage can be done. Worst case, a Google spider comes along at the wrong time [30] and millions of people see it. There's no way that Wikipedia policy is more important than trying to prevent that. RxS (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Policy states that pre-emptive protection should not be used. At no point does it state that it must not be used. The proposed timescale is reasonable. Mjroots (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, we have good evidence that there's likely to be plenty of vandalism. Whether or not this is a proper use of the policy, I don't know, but we can forget about the policy temporarily in the interests of preventing significant damage to the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Anyways, I've posted a pointer to this discussion at the Village Pump which I should have probably done in the first place. For what it's worth, I support this proposal and think there should be an explicit exemption for high-profile BLPs in the protection policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I made a slight change to the semi-protection policy [31] to reflect some of this discussion. RxS (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse (disclosure: I was alerted of this conversation on my talk). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. 1) Good idea, though probably not necessary to semi-protect until game day. Should protect the whole lot since we can't know prior to the game which players will be the most likely targets; 2) Risker makes a good point about the Winter Olympics, and we should probably apply some form of liberal semi-protection for those articles as needed; 3) The fact that this is being posted here is good as more admins will be attentive to these (possible) problems; 4) Approve of the change by RxS to the policy page on protection. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support Great idea. As someone who watches a lot of sports bios, I know that the damage IPs do to them far outweighs the occasional good edits they make. We need to apply semi-protection more liberally to sports articles. It's not like the IPs are turning them into featured articles. When they're not vandalizing, they're fixating on things like scandals, embarrassing incidents, nicknames, relationship rumors, and video game ratings. Zagalejo^^^ 09:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • E - X - A - C - T - L - Y JBsupreme (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Sorry, this makes no sense whatsoever. We have thousands of underwatched BLPs which are not semi-protected and where sneaky and harmful libels can be inserted and no-one will notice. Those should be semi-protected in preference to these. The examples of vandalism cited are certainly embarrassing to wikipedia, but they are not libelous, as they are obviously abuse or lies and the reader will know that. That these articles will be highly-viewed during the competition is not an arguement to protect them, qhite the contrary - many views means that problematic material will be spotted and removed quickly. We urgently need to do something about low-notability and underwatched BLPs where bad stuff (believable falehoods) remains often for months. I'm in favour of wide semi-protection but these articles are not the place to start. Frankly, this just looks like the same "OMG they are American celebrities!" reaction which had us lock Sarah Palin and George Bush while Joe Soap was left open to all sorts. Semi-protect all BLPs, or start with the underwatched and vulnerable, don't start here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• If you'll allow me to make a comparison with which I'm sure you'll disagree (and perhaps take umbrage), your argument here strikes me as somewhat akin to the argument in the current BLP RfC (and elsewhere) that unsourced BLPs are not the real problem and therefore we should not bother doing anything with them. I disagree with both arguments. I do agree with you that "low-notability and underwatched BLPs" are the most problematic biographies of living persons and have said so repeatedly. But there are other problems, including people who suddenly make the news and are the target of smears for whatever reason, a problem because it comes at precisely the time when their bios are being most heavily read. Some times we can predict that (major sporting events are a good example), and it might be useful to alter protection practices and policy slightly to allow us to preemptively semi-protect in certain situations. Doing that does not preclude (or even remotely impinge upon) other efforts to deal with less high profile BLPs. Finally I don't think this has anything to do with Americans or non-Americans, or people who like (American) football or think it is not "special" (as one hockey fan suggests below!). I would support a similar approach for Olympic athletes as Risker suggested, or for players in the final rounds of the World Cup, and I'm sure for other events as well. It need not only apply to athletes either, it just so happens that the upcoming Superbowl is what led to the creation of this thread. -Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• I agree that other bios need semi-protection. I bet a lot of people supporting this proposal do. But it should only take a couple of minutes to protect the Super Bowl articles. It's not going to cause a huge drain on our resources. Zagalejo^^^ 22:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Overbroad, and will cause collateral damage as new editors see these articles and want to add content of value. If a single player fails so miserably and obviously as to cost his team the game, semi-protect that one article, and, while we're at it, where are flagged revisions? Hipocrite (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - not from Lar's talk, though I have it watchlisted. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support The example above clearly shows that the vandalistic edits far, far outweigh any good faith edits by IPs, and these very edits put Wikipedia, BLP subjects, and editors at risk. We cannot take that risk just because a policy states that we shouldn't protect preemptively. I would say that common sense, and the need to protect high-profile BLP's overrules that part of the protection policy. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  WP:Petition against IAR abuse. Resolute 15:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  I also must note, as Mjroots has, that the policy states that preemptive protection should not be used. It does not say that it must not be used. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose 1. We don't pre-emptively protect articles. 2. Articles that do receive vandalism can be protected as needed. 3. Pre-emptive locking like this discourages new editors from participating. 4. To be perfectly blunt, football players playing in the Superbowl simply aren't that special. The current procedures will work fine. Resolute 15:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems like a knee-jerk reaction to an unfortunate situation. It has been pointed out that pre-emptive protection is just not something we do. Shereth 15:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctant support There's a whole load of vandalism that gets dumped on prominent sportspeople during and following big matches, predictably and reliably, of a level where if it had been going on beforehand we'd semiprotect, especially considering the increased visibility of the articles. An alternative would be to semiprotect reactively - to have an admin with the pages on watchlist who is prepared to keep an eye on them and take action rapidly if a wave of bad edits begins. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Resolute. By the reasoning of this proposal we should also semi-protect all articels on major politicians during election season, and indeed on anyone currently involved in a high-profile event. IAR does not overrule policy. IAR simply stands for the proposition that consensus can overrule policy or can agree on exceptions. DES ^(talk) 16:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support result: "This must not happen again. This will not happen again. We will not allow it to happen again." - Well, actually, it will happen again, and it will be allowed. Maybe not with super bowl players, but somewhere. Its petty vandalism. But I don't have a big problem with limiting BLPs to registered user edits. This proposal is more limited.--Milowent (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support if generalized: This shouldn't be only about the big game. The proposal is a good idea, having a pre-emptive semi-protection guideline in general could be a good idea. In fact, let me start a little discussion on WT:PP (edit, oh wait, there already IS, nm that but still). ViperSnake151  Talk  20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Narrow and Target The proposed timeframe seems overlong for all articles. I'm not sure we need to protect all articles for a full week before and after. Also it seems shortly after the game we could get a pretty good idea as to who would be prime vandal targets, both as "heroes" and "goats" and unprotect the rest. I think it's workable idea, but could use a little more scalpel as opposed to hatchet.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose one article was subjected to a spate of vandalism, which seems to have been reverted in minutes, and temporary semi-protection was applied not long after. This is not a sufficiently drastic state of affairs to overturn our long-standing prohibitions on pre-emptive protection, especially over such a large range of articles. As BLP issues go, "he is a loser" is actually very minor, because any reader can see that it's just childish vandalism. The real problems are articles which contain plausible-sounding negative statements about the subject. This is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Hut 8.5 22:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support - The majority of this type of vandalism is not the real BLP problem and suggesting it is distracts from the real problems. I highly doubt that anyone is going to take seriously a statement that someone is a "total fucking faggot bitch." However, if it took more than an hour to notice and react to this level of vandalism, something is seriously wrong somewhere, and preemptively protecting likely targets until we can improve our detection and response for such incidents doesn't seem unreasonable. Mr.Z-man 22:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose doing anything special. The system worked perfectly here, so I don't see what the issue is. There was vandalism, it was reverted, the vandalism continued and so the article was protected. Proplem resolved, there's nothing left to see he, move along now, move along...
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, we don't preemptively protect over 50 pages on the sole possibility that sometime, somebody will vandalize them. Change the protection policy first. Woogee (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• I've just created Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages/Super Bowl XLIV, which lists all articles and templates linked from Super Bowl XLIV, Indianapolis Colts, or New Orleans Saints. Either in concurrence with this proposal or not, linked recent changes will allow interested users to more easily monitor changes to those pages -- please note, this is over 1000 pages. I'm curious if this sort of list might be helpful for elections or other major but scheduled media events. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as overbroad, per Woogee, but certainly any pages actually affected by vandalism should be speedily semiprotected by admins through the normal channels.  Sandstein  10:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Vandalism that is reverted within minutes is not a problem. Semi protection can be used where it is necessary and supported by policy. Rettetast (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Notice: This change is actually "live" now. User:RxS added a sentence to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection at 1 February 2010, 05:29 (UTC). I added a sentence to the end of that as a rider at 1 February 2010, 23:42 (UTC). There is some further discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#pre-emptive measures, but based on the response here (and at least one there), I'd say that it's probably time to revert the change.
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 13:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've reverted that change. There is obviously no consensus to change policy. Resolute 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The protection must be removed upon anyone's request? I have to laught at the idea that a vandal that wants to vandalize one of the pages can go wherever they're supposed to go to, to request that the page be unprotected, and the unprotection has to be removed because they asked. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And will we protect the page of every Olympic athlete when that time arises? 67.51.38.51 (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm using Huggle to monitor the pages on NuclearWarfare's list. I don't know if it's necessary to semi-protect them, but we should at least monitor them for potential vandalism. And those who want to be really thorough could Luna Santin's list. Reach Out to the Truth 02:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support this proposal rather strongly. A lot of the pages I regularly view (stand-up comics) get vandalised on a regular basis, fact which regular semi-protection for a few days does very little to stop. I agree that the pages you mentioned are at risk for this timescale and thus I would agree that they should be protected. TomBeasley (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The potential damage of a false "fact" on a high profile BLP is greater than the potential loss of unregistered editors.—NMajdan•talk 17:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Mostly per User:RxS. I'll be watching the articles through the links NuclearWarfare posted. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support, per Zagalejo. Where are flagged revisions? Blurpeace 02:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, as this would be in violation of the non-preemptive clause of the protection policy which is durably and massively supported by consensus. It would require a much heavier burden of proof to take exception. But no strong reasons have been given to treat them differently than other articles, only an example of a heavily vandalized article but no solid evidence to assume it would happen to the others, let alone up to justify extraordinary protection to all of them. This seems even less justifiable, now that they have been advertized at ANI and here, so vandalism can be dealt with more efficiently and protection individually applied if necessary. Cenarium (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support: this is a non-brainer. Pace Scott, but libel on high-profile articles is still dangerous, and if we know it's going to happen but do nothing, we could be liable for anything that happens. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Space available for edit summary when using undo

The undo button is an easily accessed, and frequently used tool with clear advantages for undoing not only vandalism, but also well meaning, but inappropriate, edits. In using it, we are encouraged: "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." However, of the 200 characters that the editbox allows, 59 + 3 x (number of characters in the reverted editor's name) are already taken up. The edit number is of little use to those reviewing the edit history (the date of the edit might be more useful to most such people): why do we need direct links to both the contributions history and the talk page of the editor being reverted? Would a serious loss of utility result from replacing

• [[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 999999999 by [[Special:Contributions/Editorbeingreverted|Editorbeingreverted]] ([[User talk:Editorbeingreverted|talk]])
  

with

• [[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision by [[User:Editorbeingreverted]]

The former allows for 54 characters of explanation of the reversion, the latter allows 142. Thus by having a shorter auto summary we could have:

• Undid revision by User:Editorbeingreverted:this has already been discussed at WP:RELEVANTTOPIC, where consensus was against such data, but this is worth raising again on the talk page.
  

which at present would simply say:

• Undid revision 999999999 by Editorbeingreverted (talk):this has already been discussed at WP:RELEVANTTOPIC.

I propose a much abridged auto summary. Kevin McE (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What I do if I don't have enough room is simply truncate it to "Undid revision 99999999". Have you enabled the Gadget allowing you more characters? Special:Preferences → Gadgets → (User interface gadgets: Editing) Allow up to 50 more characters in each of your edit summaries. –xeno^talk 21:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to that possibility, but my suggestion is about the space that the auto-summary presumes to take up whichever editor is using it. Kevin McE (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Support - sometimes I have also run out of space when using the default undo summary. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So what do we cut out? The contributions link? That's no good - I click it to see if they've vandalized more articles. Maybe the talk page link? But then how would I know if it's a red link and therefore means I definitely want to give it some greater scrutiny? Nah, I think people should just manually truncate it if they run out of room. We could cut out the bluelink to "UNDO" ... =) –xeno^talk 22:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If you use pop-ups, the contributions and talk pages are one click away: if you don't, they are 2 or 3 clicks away. The purpose of an edit summary is to summarise the edit, not to provide links: I would argue that the main purpose of this facility outweighs its other uses when space is limited. And you concede above that you deprive others the utility that you are prioritising here. Kevin McE (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer them to be 1 popup away. And when I "deprive others the utility" it is typically a tenured editor (hence the longer edit summary justification) whose contributions don't require further checking for evidence of vandalism. –xeno^talk 16:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any technical reason the edit summary can't be extended to a full 255 characters (presuming field in DB is varchar)? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Multibyte characters consume more of the space and are silently truncated (sometimes in the middle of the character IIRC causing malformed text output). It's not so much of a problem here, but it certainly is on other language wikis. Happy‑melon 23:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

People CAN delete the default message, you know. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And Wikipedia CAN decide that the auto-summary be more concise, while retaining the key fact that it is undoing N's edit. Which is why I'm proposing it. Kevin McE (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Support as I see a definite benefit and so far have not seen any drawback on why implementing it would create any problems that hasnt already been addressed successfully by Kevin McE.Camelbinky (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also support a shorter edit summary, but propose that it link to the person's *talk page* and not their user page. New editors seldom have a user page so the wikilink is usually red. Redness of their *talk page* is more useful information. It is hard to see the value of including the revision number, as we do now. I'd give up the linkage of UNDO also. So that would give, in my proposal, 31 characters plus the length of the person's name, which in the case of 'Editorbeingreverted' comes to a total of 50, leaving 150 characters for a summary:

• Undid revision by [[User talk:Editorbeingreverted]]

EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The link to an IP user's name is not to his or her user page, but to the editor's contribution history, which can be useful. However, I find the shortage of space a constant problem myself, especially when trying to be tactful as I revert a newcomer's good-faith edit while making reference to a specific talk-page section. There's certainly no need to link Undo: almost anyone who knows how to read or use an edit history understands what reversion is. While there's little point to a long revision history number, perhaps an abbreviated date might be helpful, at least in watchlists and in the reverter's own contribution history, e.g. (Undid Dec. 17 edit by User talk:11.22.201.172 ...reasons given here...) —— Shakescene (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about the IP contributions link and the undo link, but about the revision number: what if there are multiple edits by one editor on the same day? A revision number would differentiate between them, but a date-only description would not. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Support as I find that many of the links are unnecessary. The revision number seems to not be needed and the linking of the word undid is also unnecessary. TomBeasley (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What about just linking to the Contribution page without the pipe, so just [[Special:Contributions/Editorbeingreverted]]. That would shave off some characters.—NMajdan•talk 16:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose generally, and especially oppose removing the contributions link. Weak oppose removing the talk page link. Support removing the link to WP:UNDO but that only saves a handful of characters. Really and truly, if you run out of room, truncate it yourself. Sheesh. –xeno^talk 17:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  Really and truly, if you want to see someone's contributions there are other ways to get to it, and it doesnt add any burden in time or effort; whereas this proposal making more room for edit summary does add benefit. Opposing because someting is different is not a great argument. If you need to see someone's contributions find them yourself. Sheesh.Camelbinky (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  Functionality is lost and almost nothing is added. A few lazy editors get to save some time for the rare occasions they don't have enough room for their edit summary? Here's a handy keystroke once you're in the edit summary box: Ctrl+Shift+Home,Delete. That will clear the edit summary box leaving you one with a lot of glorious space to wax poetical about why you are one is undoing the edit. –xeno^talk 20:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  Let's please avoid personal comments and restrict comment to the merits of the various proposals and avoid arguing against the perceived traits of their proponents and opponents. Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Blanking the optional default edit summary in order to have more space is arguably easier than finding the contributions page in "other ways". –Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose removing the revision number and the contributions link; support removing the undo and talk page links. The revision number is not so important when one is merely reverting the most recent edit, but it is important when one is reverting an older edit; auto-generation of the revision number is the most useful part of the edit summary, in my opinion (since the rest is very easy to do manually). The contributions link is also useful, as xeno notes, and replacing it with a link to a possibly-redlinked user page takes away utility for no good reason (for those who require more space, it is easier to blank the default summary). So, I would support something like:

  Undid revision 999999999 by [[Special:Contributions/Example|Example]]

which is much shorter than the current

[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 999999999 by [[Special:Contributions/Example|Example]] ([[User talk:Example|talk]])

but still preserves the useful auto-generated information. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Support this or any other reasonable shortening. And I definitely propose the same behavior for redlinks, IPs, and bluelinks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• I find the revision ID to be useful occasionally. It is possible to get from the permanent links, but inconvenient. Flatscan (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of edit summaries

(1) That text only comes up in the edit summary line when you're reverting the last single revision, I think. When you pull up a batch of successive revisions to undo, the edit line is just blank. If you skip more-recent revisions to undo an earlier one, you'll get that warning about reverting all subsequent revisions, but I can't remember if the edit line is blank or just refers (with misleading incompleteness) to the specific revision number you pulled up to undo. So I think, though I'm not certain, that the revision number only appears automatically in the edit line when you're reverting the very last revision. In that case it's clear what's being reverted so the revision number is a bit superfluous (and in fact doesn't tell you what day the original edit was made).

(2) The reason for linking to an editor's talk page is to see if the editor's been warned, or if the point in question has been previously discussed there. However, a link to the talk page leads easily to the user page and vice-versa, so we don't need both; this isn't quite so true of contribution history.

(3) Which points out what I sometimes forget: that, while earlier editors who created the current format may or may not have been wiser than we, they saw good reasons for each of the elements that now crowd that edit line. That doesn't mean we can't delete, truncate or edit any of those elements in the light of our own experience, but we have to consider each one separately on the assumption that it once seemed likely to serve some useful purpose. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd add, you can avoid all this by making the undo summary anything you want using javascript. Prodego ^talk 22:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Most editors don't know how to write javascript. (I can't even set up a macro in MS Office 2000.) —— Shakescene (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

All it takes is 1 coder to write a script; everyone who wants a shorter default edit summary can import the script or enable the gadget. –xeno^talk 15:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

By the same token, those who are not willing to use two or three clicks to access the contributions/user history/talk page can set up a facilitate a JavaScript to allow them to do that. Our discussion here should be what is the default, not a tutorial for those who do not like the current default. Kevin McE (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to show me why "once in a while having to do something different to gain extra edit summary room" trumps "always having to do something different to easily view contributions". –xeno^talk 13:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(1) You're mostly correct, with one important exception. The default edit summary appears not only when reverting the most recent edit but also when reverting a single, earlier revision so long as there are no conflicting edits (i.e., the same paragraphs/lines of text were not changed more than once). See, for example, this edit, where there are nine intermediate edits between the revert and the edit being reverted. In cases such as this one, the revision number can be very useful.

(2) True. It's very easy (only one click is needed) to navigate from a user page to a user talk page, and vice versa, and from a contributions history to a user page or user talk page. It is not, however, as easy to navigate from a user page or user talk page to a contributions history, especially if the user has never edited his or her user page or user talk page.

(3) I agree. This issue is not all-or-nothing as even a small reduction in the default text means that there is more space for editors to type a custom edit summary. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

re 2 - there is no link to the user page... And there is a link from the contributions page to the user and talk pages, however I still find the talk page link useful -- especially when it is a redlink which compels me to see if there are other contributions by the user that need to be undone. So, yes, your (3) is bang on. We should unlink "undo" to save a few characters, but I still think the rest should remain. It is very simple to manually blank or truncate it if you are left wanting for room. –xeno^talk 15:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Implementing a change

Would anyone object to removing the link to WP:UNDO at this stage in the discussion? No one seems to have objected to it so far—even those who opposed parts of Kevin's original proposal, or opposed it in general, either supported unlinking "undo" or offered no comment. I suppose there is merit to the idea of waiting until the discussion concludes, but making the change would at least take one factor "out of the equation", so to speak, and out of the discussion. A decrease of twelve characters may not be much, but at least it is a change on which everyone seems to agree. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't oppose it, but speaking as devils advocate "Reverted" in the auto-gen edit summary for rollback is also linked. Is consistency a desired factor here? –xeno^talk 13:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I doubt there is as much interest in the rollback edit summary, since rollback does not allow users to specify a custom edit summary. As long as we're on the topic of consistency, I noticed that while "Undid" in MediaWiki:Undo-summary is piped to Help:Reverting#Undo, "Reverted" in the rollback summary (I can't find the MediaWiki page at the moment) is not piped to Help:Reverting#Rollback. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The relevant interface page is MediaWiki:Revertpage. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I say do it.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

{{chatterbox}}

{{chatterbox}} I whipped up this template (at right) for a page that had a an endless high-volume debate going on; I was having a hard time keeping up with the constant flow of posts. It seemed to slow things down, so I thought it might be of general use to people. I just wanted to get some feedback before I edited it onto wp:templates:

• is it acceptable practice to throw something like this into the middle of a discussion?
• is there better wording that could be used?
• I'd considered giving it a fixed position option (i.e. so that it would always show up in the bottom right corner of the window regardless of how the page scrolled), but I wasn't sure if that would be too much of a good thing.

comments, feedback, changes, immediate delete requests - have at it. --Ludwigs2 00:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think something like that would be appreciated. If you don't dare to tell someone outright to stop jabbering, then this kind of office kitchen note won't work either. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

well, I'll leave it around for a bit and see what happens. if people use it fine, otherwise it'll get deleted. --Ludwigs2 01:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving non-content material to editnotices

I'm not sure if it's actually new or not, but I've recently become aware of Wikipedia:Editnotice, which I think provides us with a great opportunity to clean up a lot of articles. In my view, what actually appears in an article, both as it is displayed and in the "source", should be limited to the actual content of the topic at hand as much as possible. Obviously article wikitext source is more of "targeted" towards editor's so, for example, the limited use of inline comments are acceptable, but I still think that they should be avoided unless absolutely necessary for whatever reason.

With that in mind, the proposal here is that we start moving all of the things such as cleanup templates into editnotices (not only those however, I just picked them because their representative; I'm not talking about the inline things either, since this obviously wouldn't help those). Such tags and editorial messages will largely accomplish the same core goals as editnotices, since the content of editnotices are presented whenever you click to edit the page, but this will at least hide the "sausage factory" aspect of Wikipedia from our readers somewhat.

I anticipate that one criticism against doing this will be something along the lines of: "but, those tags pull people in to editing!" I can see the allure of that argument, but I've always questioned the actual efficacy of that position. I've been a Wikipedia user for years myself, and I know that for a long period of time those tags actually discouraged me from starting to edit here, largely out of a desire to avoid criticism. I imagine that they do occasionally work, but on the whole I'm betting that they do more to prevent the casual editor from jumping in then they actually convince them to start editing. I'm open to things such as statistical evidence to the contrary of course, and I've looked for it, but the empirical evidence (especially the fact that most just sit there for years and years) suggests to me that these sorts of tags being on the articles themselves are doing more harm then good.

Note that, as things are currently set up, the addition of editnotices to pages will require admin tools. I'm fairly sure that once they are added that anyone can edit them, but the initial addition will currently require a bit of work, and we may want to discuss changing that if something comes from this proposal. I think that the main concern which has led to the decision to require access to the tools to add them is a worry about vandalism, but since these pages are somewhat hidden from the general public (readers), I doubt that they present much of a vandalism target, and the potential "damage" from any actual vandalism is very minor anyway, which leads me to think that opening them up generally would be fine.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 20:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. As with other arguments to move tags to the talk page, it is just a way to hide them from sight, which helps no one. Edit notices require someone to actually start editing before they even see the article has problems, and I do not believe edit notices can be used to categorize pages as having the tags properly in the article can. It also adds to overhead for editing. If people want to get rid of tags, the answer is simple - fix the issues rather than continuing to try to hide them from site and pretend the problems don't exist. Tags are not just for editors, either. They are for readers to alert them to major issues in the articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Collectonian. Sweeping things out of sight is a bad Wikipedian trend. It is also a disservice to readers--if they see tags saying e.g. an article is unreferenced, or neutrality is in doubt, they are more able to judge what they are reading. Also catgorization does not work with editnotices. → ROUX ₪ 20:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Since the whole POINT of these is that they call attention to themselves. It makes it easy for someone to wander by and see "Hey! This article has problems!". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• agree with collectonian, Roux and Melodia. Wikipedia is a work in progress and that needs to be visible, so the reader can judge the article more easily. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Let's be frank about our shortcomings and not sweep them under the rug. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

  So, my interpretation of what I see above: "We know that Wikipedia is a piece of crap, and we want to make sure that all of our readers know that as well." Yea, I'm intentionally embellishing the counter point here, but if you don't believe that some people see this sort of thing in this manner then you're only kidding yourself.

  The main issue here to me though, is simply neatness and maintainability. If there is a little separation between the actual content and these sorts of editorial targeted content, then the presentation is simpler and neater, which more appropriately brings the focus to the article itself. Then both readers and editors can concentrate more on either the article or the editing process, which is generally a good thing. Personally, I find the characterization that proposals such as this are attempting to "hide things", or "sweep things under the rug" to be very disingenuous and fairly blatant displays of bad faith. What if the proposal were the opposite, something along the lines of putting the talk page content on the same page as the article? Would those of you opposing this support something like that?
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  • You hit the nail on the head; we do want readers to know WP is a piece of crap. When someone reads an article, we want them to know that it may be biased, or may not present a worldwide view, or that certain statements may be unverified and potentially untrue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not The Truth; readers should know that we have failings. To suggest, even indirectly, that an article on X is The Sole Unquestionable Truth Of X is simply lying. And on the off chance that readers are sympathetic, pointing out that the article is unreferenced, or uncategorised, or whatever, can spur some reader into fixing the issues. Ironholds (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

    Well then... I don't know what to say to that, other then I completely disagree with your apparent worldview on this subject. "Trutiness" isn't something that I equate with avoiding making statements based on what seems to me to be a self-esteem issue. Frankly, I'm wondering why you're even an editor here, after having read that.
    — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 04:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

    My guess is that Ironholds was referring to specifically articles with notices, and exaggerating a bit. It is fairly important for readers to hear that "Hey, this article is toast in aspect X! Wanna come and try to fix it up?" (that's also a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the point). An article is never quite finished, and it's important to identify which areas need cleanup, and try and recruit the readers to help. --Yair rand (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

    Actually, I'm beginning to wonder if we're all largely talking past one another. My main concern is with tags and comments which are clearly directed towards editors, and I think that we're off in the weeds a bit right now. Things like {{Under construction}}, {{merge}}, and especially inline comments such as (I'm only using this because I happen to know that it exists and where to find it) <!-- do not change -->is<!-- to "was" until the cancellation is enacted; it is only proposed at this time. See talk page for more. -->. We could and really should discuss whether or not specific templates, messages, and other things are moved to editnotices, I'm just trying to start that sort of conversation in the first place.
    — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - as others have said the notices, whilst potentially ugly - are valuable information for readers and editors alike. "I find the characterization that proposals such as this are attempting to "hide things", or "sweep things under the rug" to be very disingenuous..." Then I don't know what I can do other than say that I genuinely agree with the position of the other people and am not taking up a false position merely for argument's sake. "... and fairly blatant displays of bad faith." Well, I don't think you're a bad person for wanting cleaner looking articles. I'm sure your heart is in the right place. I just feel strongly that Wikipedia should display its shortcomings. I know cleanup templates are sometimes added by mischievous people as part of a campaign in which they're arguing with others over content. But I'd rather have misapplied templates than missing templates because I'd rather have an overly cautious reader than an overly confident one. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Change in manner in which we are told we have new messages

When ever we log into Wikipedia when some one tells us that we have new messages, we are normally told "You have new messages (last change)". I think it is misleading to say "last change" in brackets, as the messages might not actually relate to our last change - I recently got the "new messages" tag, only to discover that my message related to an edit (or contribution to Wikipedia) that I had actually made back in October (I think it was). Can I just make a plea for a very minor alteration here - that the "You have new messages" tag drops the "last change" from the notification? I agree that it is a good idea to be informed as to when we have new messages, but I do not think the tag really needs to say "You have new messages (last change)" only "You have new messages". So, my proposal is that we drop the words "last change" from this tag. A very small proposal, I know, but I think it might work. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of the (last change) link - it is merely a link to the last change made to your user talk page. Shereth 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes; the "last change" links to the last change made to your talk page, which in most cases is the new message that you are being notified about. Happy‑melon 23:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone use the 'last change' bit - I'm forever thinking - 'I wonder if there is more than one?' and end up checking the whole page rather than the diff anyway... ? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I use last change and then look at the "Previous edit" to see if it was Other Than Me. –xeno^talk 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've missed messages in the past by relying on the last change thingy. DuncanHill (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

maybe if we added a history link along with the last changes link? --Ludwigs2 01:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that a link to the page history of the talk page would be more useful than the "last change" link, so I would support including it (either as a replacement or in addition to "last change"). –Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a change to the history link. DuncanHill (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; my first stop is always the "history" page, since "last changes" isn't particularly useful if there have been multiple edits. Ironholds (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer addition of (history), rather than replacement of the "last change" and I suspect many others might be surprised by having the "last change" go away as well. However, if consensus develops to do this, someone please write me a .js or .css so I can personally keep it the way it is. –xeno^talk 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to having both (personal preference is just for history, but variety is the spice of life, live and let live, each to their own, one man's meat, insert your cliche of choice here). DuncanHill (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Duncan, if you dig through my monobook.js page, you'll find links to the personal message banner changer. You should be able to add a hist link using that. → ROUX ₪ 17:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Roux, but I hate fiddling around with monobook.js stuff, always seems to take me an age to figure out, and never works how I expect it to. Now, a gadget, that I'd use. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday I tried playing around with MediaWiki:Newmessages to see if I could add a history link. However my edits had no effect and I reverted them. It seems that either that interface page is not used by the software anymore, or else it has a different purpose. Anyway, I support adding a history link to the new message bar. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys might be interested in my user script User:Davidgothberg/newmessageshistory. It adds a history link to the "You have new messages" bar. It works in all browsers tested so far, and works in all the skins on the English Wikipedia. That script is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts, which usually is a good place to look for a script when one wants some function. Often someone has thought of it before and already coded it up.

And I agree, the history link should be there by default, since often there is more than one new message when one have been away for some days. I'd love to get consensus to add it to the global javascript so at least all users with javascript enabled gets it. Or at least be allowed to add it as a "my-preferences - Gadget".

MSGJ: The interface message that holds the text content for the "You have new messages" bar is MediaWiki:Youhavenewmessages. But please don't experiment on it like you did with the other interface message, it will break the user scripts that rely on it. There is no way to change that interface message itself to add a history link. That takes an update to the MediaWiki system, or javascript.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Same topic, different question

Would there be any consensus for changing the New Messages template so that it was a smaller, fixed position div, rather than the current banner? I sometimes miss new messages when I'm working farther down the page on an article (since the page top isn't visible), and the banner takes up an awful lot of room for its contents. with a fixed pos div the banner would always be on screen, and could be positioned as a nice discrete notice off in a corner. --Ludwigs2 01:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me to be exactly the sort of thing personal CSS is for. Algebraist 01:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

that's true, I didn't think of it. can you tell me the actual template name so that I can get the ID info (or else send me a message so that I can check the page source)? I don't know where to find the sucker. --Ludwigs2 01:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

never mind, I figured it out. if anyone else is interested, just enter .usermessage {position:fixed; top: 1.5em; right: 1.5em; width:20em} in your personal monobook.css file (User:<yourname>/monobook.css). you can play with the numbers to suit your own preferences. --Ludwigs2 03:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, I've been thinking of doing exactly this for a while now, but I've been too lazy to... well, to do it myself (I was about to use a colloquialism here, but it would have really pegged me in a couple of ways. ) Anyway, for anyone wondering: For newer users, those who are using "the beta", or those who have gone and switched their skin, the user page to edit would be User:<yourname>/vector.css or User:<yourname>/<name of other skin>.css. Most of those reading this, who aren't using monobook, will want to change vector though. If you're having trouble, just post a question about it on your own talk page, and be sure to use {{helpme}}.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 07:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A handy way to link to these pages without this <yourname> stuff is: Special:Mypage/monobook.css, Special:Mypage/vector.css, etc. –xeno^talk 14:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I was trying to think of that Special page link last night, but I couldn't recall it or find it quickly, so I just aped Ludwigs2's style above. Here's a corollary thought though: someone should come up with a change to create something like Special:Mypage/MyCurrent.css, so that the link automatically goes to the Vector, Monobook, Classic, or whatever skin the user who clicks it happens to be using at the time.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI bugzilla:6908 is the relevant request. mattbr 19:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That ought to be possible with a conditional template, assuming the list of possible CSS pages is well-defined and fairly small. it would be even easier if there was a magic word that gave back the user's current skin name (though I don't think that there is). --Ludwigs2 20:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We already have a method to link to the personal CSS and javascript files for the current skin: Special:Mypage/skin.css and Special:Mypage/skin.js. That method has not been widely announced yet so it is not so well known. It is javascript based, so only works for users with javascript. But most users that edit their CSS and javascript skin files probably have javascript enabled.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP adoption or review

Here are couple more ideas to address substantive problems:

• Adoption -- Currently unwatched BLPs are divided among volunteers. The BLPs thus become watched, thus any problems are more likely to be seen and corrected. (I have no idea how many currently unwatched BLPs exist.)
• Review -- A bot kicks out random BLPs to volunteers periodically. The volunteers check over the pages. Maurreen (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are more than 50,000 unwatched BLPs. I would oppose just giving them out to volunteers to watchlist. For the most part it just masks the problem. Say I'm watching one of these pages, and a new user makes an edit that isn't obvious vandalism or libel, but doesn't have a source. I'm not interested in the topic and I have no knowledge of it outside of what's already in the article. What do I do now? I can become the official researcher of the article (meaning I'm forced to do something I'm not interested in). I can just revert every unsourced edit (which isn't really allowed by policy and would be rather hostile). Or I can just ignore it (which isn't much better than having no one watch it). This also exacerbates a further problem in the future. While there are 50,000+ BLPs that we know for sure aren't watched, there are thousands more that have only one or two watchers. Of these, we don't know how many are being watched by active users (since the specifics of who is watching which page is private data) and there are likely thousands of these articles that are effectively unwatched even if technically they have 1 or 2 watchers. If we give people articles to watch like this, then a year or 2 from now, we run into the same problem, as users leave the project or become less active.

The idea about reviewing them is nice, but without something like FlaggedRevs, its a rather futile task. Mr.Z-man 06:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Allowing users to delete pages in their own userspace

IMHO, it might be a good idea to let everyone delete pages in their own userspace instead of nominating it for WP:CSD. Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 09:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If they are the only contributers, yes. Sole Soul (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Support: I can't think of an objection to this (noting Sole's caveat). I have no insight to the technical aspects of the proposal; how difficult it would be to implement giving all users deletion rights in their own space. --bodnotbod (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Albeit all that most folks really need is to Blank their pages as long as we have userspace not indexed. Collect (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment You might want to look at the reasoning in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/7SeriesBOT‎ for why this wasn't implemented. Josh Parris 11:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• This has been proposed several times before and is practically a perennial now. Last I recall, the administrator workload of deleting userspace pages was not even close to significant enough to necessitate it. And of course, it would likely require a software change and the developers have more important features they should be working on. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The traditional problem with this proposal has been dealing with its interactions with page moves. Allowing a user to both move a page to his userspace and delete pages within his userspace is equivalent to allowing that user to delete any page. --Allen3 ^talk 12:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline: It's been requested before and declined. There's still an open bug about giving people a grace period to perform self deletions (eg: if you're the only author and it's within N hours of being created) which might be doable. As for granting ownership to user pages, that's not going to happen (at least on the software side). ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• {{db-u1}} is easy enough to use, so what's the issue being addressed here?
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 19:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• I withdraw. Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 03:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • P.S. Did I say anything about ownership? Most editors wouldn't other editors' userspace with a barge pole unless it's intended to be edited, or they've been asked to, or that page's been vandalised, or... OK, I admit my last statement makes no sense. Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 03:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

References on talk pages

I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#References on talk pages to get input on handling references in draft text on talk pages. If anybody has input or ideas please contribute there.   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Revive Wikipedia:Neglected articles?

Wikipedia:Neglected articles was triage project based on:

• The number of distinct editors that have touched the page (+1000 points each)
• If the first edit was by an anonymous contributor (-100 points)
• If the last edit was by an anonymous contributor (-100 points)
• The number of revisions (+1 point each)
• The timestamp of the latest revision (determines the fractional part of the score)

In addition or instead, otther factors could be used, such as whether they are watchlisted or WP:BLPs.

Anyone else interested? Maurreen (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly would the point of it be? I mean, I can understand it being used as a way of locating and watchlisting un-watched articles, but the admin tools already allow access to similar lists. I can also see it turning into a disaster of MzMcbride proportions. Creating a big list of "hey, you, vandals! Here's a load of articles nobody has edited in ages or watchlisted! Oh, and they're BLPs! Have fun!" is obviously problematic. Your idea of including watchlisting stats may have a technical issue; "articles not watchlisted" are, for obvious reasons, not normally available to the wider community, so I'm not sure how a list would be effectively compiled and maintained. Ironholds (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of us are not admins. Maurreen (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That whole idea that these types of lists are "hey, you, vandals! Here's a load of articles nobody has edited in ages or watchlisted!" is a crappy meme that seems to have sprung up in the last year or so, and personally I'm sick of it. Look guys, "unseen vandalism" is failed vandalism, and it's not a problem as long as you fix it as soon as you do see it. The primary reason that vandals vandalize is so that they gain (negative) attention. If nobody pays them any heed then they just move on and (most likely) find a higher profile target.

Aside from that, these sorts of lists bring attention to the articles that they list, so the cornerstone of the criticism is completely irrelevant. If a few hundred people (or even a few tens of people) suddenly start watching a few thousand articles, then any vandalism that does occur can obviously be reverted/fixed. Is the criticism advocating that there should be more unwatched articles, or something?
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And the project didn't seem to bring any unwanted attention when it was active. Maurreen (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Have in mind that most vandals are (or behave as if they were) childs making a scene to gain attention. The concept of a tool like this would be too complex for them to even notice its existence: they would simply go to the article about the movie they did not like, the politician they hate, the topic requested to them in the school, and place some insults or nonsense. Users experimented enough as to notice the existence of such a list would be also aware that "Vandalism is futile", because it is noticed and reverted and no harm remains. MBelgrano (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you can make lists like this for yourself, or even in Wikipedia space, and the software will allow you to "watchlist" the whole list through the use of Special:RelatedChanges. I've got four such lists, of which the subject matter interests me personally, right on my user page, and I've copied them to relevant WikiProject pages as well. The difficulty is in making up the initial list of page links, and the criteria complicates that even further. Regardless, the creation of such lists is entirely feasible, and anyone could really come up with them (although, access to the number of watchers data is limited to admins, so getting an admin to run the list creation tool may be a requirement). The point is that you, or anyone else, could do this now with little or no extra hoops to jump through.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 04:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking more along the lines of articles that haven't been edited in a while, which wouldn't show up in Recent Changes. Maurreen (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not recent changes, that's different. See Wikipedia:Related changes. Besides, the central point that I was attempting to convey was that the act of making a list of articles is something that you, I, or anyone could do now, with existing tools.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 19:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. How feasible is it to get a list, not related to a particular set of pages, that shows single-editor articles or articles that have gone the longest without any edits? `Maurreen (talk)

That would be completely feasible, you'll just need some computing resources to devote to it (which I don't personally have, and I unfortunately don't have access to anything that would be usable for this sort of thing right now, either). You start with an old data dump (the one including page histories, obviously) and process that, then you could look at the corresponding live pages in order to check for updates (although, that probably wouldn't be too important for something like this).
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Database reports. Cenarium (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Cenarium, I have put in a request. V = I * R, that's more technical than I am up to. Maurreen (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for Discussion

Ongoing Discussion on implementing the move from Articles for Deletion to Articles for Discussion is occurring. Further input there would be appreciated.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Suspend replacing of ref by Template:r in citations

• Moved to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Citation discussion.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

References

• Moved to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Citation discussion.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Software solution to citation mess?

• Moved to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Citation discussion.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

'things you may have missed' section for movie articles

I propose that movie articles should have a 'things you may have missed' section at the end of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemmiwinks2 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We already have that, it's called a link to the IMDB, which has a trivia and goofs section. --Golbez (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What he said. 'Things you may have missed' falls afoul of both the guideline against including random trivia and neutral point of view. → ROUX ₪ 06:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

'Things you may have missed' are not always 'trivial' (did you know that Harrison Ford was a replicant in 'Bladerunner'?) and the vast majority should be entirely non-controversial. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

While individual entries within such a section may not be trivial (i.e., they may be significant), the existence of such a section is problematic. Content within articles should be presented in an organized and coherent manner, rather than in "Did you know..."-type sections (see Wikipedia:Trivia sections). –Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ford's replicant status in Bladerunner could be included in the plot summary. Regardless of what any of us say here we will still see trivia sections and the like on articles. I don't have much of a problem with them (I know others feel differently) but I certainly don't support any proposal to actively encourage a specific section be added to articles. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: The problem with "things you may have missed", "Did you know...?" or similar sections is that they underestimate the reader: when it is decided what is placed there and what isn't, it is worked on the asumption that the reader "does not know" such things, and that may not be the case at all. It's better to state the obvious and the "not so obvious" information in the same descriptive tone. For example, let's consider the movie "The Lord of the Rings". Even if there is people that doesn't know so, telling "Did you know this movie is based on a book?" would be found as too condecendent for the people to whom such detail is obvious knowledge. On the contrary, a section about creation and production, that includes such information and how or why it was decided to make a movie from such book won't be found problematic for either those that knew or didn't knew such thing. MBelgrano (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Making it easier for people to report issues about their biographies on Wikipedia

Per this blog entry, [32] (paragraphs begins with "It is frustratingly hard to contact Wikipedia"), there is some discussion about how we can make it easier for people with a Wikipedia entry to report BLP violations. Please contribute suggestions and comments at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Helping_non-editors_fix_BLPs. Mahanga^Talk 23:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I sort of addressed this above, but this is a bit different take on the subject. There are means to contact the WMF, which are linked to from the footer on every page here. If the Foundation feels a need to make it easier to contact them, then I'm fairly sure that they could do that on their own. I'm still concerned about the effect that anything like this would have on the concerns detailed specifically in Wikipedia:Autobiography, and also mentioned in Wikipedia:Biography and even Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. You've gotta admit, it's pretty tough to maintain an objective viewpoint about yourself.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute issues

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I keep putting off bringing it up for various reasons, but I really think that we should discuss doing something to improve our content dispute resolution mechanisms. I've long felt that our content dispute policy and procedures are seriously lacking, from undo/rollback usage, page protection, 3RR, deletion, etc..., and we should at least discuss ways we could improve the situation. Here's one good example: take a look at what has recently happened with Bgillesp (talk · contribs). Now, granted, that user's approach was all wrong, but he was obviously new and acting in good faith so at least his reactions were fairly honest (and let's please stay away form the behavioral stuff about him or anyone else in this discussion).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you concisely sum up the problem with content dispute resolution mechanisms? Maurreen (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an issue that's come up on the Strategy wiki. There's a user there called Randomran you might want to look up who has taken a specific interest in this. This is the recommendation that springs to mind but there may be others. --bodnotbod (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to piece together what happened with Bgillesp (talk · contribs), but maybe a template or page should be created and specially designed for new users that explains the common problems they run into. After a little more looking, I presume this explains the relevant episode with Bgillesp: User_talk:Nancy#Machiavelli_and_The_Mayflower. Lambanog (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't know or care much what the Bgillesp issue was (if just one user's being a problem, it can generally be dealt with), but certainly we need to improve our handling of content disputes (I prefer the word "disagreements"). What's wrong with content dispute resolution mechanisms? - it's that we don't have any. The only way to get a disagreement over content settled is to esaclate it into a battle so that it becomes a behavioural dispute - then MedCom and ArbCom and so on will get involved. But that's clearly not a satisfactory solution. Generally speaking the community seems to have lost the plot - worrying more about process and proper behaviour than about getting the encyclopedia right (or believing that our procedures for dealing with problem behaviour are so good that they will make the encyclopedia automatically come right - true up to a point, but not enough). Does Adam Mickiewicz's nationality have to change every time another editor drops by with his personal view on the matter? Can there not be a mechanism for settling such issues with effective force (but based not on majority voting betweem factions, but somehow on - dare I say the word - scholarship)?--Kotniski (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The only way I see that for that to occur is if there are recognized scholars willing to lend their name to a dispute and the creation of a certain new "elite". If that is the road taken partnering with universities might be an idea. Surely there are educational institutions out there that would be interested in raising their profile. But that's getting ahead of things. Lambanog (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a step in the right direction would be to list willing subject matter "specialists." Then encourage people in a content disagreement to refer the matter to an appropriate specialist. Maurreen (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course there are certain issues like those involving politics that are intractable no matter what specialists you bring to the table. Lambanog (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's true - probably there ought also to be people involved who are don't necessarily specialize in the specific area concerned, but who are familiar with the processes and are trusted to have no point of view to push except for the neutral one. Something like the editorial board I imagine printed encyclopedias having (does anyone know what printed encyclopedias actually do?)--Kotniski (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, some issues seem hopeless.

But here's a start.

Please dive in. Probably everyone has some expertise to offer. Maurreen (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the outline of the problem, which is the main reason that I brought this up (the issue with the user merely prodded me into finally starting a discussion section about it). I totally disagree with the thought that we need "subject matter experts". As a matter of fact, I'd speculate that the introduction of SME's would cause the problem to become massively worse, and would likely disenfranchise most (if not all) current editors. I think that the solution is much simpler, although it would require some amount of actual work on our part. My current idea is that we need to beef up both the process and participation in Third Opinion, including possibly (probably?) making the decisions of a 3O arbiter binding. I think that we have the basic tools to deal with this already, we just need to put them into use is all.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So what's the difference between a "3O arbiter" and a "subject matter expert"? Is there any difference, except that the second is more likely to get it right?--Kotniski (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The one thing that I can think of is that, as normal editors, they would at least be familiar with Wikipedia and it's peculiarities. That being said you do have a point, and I think that in the end the same criticisms would apply to whomever was doing the reviews. Wikipedia has eschewed peer review mechanisms many times in the past, so... I don't know. There must be some way to actually resolve content issues, though.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

One important difference is that we know a simple way to find out if someone is a "3O arbiter" (it's a random user of Wikipedia who read and answered a third opinion request), but it is harder to find out if someone is a "subject matter expert"... For example, simply asking and trusting the answer might end up disadvantaging the ones who are honest and humble. Even if we could find out and check the actual facts about the expertise, there would be further problems. Let's take a rather extreme example: what method would we end up using to decide who is a better "subject matter expert" in a discussion about a newly "invented" perpetuum mobile - its "inventor", or some physicist? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's tricky question. On one hand, if I want expertise on some narrow, deep issue I would go to a specialist. But it seems we need to maintain a context. I.e., a specialist needs to respect the broader constraints of physics, of which the physicist can inform us. So perhaps it's not an either/or question, but a matter of how to relate these different kinds of expertise? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It get's worse, actually. One of the people in this discussion (it's fairly well known info, but I'll avoid names simply to keep on point) has a Doctorate in Math and lives in Poland. I can't speak for others here, but I trust him to speak knowledgeably about either subject. He could obviously claim to be an SME in math, but could he be one for Poland? Personally, I trust his judgment everywhere (although I don't always completely agree), but I still don't know that I would defer to his opinion, for a variety of possible reasons. Probably more importantly, it's not really the fact that he has an advanced degree, or any degree at all, that gives me confidence in his opinions. Hell, I don't know that I'd defer to my own judgment in the areas which I know that I'm an "expert" in! In the end, there's likely just too many issues surrounding such a proposal. Again though, we really should be able to come up with something that could better the situation. Even if it's small, any improvement would help.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have some experience in citizendium as it was getting started, a system which uses content experts (they call them editors); disputes about content normally turn out to be an exercise in trying to trump each others credentials, articles are subject to ownership rather than community writing, there are frequent POV splits, and the net result is an extremely small number of actually approved articles after three full years. I'm not there much these days--we do better here. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting - though it's not to say we can't find a way of working that takes the best and rejects the worst from both systems. It's not as if the problems of perceived ownership and never-resolved content disputes are unknown to Wikipedia either.--Kotniski (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sponsorship of development proposals

Has the Foundation ever done any sponsorship of Mediawiki development projects other than hiring, ordinary contracting, and Google Summer of Code? Has there ever been a bug bounty or a community feature contracting pool? I understand that Wikimedia DE in Germany has sponsored some work, but I wonder if there is any precedent for that being done here. I ask because of this deletion from here, which I've been attempting to discuss without any luck so far. I hope everyone who wants to discuss the issue of how the Foundation funds Mediawiki development will speak up during the IRC strategy session office hour which are in just under 2.5 hours as I write this. 99.22.95.61 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For those of you who followed or have read the transcript of the discussion, I would like to point out that the Red Cross requires all donors to select an earmark under which to dedicate their donation funds. 99.22.95.61 (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a new "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight

A proposal to add a new "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *^YES! 09:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to Contact BLP Subjects

On Wikipedia recently completed a survey of BLP subjects. Based on the results of that survey, they've suggested two things: 1) That there should be a more visible and easier way for BLP subjects to contact OTRS with concerns 2) That we should make an effort to contact as many BLP subjects as possible and ask them if their articles are fair and accurate, if they would like to contribute a picture under a free license, etc.

Personally, I'm leery of proposal one. If you make it easier to contact OTRS it might get overwhelmed, perhaps with random trolls emailing things in. On the other hand, proposal 2 sounds like a great idea. On Wikipedia got a very high response rate to their survey, and this would be a great way to find out about unknown BLP issues, add information to articles, get images, and give the public a better image of Wikipedia. So, I suggest that we go for it. Even if it proves impossible to contact all (or even most) BLP subjects, contacting even just a few thousand could bring some really good results. HH Nobody (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 1 might be tweaked. For instance, instead of concerns going to OTRS, they could go to a BLP noticeboard. Maurreen (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Making OTRS more visible has been discussed a couple times in the recent past. The main issues are: 1) It needs to be made extremely clear that OTRS is a point of contact for subjects and their representatives only and that it is not the BLP police and 2) Skipping all the intermediate steps from Wikipedia:Contact us will only serve to slow the process down, as people have a tendency to request things that OTRS volunteers are unable to do (delete the article, replace it with an official bio, give the subject editorial control) and time is wasted on both sides. I would be more wary of having BLP subjects complain on an on-wiki noticeboard though. Unfortunately, not all users have the necessary tact to deal with BLP subjects, especially subjects unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Mr.Z-man 20:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's one way it could be set up: A very visible tag on the BLP page tells the subjects and their representatives that they can "click here" to notify WP of any perceived problems. They get a form like an e-mail contact form, but it doesn't ask for their e-mail address or any personal info. They are told that their comments will be public, they are encouraged to check back in x amount of time, at which time any valid concerns should be taken care of. The complaint goes to a central location and is addressed in whatever way is appropriate.

Or even the "Contact us" could be made more visible and clear. Maurreen (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would put forth a few questions about such a process. Once we have contacted these subjects, who will fact check their statements? How and where will we keep records of what the subjects have stated to use as sources? What steps will be taken to ensure that the subjects are not simply presenting themselves in the best possible light to avoid scrutiny, or proper attribution of negative facts in their biographies? We have policies against using WP as a promotional vehicle, and it would be unethical to delete negative information that has outside sources simply on the word of the person with the greatest conflict of interest possible. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 00:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No one is proposing deleting "negative information that has outside sources simply on the word of the person with the greatest conflict of interest possible."

About "What steps will be taken to ensure that the subjects are not simply presenting themselves in the best possible light to avoid scrutiny, or proper attribution of negative facts in their biographies?" -- The same practices, etc., that already apply. Maurreen (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Then what would be accomplished by contacting the subjects of our BLP articles? It's not like we are going to email 1,000 BLP subjects and they are going to suddenly send us a correction of their mother's maiden name. Our obligation as a project is to the readers of our articles, not to the subjects. The last thing we need is a giant pile of complaints saying "No, I wasn't actually 'arrested.' My attorney says I was only 'brought in for questioning' so you can't print that." or "13 newspapers have my date of birth wrong. I am actually 5 years younger than you say." It is highly doubtful that any of our BLP subjects are going to contact us with true, verifiable information that we have somehow gotten wrong. What they will do is abuse any process we present in order to remove factual information from their articles that may present them in a manner that they find objectionable. Reading the survey noted at the beginning of this subject, I believe the results are an excellent reflection that WP is doing its job. That public figures would prefer people read their official website over their WP article is a great indicator that we are far closer to the truth than the publicist/attorney/mom approved version of events. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The obligation is to accuracy and fairness.

Maybe for, for instance, they'll write to tell us that they have no police record at all, and we will check and find no publication of any trouble they've had with the police.

And being arrested is meaningfully different from being questioned by police.

You say, "It is highly doubtful that any of our BLP subjects are going to contact us with true, verifiable information that we have somehow gotten wrong."

But at Wikipedia talk:Volunteer response team#info-en (Quality) – how many a day?, User:Shimgray said, "We get, as I say, half a dozen BLP-issue emails a day, of which four or so are from the subject. To a first order approximation, all or almost all of them have some degree of validity - there are frivolous ones, but they're not that common."

Do you think it makes more sense to have the potential of mass article deletion for the sole reason that they don't list sources? These ideas are attempts to address substantive problems, in comparison with whitewashing. Maurreen (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in my opinion this whole thing ends up being nothing more then a bureaucratized form of drama mongering. I completely believe that this proposal was made in good faith, and I don't fault you for bringing it up, but in the end I think that this is just a terrible idea. The most obvious issue with it, aside from the "drama mongering" issue I started with, is that it only serves to make the seemingly widespread issue that we already have with autobiographical content/editing way worse, since it'd essentially serve to sanction such behavior (or at least make AUTO completely irrelevant). I've recently come to the conclusion that the only thing that would really help with the "BLP problem" is a lower profile of the issue(s) itself, and the articles in question. Since that's not likely to happen though, the only thing remaining to do is grin and bear the problems. It simply takes work having these articles, and I'm not one to shy away from that.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 04:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I too feel that contacting BLP subjects will cause as many problems as it solves. For every plausibly damaging statement that gets happily corrected we will find a valid criticism removed. I don't think people of themselves are the best placed to be writing their own biogs. Such a person can scarcely be neutral which is, after all, one of the central planks our content rests on. Although one positive thing that probably would arise would be getting ahold of some pictures we can use which we often lack for the alive and famous. --bodnotbod (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I know my view isn't in line with current policy, but I don't see a problem with people editing their own biogs, as long as they abide by WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. A person may not be the most objective on the subject of himself, but he is a subject matter expert on that topic and will know whether information is true or not. And who has a better incentive to remove or correct faulty information than the person himself? The need to contact the person is eliminated by the fact that it is within the person's power to make the necessary edits himself. Tisane (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected file pages

Non-admins can't update the description pages of protected images. This means that such pages usually lack links to other versions of the image, and they lack categorization etc. This can also lock out the uploader himself from updating the description, which can be very frustrating and might discourage further image uploads. (I know from personal experience.)

I have a solution for this. It is the same solution that we have used for protected templates for years now. I would like to start using and promote using the {{documentation}} template on protected File pages. I have done the necessary code updates so all the technical stuff is in place. See the technical details, a live example, and discuss it over at Wikipedia talk:Template documentation#File pages.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my first impression of this is that it would be an excellent idea for File:/Image: pages in general. The only thing that I would like to add though is that page protection really shouldn't be infinitely permanent. If you're the original uploader, or even if you're just a longstanding editor who has some need to edit the page/file/image, it should be more non-contentious then it currently is to request un-protection at WP:RFPP. Administrators should be more willing to unprotect pages in general, in my opinion. This is getting a bit off into a side issue however, so I'd like to reiterate that I think using {{documentation}} on pages in the File and/or Image namespace is a great idea.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 21:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if an image is used in a template that is used on 700,000 pages, like , or if the image is used in the interface, like and , then we don't like to unprotect the image. Since then it often magically turns into a rude image. It's a most curios phenomenon. :))

If a regular user can edit the /doc of an image, then they can upload a new version under a new name, and then show it and link to it from the old image page. But without /doc pages they can't advertise the new version, thus it often remains unknown and unused.

But please add your comments over at Wikipedia talk:Template documentation#File pages, since that is the main discussion.

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. In the absence of reasons against count me as leaning support. Lambanog (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What you are proposing is actually related to upload protection, which is currently disabled due to some bugs found. Ruslik_Zero 08:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Upload protection will be reenabled at the next software update, which will hopefully be before the end of the month. At that time this system would become unnecessary. I'm not averse to its implementation in the meantime, but I don't think it should endure beyond the proper deployment of upload protection. Happy‑melon 09:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Call for proposals for Wikimedia UK initiatives

Hi all. The Wikimedia UK board has been putting together a budget for the next year (You can see this, and help with its development, here) and we have some money left over. We are looking for proposals for projects/iniatives with budget requirements in the range of £100-£3000 (GBP). These projects can be either online or offline, but they should be primarily focused on the UK and they must further the objects of Wikimedia UK (broadly, to collate/develop/spread freely licensed material).

The deadline for proposals is the end of this month (i.e. 0:00 UTC on 1 March 2010). You can find more details of the requirements, and how to submit proposals, on our blog. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Begin by getting a consensus for inclusion rather than trying to get consensus for deletion afterward.

(moved from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Discussion_on_offensive_material) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Having worked and taken part in the discussion on a controversial article on Wikipedia I propose that until article content that is sexually explicit (video, photos, illustrations etc.) is based on a consensus for inclusion principle, we will continue to have protracted discussions that exasperate those taking part. I believe it is self-evident that one person selecting a picture from Wikipedia Commons and inserting it into an article is not a consensus (they could be “being bold”, or just being a nuisance, but either way the insertion is not done by consensus). But once that happens (as is all too easy now) the current situation is that the consensus then has to be found to delete it. Then we have the single-issue account holders who just hover around and undo deletions, in the hope no doubt that the page will become protected in the state they prefer. Keeping an image or any content that has not been agreed upon for inclusion is a false default. Even worse this false default can then be protected. This is a totally ridiculous way to do things, and wastes editors and admins time, and plays into the hands of single-issue users (ie. those just here to hover over one page) who cannot tell what is pornographic, obscene or voyeuristic. Sadly such content currently is in WP Commons, and can be inserted into articles whether as vandalism (easier to spot, but still a nuisance to revert) or simply to cause controversy in other articles. If content inserted in this way is treated as default I submit that it is against the spirit of wikipedia.

Wikipedia is currently open to this sort of abuse, and will be, until consensus for inclusion takes over from reaching a consensus for deletion. Consensus for inclusion should IMO be done by submitting images or videos to the discussion page and taking no action to include them until consensus is reached about their suitability and merit (this way discussions avoid becoming hamstrung by selective quoting of the "wikipedia-is-not-censored" policy, which is often used only to defend a false default position). Content under discussion on the talk is not censored, but neither is not including it (if satifactory reasons for not including are given) an act of censorship. Valid reasons given on the talk page for not including may reasonably include all those normally permitted. As with all sexually explicit material discussion should attempt to determine if the material is pornographic or obscene, or in some other way unsuitable, before inclusion. A week or so should be given to allow people time to see the submission. Once its merits have been discussed, and if it is seen to be in the best interests of the article to include it, the content can be then put into the article. To me this represents proper process, what we have now is not. It will not prevent people from “being bold”, but it will hopefully mean a lot less interminable discussions, RfCs, fallings out,and stress over stuff that was never discussed in the first place. I suggest if Wikipedia is to flourish consensus for inclusion is the proper process, and policy should be drafted to make it clear. DMSBel (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If I may refine/adjust this point, I'd like to suggest that this be extended to any offensive material, on a 'demonstration of necessity' basis. In other words, material that is generally considered offensive should not be put on articles unless it can be shown that article content will suffer by its absence. This should give sufficient protection to needed images against 'preachy' removals, while giving greater latitude to remove salacious cruft.

sorry - I've spent the last few weeks arguing this point in nauseating, repetitive detail, and I'd like to see the issue resolved more generally. I have tons of arguments stocked up if anyone wants to hear them. --Ludwigs2 04:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We already have a policy that covers this kind of behavior: WP:BRD. The burden of proof (or gaining consensus) lies on the editor of the initial bold edit. If a bold edit is quickly reverted, discussion should take place before the change is re-implemented. Unfortunately, I agree with you in that this isn't how it goes very often. —Akrabbim^talk 04:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Consensus is NOT a requirement for deletion, but it is for reinclusion of contested content. BRD is a game of ping pong. The one making the bold edit has hit the ball into the opposite court. Now it is the turn of others to hit it back, with no requirement for discussion (but an edit summary should accompany every edit). The only action allowed after that for the original "bold" editor is for them to discuss on the talk page, without making more edits at the same time. They must seek consensus. Everything else is edit warring. That's the genius of the BRD cycle. We are supposed to edit collaboratively here, and the BRD cycle forces editors to sit down at the editing table with editors who hold opposing POV. The best articles are produced in this manner. Only thus can an article truly become NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And every reason given for deletion is shot down with the thought-terminating WP:ISNOTCENSORED. DMSBel (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

First to Ludwig, that is an excellent point and adjustment which I am happy to go with. Please add your arguments here, we can redraft a proposal to include them if they fit.

To Akrabbim, thankyou for pointing that out, I need time to look at the policy you mentioned. Regarding the bold edit - if that policy leaves open the interpretation of a bold edit to be someone who deleted content, rather than someone who specifically inserted controversial or offensive material into the article without in advance submitting it to the talk page for consideration then it may not help us. That is if the burden of proof falls on the person deleting clearly offensive content. The bolder edit in controversial content is always done by the one including it for the first time. It is that sort of editing I submit needs to be discussed first, and that the true (proper) default state is the page before the controversial content was introduced.DMSBel (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Addendum to my reply to Ludwig: While the "demonstration of necessity basis" would be a very useful refinement, to extend it to any offensive material would make it too broad in scope. Separate proposals are needed for material that may be offensive on different grounds.DMSBel (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

adding to Akrabbim: BRD is not policy, or even a guideline. it's a 'supplement' (whatever that means)

BRD may just be a supplement, but it describes the opposite of edit warring, so I hold it in pretty high regard. —Akrabbim^talk 12:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Be very very careful on how you define offensive material. For example, an image of Muhammad is deeply offensive to millions of Muslims and I'm not sure if article content will suffer if they are removed from the Muhammad article, yet strong community consensus indicates they should stay. In other words, different groups of people find different things offensive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am glad you mentioned that NeilN, The proposal can be drafted in such a way not to be universal in scope, but certainly applicable to content which would likely be considered pornographic, exhibitionist, voyeuristic, or non-clinical in some other regard. This proposal does not have any application as regards religious images, pictures etc. It is not intended too cover that dimension. A separate proposal could be drafted for that discussion, but I am not getting involved in that. So yes NeilN, I agree it will need to be limited to sexually explicit visual content.DMSBel (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's such a problem. I think we can clearly assert that the images of Mohammad are offensive; it would be silly to suggest otherwise in the face of all the controversy. Once we acknowledge that, then we have a more-or-less straight-forward discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of the images. if it were me, I'd argue that if we didn't have the images we'd have to describe them in detail, otherwise no one would understand the controversy, and any such attempt would be unsatisfactory and burdensome; the images have a clear use with respect to the content of the article. The main point, however, is that we now have a concrete question to debate: is the information that the images add to the content sufficient to justify the offense the images will cause? Community consensus will ultimately follow the most rational answer to that question. --Ludwigs2 07:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus has already established WP:NOTCENSORED - the treatment of possibly offensive images in achieving consensus on their use or exclusion should not be any different than any other major edit, beyond the "if and only if" clause of WP:F*** (which common sense would apply to anything as potentially offensive as profanity]]. We don't need an additional structure to deal with this class of images any more than what is already in place. A notable outlier is of course with respect to BLPs, which are more sensitive. —Akrabbim^talk 12:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to debate the images here, but the article makes no references to the controversy so that argument couldn't be used. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We most emphatically do need this (in regards to sexually explicit content), as has been proven in numerous articles. I will be continuing with the input of others to refine and adjust this proposal as appropriate to clarify it.DMSBel (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. If something is appropriate to the article, WP:NOTCENSORED applies. If it's not, then it should be removed because...it's not appropriate. If people are using NOTCENSORCED to keep inappropriate items in an article, they are clearly in the wrong. I don't quite get what the hubub is about. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes Melodia, you are right, but you likely have not spent the best part of a week trying to make others see this, it simply is not being done like this in some articles. To people with common sense like yourself this is obvious, others have had their head put in a spin by selective quoting from policy. Maybe editors on pages you have worked on are more reasonable. DMSBel (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

To avoid this going off on a tangent - this has nothing to do with Muhammad pictures. It will not cover that at all. It is particular to content that could be considered pornographic etc, as stated above. DMSBel (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason people bring up Muhammad pics is to bring up the point (per NOTCENSORED) is that Wikipedia does not differentiate between different kinds of offensive material, due to the wide variety of readership that we receive. To introduce a policy that affects only certain kinds of offensive content violates overall neutrality by favoring one set of social norms over others. That's why whatever policies we have covers all content, throughout various spectrums of offensiveness, based only on the merits of how encyclopedic and informative the content is. The only thing that would bring us to do otherwise would be the laws of the US state of Florida, which don't actually regulate any of this at this point. —Akrabbim^talk 19:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the main issue. Some people see "fuck" as offensive. Others, like me, are unaffected by Tubgirl and the like. See the comments here - I appreciate that's long and partly irrelevant since it's on another project, but in particular look at my last comment. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

break 1 (begin by getting consensus)

The problem here, if I may be so bold, is that our 'offensive material' policy relies on editors exercising sound judgement and common sense, and yet offensive material is precisely the kind of content that attracts editors who lack both. all it takes is one editor who will aggressively and shamelessly repeat NOTCENSORED, NOTCENSORED, NOTCENSORED, and you can pretty much guarantee that the most offensive material possible that has any bearing on the topic will be included in the article. Sometimes editors with common sense prevail, but more often than not those with common sense get worn out trying to reason with people who don't really want to reason, but just quote policy in a mindlessly literal fashion. I mean, please... I salute all of you for your innocent faith in the persuasive powers of human reason, but I suggest that you implement some baseline that requires people to use reason to argue for inclusion, because once an image in included, no one in favor of such images is going to listen to arguments against. --Ludwigs2 21:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what is happening. I also think apart from lacking sound judgement and common sense, some of the editors have an agenda and a strategy which relies on keeping the image in the page as long as possible, so that the initial shock that the image generates subsides and people get so used to seeing it that they cannot see any longer what the big deal is. Pardon me for thinking something is badly wrong here.DMSBel (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig2 is completely right and that is why the problem should not be "solved" by implementing even more bureaucracy and "rules", that doesnt solve the problem at heart that Ludwig points out IS the real problem. The real problem is that one (or a handful) of obstinate policy-quoters can ignore and flaunt their total disregard for consensus and keep fighting until they are the last ones standing and get to have their way. If you truly want to solve this and many other problems then you need to strengthen our policies in a way that makes it completely absolutely without a doubt clear to EVERYONE that it a consensus in any certain discussion is the last word and not the word of the last person standing.Camelbinky (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what this is all about. Every edit here is subject to consensus (and policy). I don't see how a single editor can skew consensus for an image or something being kept, if multiple others decide that it is not suitable. If it's a one-vs-one argument, ask on WP:3O or file a RfC. That said, WP:NOTCENSORED is there for several good reasons, one of the most important is: There is no objective definition of "offensive". So it is completely unclear where the proposal should apply or not. To draft such a proposal seems only asking for trouble. We're not here to nanny our readers. If "offensive" material has a place in an article, it can and should stay. If someone doesn't want to look, well, see WP:NOSEE. --Cyclopia^talk 21:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If every edit is subject to consensus (and policy) as you say, then there would be no vandalism on wikipedia. As we know this is not so and one person can edit an article completely without consensusDMSBel (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh god, now I know. DMSBel is involved in an edit war where he repeatedly attempts to delete images of ejaculation in... guess what, the ejaculation article, despite consensus being pretty clearly against him. I'm sorry DMSBel, but one thing is out-of-context questionable images, another is images that are there to represent the article subject. WP:NOTCENSORED applies exactly for these cases. And even if the change you propose was accepted, consensus there is against you, so I can't see what would you gain. --Cyclopia^talk 21:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record yes I have deleted one video once, and I also deleted a photo that had previously been proven to be uploaded by amateur exhibitionist who has a pay to watch porn channel with practically identical material on it. Another editor had researched this to identify where the material originated. There are even people who visit this guy's channel (were you can pay to watch him masturbate) saying there things like "hey man your on wikipedia!". Both myself and another editor have deleted this a couple of times. Cyclopia is of the opinion that it doesn't matter where the material came from or the intent of the uploader. If the material originated from someone jacking-off on a porn-channel he thinks it still is ok to use it here if it illustrates something. DMSBel (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, AGF please. I don't know what DMSBel may or may not be involved with, but it has no bearing in the general principle. Further, you have absolutely no idea what one (or worse, a handful) of editors can do with a piece of policy as badly written as NOTCENSORED. on my own current dispute (goatse.cx) I've seen a group of three or four editors systematically over-rule at least ten editors (make that 14 or 15 if you count IPs) who have objected to the image, generally by singling them out one-by-one and blasting them with multiple posts about NOTCENSORED and violations of consensus as soon as they try to say or do anything on the article. The only reason I've gotten as far with the discussion there as I have is that I have a personal rule never to give in to tendentious editing (nobody out-tendentiousnesses me); most of the other opposing editors quickly gave up and abandoned the argument as too much trouble.

don't get me wrong, I appreciate the principle behind NOTCENSORED, but in practice the damned thing is as far as I can see) used solely to over-ride editors who who to use common sense and sound judgement. that just aint right. --Ludwigs2 22:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

About DMSBel: It's not matter of good faith. He has been explicitly sent here by another editor from the ejaculation talk page. That said, you are right, it has no relevance on the general principle per se, but has relevance on understanding what it is really about (the proposal formulation is pretty vague). About goatse.cx, from the current version of the talk page I don't see a consensus to remove the image (quite the opposite) and again, who calls for WP:NOTCENSORED is absolutely right there: I am no goatse fan, but the image is essential for really understanding what the article is about. The problem with common sense is: there is no thing like common sense. Your "common sense" says that that image should be removed. My "common sense" says that, if we want to be informative, we have also to show uncomfortable stuff. In the end, it all boils down to policy and consensus. What you see as "overriding editors who use common sense and sound judgement" is, for me, overriding editors who want to remove material necessary for the understanding of articles. Now: if you have reasons to say that your position had consensus but it has been violated, you can always seek dispute resolution in the appropriate places. But again there is no reason to change policies or guidelines. --Cyclopia^talk 22:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

re goatse: (and this is off-topic, so let's continue the discussion elsewhere if it needs continuing) you might want to read the conclusion of the last RfC where the editors note that it was 9:6 in favor of removal, but decide that doesn't meet the the 66% standard for actual removal (a standard which, of course, they made up on the spot), and went right back to reverting any attempt to remove it. If you go farther back through the archives you'll find an ever-growing number of editors opposed to the image, as well as several other RfC's, all dominated by the same 3-4 'in favor of' editors. --Ludwigs2 23:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You might also check the mediation page, where I effectively dispose of the argument you're making. you'll see that not even the proponents of the image can come up with a viable reason for why the image should be included, yet the continue to rally for it regardless. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the archive link, and checked the mediation. To my judgement, your interpretation of both things is quite biased. The RfC was correctly closed as not consensual: while there is a 9:6 majority, and I agree a 66% threshold is quite arbitrary, the point is that none of the removal arguments were actually based on anything better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Consensus is not mere head count, it has to take into account the merit of arguments, which in turn have to be possibly based on policies and guidelines. The proponents of the image have a very good argument for inclusion: it is a notable visual meme, and including it adds informational content to the article much better than words. You say that words suffice, but that is not enough for deleting it. We delete an image if it is completely not necessary/redundant, and for sure this is not the case -having the actual image about a visual meme obviously gives the reader a full understanding of what the meme is about, that a description cannot suffice. We have lots of images in articles that explain their subject in words quite well, even "shocking" ones, see for example here. --Cyclopia^talk 02:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And to clarify: this is not off topic in my opinion. This kind of examples are useful to understand what the proposal is about -which, to my eyes, amounts to nullifying WP:NOTCENSORED. --Cyclopia^talk 02:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

well, if you don't think it's off topic that's fine, but let's try to keep it general, and not collapse it back into the goatse discussion specifically. and incidentally, I'd counter that reason often seems biased to people with biases, so unless you want this to devolve into silly ad hominems I'd suggest you keep the discussion on point and avoid making unnecessary judgements.

The problem with your argument (as I've explained several times on the mediation page) is that you're confusing experience with information. Now in one sense, it is trivially true that a picture always has more information than a description (just the way a spoken word has more information than a written word) - the act of experiencing the image (or sound) contains a lot of details that can't be captured in written text. But wikipedia isn't an art gallery, wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we are not necessarily concerned with detailed replication of material, but rather with encyclopedic descriptions of it. There are times (many times, in fact) when a picture is worth a thousand words; a picture of the United States, for instance, will convey the size, shape, and relative location of the US far quicker and far more effectively than any description possibly could. But note that in that case the picture is doing actual work: it is informing the reader of something that we would want to inform them of anyway, and doing it more efficiently than we could do by any other means. other pictures, by contrast, do not do work of this sort. for instance, there are pictures of bibles on the bible article that are largely superfluous: they are not a 'typical' bibles (if there is such a thing), and don't actually provide any information for the article reader. they just give a color and focus, make the page look a little richer, give readers some form of visual identification, or do other secondary tasks not directly related to the encyclopedic function of wikipedia. don't get me wrong, I like those bible pictures. but if they were removed from the article no significant content would be lost.

This same argument applies to offensive images: some of them do encyclopedic work and some of them don't. the images on the penis and vagina articles, for instance, do encyclopedic work: they depict physical objects which are better presented through images than through verbal descriptions, since verbal descriptions likely can't capture them effectively. other offensive images fill ancillary roles, as above (for instance, I could see someone adding an image of a penis to the lingam article as part of a discussion of tantric practices, in case someone was naive enough to miss the relationship). I argue that this distinction is important: offensive images that do encyclopedic work should be retained, while offensive images that do ancillary work should be removed. There's no sense offending people with images that are not needed for clear encyclopedic reasons. This is, of course, a subject to be decided by discussion on individual pages, but what I'm suggesting is that people who want to add potentially offensive images to pages be required to show first that the image is doing some necessary, concrete encyclopedic work.

really, this is just common sense, put in writing. The goatse image would fail this test (better put, it has failed it to date - no one has as yet been able to show what encyclopedic work the image does). the ejaculation image I can't speak to, not having looked at the page. The point is, though, that this (at least) would give some coherent grounds for discussing whether images we know are going to offend people should be used, and allows us to give a decent explanation of why such images are used where we use them.

incidentally, I object to your IDONTLIKEIT comments above, the same way I objected to them on goatse. on goatse, the image proponents habitually asserted that anyone who objected to the image was simply whining, and refused to listen to any other explanation (at least, not until I badgered them enough to force them to listen). you don't get to impose that mental state on people against their wishes. --Ludwigs2 04:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig2, you're running in circles here. You start from the assumption that images like the one on ejaculation or goatse.cx do not do encyclopedic work, but you do nothing to prove this assumption. Quite the opposite: you acknowledged above that in many cases "the picture is doing actual work: it is informing the reader of something that we would want to inform them of anyway, and doing it more efficiently than we could do by any other means." - Problem is, this is true for basically every image. Even the Bible ones you cite are not entirely redundant, they give the reader an idea of what Bible books look like in history.

Now, I for sure understand that we can and should avoid completely gratuitous material. Like, for example, if we have an article on carrots, it is for sure ridicolous to defend including in it an image of a carrot sticked up a human rectum because of NOTCENSORED grounds. That is because the image is not appropriate in the context. But if we for some reason had an article on bum-sticking of carrots, then the image would be appropriate, even if the description is pretty straightforward by itself,and as such it should never be deleted.

This kind of criteria has the advantage that it doesn't rely on any "common sense" or "offensiveness" criteria. A photoshop of a carrot being carried by rainbow-painted unicorns is as nonsensical in the carrot article than the bum-sticking one, despite the image being absolutely non offensive. It is because it depicts the subject in a distracting, misleading and unnecessary context.

Again: there is nothing like "common sense": the very fact we're disagreeing means that such sense is not common at all. There is nothing like an objective definition of "offensive", too. These cannot be grounds therefore to decide of content. If an image is gratuituously misleading, it may go. If it is not, it should stay. --Cyclopia^talk 18:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia: you seem to have misunderstood me, since you've gone halfway to arguing my case for me. At any rate, let's be clear. I'm not making any assumptions here. In fact, I am saying that we cannot assume that an image is doing encyclopedic work merely because it's an image related to the topic. that is a matter for discussion, and it is up to the people who support the image's inclusion to explain what work the image is doing in the article. If they can't, it shouldn't be included. This is just the equivalent of wp:BRD for written content - editor X adds something, editor Y reverts, and then editor X is expected to justify her addition in discussion. why shouldn't that work for offensive content as well?

The problem here is that NOT#CENSORED, historically, has been used primarily to break the BRD cycle: i.e., an editor adds an image, another editor is offended and reverts it, then the first editor reinserts it under NOT#CENSORED, and the only discussion in talk is a rather nauseatingly repetitive parroting of NOT#CENSORED, IDONTLIKEIT, and etc. against any and all arguments. In the majority of cases it works out (i.e. there really is good reason for the image, even though no one has bothered to point it out). but in those cases where there isn't a good reason (or where the issue, at least, is debatable), the refusal to discuss the issue is irritating, and the constant, mindless reference to policy is officious, supercilious, and frustrating. a requirement that the proponents of the image must offer an explanation of the image's value solves this frustration quickly and effectively: either the proponents can do it (in which case there's no grounds for objection) or the proponents can't (in which case there's no grounds for retaining the image).

Again, this is pure common sense: I defy you to show me an article where this wouldn't work to the advantage of the encyclopedia. --Ludwigs2 19:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The good-faith addition of an image to an article carries an implied justification: the image is added because it illustrates the topic of or content contained in the article. Requiring proponents of an image to explain the image's value only partly solves the problem as constructive discussion is possibly only when both (or all) sides explain their position. Not only should proponents of an image explain why they believe it should be included in an article, but those who oppose inclusion of the image should explain why they believe it is not useful without relying on arguments about the perceived offensiveness of the image. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who suggested DMSBel come here as s/he posted much of the introductory text above to the Ejaculation talk page. I felt the article should not be under any special rules regarding consensus and that DMSBel's proposal should have wider community input. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

break 2 (begin by getting consensus)

I'd like to point out that if this is going to degenerate into just another forum for an existing content dispute- this isnt the place for that! Is there an actual unbiased proposal for making a new policy or change in procedure for Wikipedia as a whole or is this just an attempt to get a "wider community input" on a localized dispute? If the later then take it elsewhere please. AGF that forum shopping isnt going on, but it looks like this should go back to talk page and some sort of mediation, not dragged here. ThanksCamelbinky (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you're quoting my "wider community input" phrase I'll assume you're at least partially referring to me. WP:AGF. I have not nor do I have any intention of debating specific article content here. The first two paragraphs of this section outline the proposal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

camelbinky - whatever! if you don't want to deal with the issue, no one is forcing you to read the thread. --Ludwigs2 00:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no ethical right to take offensive. The classic analysis is in Mill's On Liberty, although his prose is contorted. His main points are: most points are claiming as offensive by someone, and a right to take offensive would cut off discussions on too many that are important and need top be discussed; and some will game a right to take offensive, not because they are actually outraged but because they are using it as a polital or commercial ploy.

IMO goatse.cx is WP:NOTABLE of the well-citated memes and incidents - including cases where some worthy organisations were too focussed on being worthy and forgots to be alert. Explaining these memes and incidents needs an explaining of their cause, goatse.cx, including explanation of the images. Some of these memes also refer implicitly to the "Hands of God" image. It

If we were discuss a topic, e.g. Onion or Gobstopper, we'd happy include a image that helps to explain the topic. As there's no right to take offensive, a image of the "Hands of God" image should be include to explain that topic.

There are must more topics where we need discussion of explanations and images, e.g. where lives rather than outraged are at issue. For example the use of common domestic chemicals to produce explosives and nerve gas. Even in these topics, a blanket would be wrong: potential preprepetors don't get their instruction manuals from WP; and at some time it may be inadvisable to explain to the public how to detect such attempts, save them selves and alert the authorities. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the question here does is not about the offensiveness of particular images - that is easy to determine through simple discussion. The question is about our criteria for using material we know is offensive. Policy like NOT#CENSORED is not intended to protect content merely because it's offensive; it is intended to protect content that has encyclopedic value despite the fact that it's offensive. important distinction... --Ludwigs2 15:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree, but I would like to suggest a slightly different perspective. NOT#CENSORED is a core principle of Wikipedia, and I think that extensive evaluation of whether an image is

1. Offensive but appropriate;
2. Offensive and inappropriate;
3. Non-offensive and appropriate; or
4. Non-offensive and inappropriate

misses the point. The purpose of NOT#CENSORED is to de-emphasize the dimension of "offensiveness" as a criterion for evaluating content, and instead to focus discussion on the value of an image in the context of a particular article.

I do agree with the suggestion that if an image is added by one editor and removed by another, then the first editor should explain why the image is appropriate for or useful in that particular article. However, just as with any content, there must be a valid reason for reverting the addition; in other words, an editor should not revert the undiscussed addition of an image solely because he or she considers it to be (potentially) offensive. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Black Falcon: I'm going to respond to both of your posts here, to keep things together. Obviously anyone who removes content should have a reason for doing so. However, I think it's counter-productive to try to 'de-emphasize' the offensiveness of images. That kind of 'head in the sand' mentality never works anywhere, and generally leads to bad feelings all around. Offensiveness clearly is a valid reason to want an image removed; it's just not a very good reason. There is a fairly low bar for presenting better reasons which will allow the image to be included over any offense, but discussions should focus on rising to that bar, not trying to sneak around it.

Look at it this way. when an editor removes an image that offends him, we have two choices when we put the image back: (a) we can tell him that the reason the image has to remain is such-and-such, or (b) we can tell him that wikipedia doesn't care that he's offended. the first leads to a proper discussion that will leave the complaining editor with a better understanding of the situation, where he might even come to agree with it; the latter leads to an editor who feels frustrated and angry over what he will only see as a stupid editor using a stupid policy o protect a stupid image. which do you think is more in line with wikipedia's core principles? --Ludwigs2 08:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I fear that, in my attempt to address your comments separately, the structure of my argument may have been compromised. My suggestion was not to ignore the issue of offensiveness or to ignore editors who suggest (in good faith) that an image should be removed because it is offensive, which is the 'head in the sand' mentality to which you seem to refer, but rather to deliberately shift the focus of discussion away from an ultimately unproductive debate about the extent to which an image is 'offensive' to the various editors participating in a discussion. I agree with you that "Wikipedia is not censored" alone, with no accompanying explanation of usefulness, is a poor reply to "Why is this offensive image included?" I do, however, disagree on one point: offensiveness is a reason for wanting an image removed but "being objectionable", by itself, generally is not a valid reason.

Those who support the inclusion or retention of an image in an article absolutely should explain how the presence of the image is useful (i.e., encyclopedic value) and why, despite the fact that it may be offensive to some, it is acceptable on Wikipedia (i.e., WP:NOT#CENSORED). If such an explanation is provided (option A in your example), then the editor who removed the image will either: (1) accept the explanation and not object to restoring the image; (2) disagree with the explanation and attempt to explain why the image is not useful; or (3) reject the explanation because he considers the image to be offensive. In the first case, the issue is resolved and the image can be restored without further discussion. The second option leads to productive discussion about whether the presence of the image in the article is useful (i.e., whether it properly illustrates the topic, whether a better replacement exists or could be created, and so on), and the image should be restored or removed depending on the discussion.

The third option, which is sadly all-too-common, can be addressed in one of three ways: (3a) we can ignore WP:NOT#CENSORED and yield to the editor's demands to remove the image, regardless of its usefulness; (3b) we can try to convince the editor that the image is not really, truly offensive; or (3c) we can point the editor to WP:NOT#CENSORED and ask him to offer a reason other than "it is offensive" if he wishes for the image to be removed. The first is quite clearly not a good option, as it involves ignoring a core principle; the second would be a futile exercise that would probably result in frustration and anger; and the third would re-orient the discussion toward valid reasons for removing the image.

So, though we should not fail to address the issue of offensiveness or to explain why an image is useful, we also should not engage or encourage discussion about the offensiveness of an image. If an editor's only objection to an image is that it is 'offensive' to him, then really there is very little to discuss. We can and should show "care", as you write above, by taking the time to politely explain why the image is included (i.e., utility) and why Wikipedia allows potentially offensive content, but we cannot hope and should not strive to unruffle every ruffled feather when dealing with an editor who simply does not care about a core policy and the fact that Wikipedia does not exist solely to please his sensitivities. Now, it would be highly inappropriate to write as bluntly as I have at the start of a discussion, but it may be necessary when faced with an editor suffering from chronic "refusal to 'get the point'". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 09:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, we seem to be seeing exactly the same problem (editors who refuse to respond to reasoned argument), we just worry about it happening happening on different sides.

That being said, you've missed what I see as the correct approach to your third option (call it 3d): say explicitly "Yes, we all know the image is offensive, we don't like using it, but it fills a particular need in the article so we don't see that we have a choice." By acknowledging the offensiveness and pointing back to the reason for inclusion, we remove offensiveness as an explicit argument and force the opponent to justify removal by arguing about the value of the content (as well as opening the door for people to suggest tamer alternatives, if they can). The problem here is that the vast majority of editors use NOT#CENSORED without providing a reason for inclusion. Anyone who is offended by the image will see that and assume that there is no reason to include the image - they will think that the intention is (merely) to offend. by requiring an explicit reason for inclusion and acknowledging the offensiveness of the material we defuse the emotional reactivity and force the discussion to focus on reasons. but so long as we disregard the fact that people feel offended and allow editors to insist on inclusion without providing an explanation of the content's value, we're going to have never-ending talk page conflicts and endless steams of people being bitchy to each other.

I don't really think we disagree here, and I'm having a hard time understanding why you're arguing this point. You agree that editors supporting an offensive image should always provide a decent reason for its inclusion - you said so above - so what's the problem with making that an official part of policy? --Ludwigs2 19:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

On that point, and most others, we don't disagree, and I support clarifying the policy in a manner as suggested by NeilN (02:22, 21 February 2010), for example. Our only point of disagreement seems to be whether editors should evaluate and comment on the offensiveness of an image at all. You wrote, "by requiring an explicit reason for inclusion and acknowledging the offensiveness of the material we defuse the emotional reactivity and force the discussion to focus on reasons". I see two distinct and independent processes there: (1) requiring an explicit reason for inclusion, with which I agree; and (2) acknowledging the offensiveness of the material, with which I disagree.

When we comment on the offensiveness of the material, we give validity to 'offensiveness' as a factor in the discussion or as a possible reason to remove the image if it provides relatively little value. We should not "disregard the fact that people feel offended", but I believe we should be clear about the fact that the offensiveness or non-offensiveness of the image is not a relevant topic of discussion and will not (in principle) affect the decision to retain or remove it. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, you are correct that I worry more about the side that wishes to remove an image. Of those who wish to keep an image in an article, few or none will want to do so in order to offend; of those who wish to remove an image from an article, many or most will want to do so merely because they are offended. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't but help thinking that your last statement is extremely naïve. granting that few established wikipedia editors intend outright offense, I have heard more than enough 'people should suck it up' type arguments to know that there's a strong pseudo-moralistic sub-current here. I do not think that wikipedia is supposed to be social engineering tool to wean people off their (irrationally held) moral standards.

That being said, the failure to acknowledge the offensiveness of material is exactly the kind of 'head in the sand' mentality that I was complaining about earlier. If someone is offended some material, and you try to pretend that they are not offended (or worse, that it doesn't matter whether they are offended), they will not cease to be offended. they will continue to be offended by the material, and will become further offended by the attitude that you've presented to them. I cannot think of a more direct and sure way to escalate and entrench bad attitudes on an article than to adopt the approach you've suggested.

Honestly, this debate splits along a very simple question: should wikipedia as a project demonstrate tact or shouldn't it? I can understand the need to preserve offensive material when there is a clear need to do so, but where there is no clear need, demanding it anyway is just plain tacky. Unfortunately, wikipedia editors - who can indeed be trusted with a lot of things - cannot be trusted to be tactful on contentious issues (I don't know whether you'd prefer to see proof of that from talk page examples or from research in small group dynamics - I can provide either in spades). Or are you going to come straight out and say that wikipedia is supposed to be a tacky encyclopedia?

minor rant over. I think NeilN's suggestion has some merits as well, but I'll address that in the section below. --Ludwigs2 05:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood. I am not at all suggesting that we should preserve offensive material that serves no useful function merely because we can; there is no question in my mind that such material should be removed. The only key point on which we seem to disagree is that I think we should apply this principle equally to offensive and non-offensive material.

I agree that 'tact' is a relevant issue, but I see nothing tactless about stating that:

1. Wikipedia judges images by their usefulness in helping readers' understanding of an article's text;
2. Wikipedia includes images when an image serves that function and excludes them when it does not; and
3. Wikipedia refrains from evaluating whether an image is offensive or non-offensive, as such determinations are inherently subjective and personal.

It is tactless to suggest that someone who objects to a particular image should "suck it up", to accuse them of prudishness, or to otherwise attempt to invalidate their feelings, just as it is tactless to suggest that someone who supports that image is a pervert. It is not tactless, however, to clearly state these three established and accepted principles, and to choose not to actively validate their feelings. We can recognize that someone is offended and respect their feelings without reinforcing their feelings; rather, we should politely explain the context in which discussion should take place (i.e., focus on utility, not offensiveness) and ask that they likewise respect the principle under which Wikipedia operates.

It is, unfortunately, inevitable that the system will be imperfect. No amount of policy or guideline will prevent some editors from bluntly telling others to "suck it up", and such behavior should be dealt with through the various civility-related processes (first step: talk with the editor one-on-one, bring up the behavior in question, and ask them to rephrase and/or be more mindful of phrasing). Likewise, of those who wish to have particular images removed, there will be those who simply will not care about any argument or will be unable to see anything beyond their own offense.

Finally, I certainly have no objection to editors acknowledging that a particular image is offensive to them if that is in fact the case. My objection is to codifying a requirement or recommendation that we must or should validate another editor's perception of the offensiveness of an image by agreeing with them that it is, in fact, offensive. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

break 3 (begin by getting consensus)

From a less involved perspective, I think I should remain that using a policy as part of a reasoning does not mean that the policy actually supports such reasoning. Someone well versed in discurse, rethorics and word twisting can easily be able to justify almost any action by a clever cherry-picking of policies aspects. Even more, completely opposite projects may cite their own policy justifications.

The existence of someone crying "Not Censored" to keep a socking image does not mean that the image is justified under the "Not censored" policy. If someone starts listing some dozens of policies to justify placing an image, but nobody supports them, there's no consensus. MBelgrano (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• If I could interject for a moment here, I'd like to offer a suggestion. We already have Wikipedia:Understanding IAR and Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, which would seem to offer something of an obvious parallel here. Might I suggest that someone get started on Wikipedia:Understanding "Wikipedia is not censored" (or something similar)?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to the proposed policy. It clearly contradicts the current Be Bold in editing policy, as well as the common WP:BRD process. If inappropriate images, or text, is added to any arricle it is proper to revert the additions and discuss the matter. Contrawise, if images have been in place for a significant time, and are removed, it is proper for an editor who thinks the removal unjustified to revert and discuss. The key point in either case is for discussion, preferably civil discussion, to prevail, rather than an edit war. DES ^(talk) 01:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about "new policy"?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What actually has happened is that my deleltion was met with questioning by an editor who seemed to have already made his mind up that I had no good reason for deleting. Same editor quotes WP:Isnotcensored. Eventually I was told that my objection boiled down to UDONTLIKEIT. Seems the policy deck is rather stacked in favour of keeping objectionable material. I reviewed my reasons for wanting the image deleted and tried to consider if the video was in fact educational despite my distaste at it being in an encyclopedia. I became convinced that it could not be considered educational, because the only argument given was it is better to see this (an ejaculation) on wikipedia rather than a porn site. DMSBel (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As to the question of what content is appropriate, the basic test is simple, if it aids in the understanding of the topic, and is supported (if challenged) by reliable sources, it is in general appropriate. The offensiveness to some of any given content, whether text or imagery, is IMO strictly irrelevant, and should not be raised, or if raised attended to, in any inclusion discussion. That is what WP:NOT#CENSORED and WP:NPOV dictate, IMO. DES ^(talk) 01:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I would normally agree with you, except that the actual usage of NOT#CENSORED is to scuttle discussions before they start. If you have a better solution to that problem than the one I'm suggesting, I'd be happy to hear it. --Ludwigs2 01:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Reword "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." to "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should concentrate on whether it is appropriate and useful to include the content in a given article and not focus on its offensiveness." in order to change the emphasis? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with V = IR. I think someone fairly experienced should undertake it though. I'd like to thank those who have commented here, especially Ludwig and Black Falcon. In case you did not realise I am a fairly new WP editor. I did not come to here to rock the boat, believe it or not I could do without having spent nearly a week disputing a video and then some photos. This dispute has actually left me feeling ill at times. It's much more enjoyable to actually research an article. I have made a couple of minor edits on the article I have been involved in dispute about images in, to the text, improving clarity and such. What puzzles me is the degree of importance that is attached to some images by some people. For instance on the ejaculation page the medical illustrations are far more important to the article as they show the origin and path internally. The article would clearly suffer without them. Yet it almost seems as if those who defend the video and photos think they are more important. Deleting either is sufficient to have the page protected. If someone deleted either of the two illustrations (the ones at the top of the page) but left the video or the pics, I wonder if there would be any fuss? The proposal at the top of the page is a modest effort to formulate a process which could be followed to avoid the kind of protracted "debate" that is happening here (not here on this page, but on the articles). I am still working on it. It would probably not be suitable as policy, yet as a guideline I wonder if it would be followed, as some editors seem to think they can dismiss guidelines because policy "trumps" guidelines. Another issue which was touched on here is, who determines what the consensus is? It seems like the archives are often ignored and consensus is based solely on what it is between those currently involved in the discussion. Neutral third party editors have done nothing to help determine whether there is a consensus - they just protect the page.DMSBel (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's right -- There's basically no authority figure to make a final judgment, and administrators can't use their tools to rule on content disputes. Editors are expected to settle things on their own. Probably one reason this place is so addictive... nothing is ever truly settled, so arguments repeat and go on forever, if people want them to. The merits of this consensus process have been debated repeatedly... I'd share my thoughts but I'm exhausted of that. I used to have lots of ideas for changing the system. If you get to the point where you've been here a few years you'll probably lose the righteous idealism too, and just take it for what it is. But feel free to keep trying, godspeed. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:02, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Another thing is that with some editors Wikipedia is its own standard - so if an image is questioned as being porn, then the answer is so what, we have a pearl-necklace photo. Hmmm. Anyone else see a problem here? DMSBel (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I complained once a long time ago about analingus, where there was once a real-life photo. The answer I got was actually "Porn has a long history of acceptance at Wikipedia". That seems like a better answer. Anyone who makes an argument based on one other existing occurrence of the thing being argued for is making a poor argument, and you can call them out on it. See list of fallacies for some common tactics used by poor debaters here. Linking to these during debates can be useful. But not always. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:50, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)

A single case does not make a binding precedent, no. But there is a long tradition that images sometimes identified as "porn" are acceptable here provided that they are relevant to the topic. That tradition is empodied in the "not-censored" policy that seems tired of hearing. DES ^(talk) 08:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does, in many ways, establish its own standard, and standards elsewhere may or may not be relevant. as to the argument "It is porn so it should be deleted" I and many other editors reject that argument so thoroughly that a discussion that starts with it is not going to get serious attention. (Much as an argument that says "I'm not interested in this, so delete it" won't get attention.) There is no good definition of "porn" -- IMO "pornography" is a term used for something someone is trying to suppress, and says more about the speaker than it does about the subject. There is a fairly clear (although not entirely stable) definition of "legal obscenity" in US law, and wikipedia policy as I understand it excludes anything that is legally obscene under US or Florida law. Beyond that, i do indeed say "so what" to the argument that something "is porn" and I don't see any problem there at all. DES ^(talk) 08:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That you "reject that argument so thoroughly" displays your POV quite clearly. It is time that it is seen that there is a POV involved with the keeping of pornographic content. Most of us can determine what is pornographic and what is not at a glance. But when there is doubt the fact that an uploader has nearly identical material on his porn-channel is sufficient. Those arguing for keeping shift back and forth from casting doubt on it being porn (even when there is ample evidence), or claim there is "no objective definition of porn", to saying "ok it is porn - but it does not matter".Hmmm. There is a POV in this stance - it is "that porn is OK on wikipedia if it illustrates something". They should not deny their POV, even less accuse others of a POV as though they don't have one of their own. That is what has happened on the ejaculation page. Those who want the material removed are told that "prudery" is in violation of NPOV. Those who say this are either unaware of their own POV or else they are trying to disguise it. Good-faith means we should assume they are merely unaware. The definition of pornography is quite clear: it is from the wordsporni & ekpornevo (in greek) which = prostitute + "graphy" = drawing or visual depiction.DMSBel (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Defining a concept in the abstract does not automatically offer clarity for case-by-case evualations, especially for a concept whose meaning is so context-dependent and varies even from individual to individual. What is considered to be pornographic by some in one culture and/or in one time may be considered perfectly acceptable in another culture and/or another time, and vice versa; likewise, what is considered to be pornographic in one context (e.g., a website dedicated to erotica) may be perfectly acceptable in another (e.g., an encyclopedia).

In any case, Wikipedia considers the usefulness of images in helping readers to better understand the content of an article and does not remove images merely for "being objectionable". If you believe that a particular image or video does not serve to improve readers' understanding of a topic, then you are welcome to raise your concerns on the appropriate article's talk page. Repeatedly pointing out that you personally find an image to be offensive, and then generalizing your emotional reaction to most people, is likely to generate more heat than light. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Having discussed these many time -- every time a new Wikipedia editor looks at a human sexuality image and decides they find it offensive. The goal of Wikipedia is to bring together the whole of human knowledge, and to not surpress things because they are politically incorrrect, or embarrassing to someone notable, or in conflict with one religious sect or anothers dogma. Wikipedia should be about facts, and not about superstition -- mine or anyone elses. Wikipedia is required by law to remain within all federal and state guidelines regarding obscenity and pornography. The laws in The united states and the State of Florida do apply in this case. Any image that would violate those laws is inherently not allowed within Wikipedia. That is to say, any image that is pornographic is not allowed. Primarily, an image on a page in an article in Wikipedia needs to not only not violate the very clear law, but also be directly applicable to that article. Yes, you may see a medical image of a male ejaculating on the ejaculation article. You may see an image of a penis on the penis article. The ejaculation image would not be appropriate in the George Bush article, and the penis image would not be appropriate on the Dick Cheney article (arguable there). Just because an image is one you might not see in most places, or if you saw in day to day life at work would be considered to be negative, does not make it pornpgraphy. By law, in order to be obscene, and considered to be pornpgraphy, the image would have to lack Literary, Artistic, Political or Scientific value based on the Miller test. If it has value as any one of those, it is inherently not obscene, and not Pornography. If any editor feels that an image is not appropriate in an article, all they need to is show that the image is not applicable to the article, or section of the article that it is in. If in their own opinion, they feel that is may be applicable to the article, but obscene or offensive, then they only need to demonstrate that it has no Literary, Artistic, Political or Scientific value. They could submit a better image of the topic that demonstrated the topic well, but did not have whatever aspects of the image that personally offended them. It is not appropriate to say that the visual picture of Dick Cheney on that article should be removed because it offends you. Trying to say that having an image of Dick Cheney, or of ejaculation will harm the credibility of Wikipedia is really just another way of saying that it offends you even though it is on topic for the article. IMO, some editors need to take a step back and be more objective. Screen out your reaction to an image and ask yourself. Is this the best image for the article so far? Or are their other images, or supplementary images that illustrate the topic well? Is the image of at least satisfactory quality until another image comes along? Does the image, at a glance, give the reader valuable information that they might otherwise have to dig through the article, or read many paragraphs to grasp?Atom (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok Thankyou Atom. Lets stop misusing the word "medical". There are no medical photos or videos currently on the ejaculation page. Lets be plain. There is an amateur self-made video from no-one knows whom. And there is a series of still frame pornographic images taken from a video currently available on a internet porn-channel. There are also two illustrations which could be considered educational and medical (the two illustartions at the top of the page). Both these illustrations are of value to the article and it would suffer without them. Are you serious about the comparison with Dick Cheney? Please! And why should I screen out my reaction? If people don't want to read a few paragraphs to understand a subject, then they probably are not interested in it. Let them leave. If the description is so plodding and badly written that people cannot get through it then maybe it needs re-written. Bear in mind though that if someone is not really interested in something then no-amount of re-writting will make it interesting to them. People will look up the subject who have some interest in it, we don't need to cater for those who have not. If they are interested they won't mind reading several paragraphs. Once others start speaking truthfully and calling a spade a spade this discussion will move forward. Currently that is what is lacking.DMSBel (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not your place to dictate requirements to presume whether a reader is interested enough to either accommodate them or let them leave. If an image helps them understand something, it can stay, whether you place more importance on reading or not. I could try to explain how enlightenment and objectivity works, but it doesn't seem like any of that would help here. The simplified answer is, you should screen out your [emotional] reaction because it's not likely to get you anywhere here. You may feel it relevant, but the people who built Wikipedia, and continue to run it, feel differently. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:01, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't dictate the requirements if I tried, lol. My point is that an encylopedia article will only interest those interested in the subject at that time. "Digging though" the article is necessary to gaining understanding. Atom (in defense of the visual) makes it sound like a chore. It would be if I was not interested, but then what would I be on the page for? DMSBel (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It might be a chore for a reader who wants to gain an understanding of what it looks like when a man ejaculates, and is forced to try and form a mental image based on the text. We're here to make such things easier for readers, and the only reason to make it more difficult by forcing them to read the text is either because we deem the image offensive or, as you imply, because we want to force them to prove how interested they are in the topic by reading through the text. Neither is sound reasoning. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:32, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but this is so weak, no one is trying to make it difficult for readers. It a question of what is central to an encylopedia article. Its not a picture gallery. I work hard on making sure the text reads clearly, I am not hear to make it difficult for anyone. Those who make it difficult are those whose unwillingness to reach a compromise results in page protection - preventing the page being improved and thus making it harder for those looking to the page for clear information. The ejac page has an RfC going, everyone who has weighed in in the last few days on that page, had never been there before. None bothered to contributed to the RfC. All are attempting to shut down the discussion. They are treating the discussion like a battle and waging a war of attrition. I am not wearied in the least. I am calling them out now to see why they are there DMSBel (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

RFCs are meant to attract attention from those who don't normally pay attention to an article, so this shouldn't surprise you. I'm responding to your argument by addressing each of your points. "People should be required to read rather than get the information they seek from images" isn't a valid argument; if an image helps people understand what's going on and how it looks, then it helps, and we're here to help. The image being offensive is not a valid reason for exclusion. Now you've gone back to a blurred argument of "this is not what an encyclopedia should be", which is rather weak itself. If you have another focused argument for why the image needs to go, I'm listening. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:56, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that is part of the problem. I have descrbed the video as medical or scientific because it is precisely that. It is a video of a normal human bodily function. That function is talked about and taught in schools in human sexuality or sex education classes all of the time. The video does not show two people interacting in any way (such as intercourse or oral sex). It does not show masturbation, or kinky sex practices. Since the article is predominantly about ejaculation in the context of humans, the article is a human sexuality article. The content of the article, and the video, is directly related to the topic of iejaculation, and not anything else. Frankly, I can't see how it could be described as anything other than scientific or medical in nature. When someone describes it as "pornography", that mystifies me. Especially when people are so adamant and insistent that it is and should be obvious to anyone. I mean, I don't find anything erotic or arousing about it. I doubt there is anyone who looks at that video and has erotic feelings about it. DO they see it that way merely because is invovles male nudity?? Exactly what is it about that video that makes someone want to look at it as something pornographic? Can someone explain that to me please? Atom (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that I don't agree with your primary point, but this frankly should not mystify you. Average people aren't used to seeing a video of some dude ejaculating except in the context of porn. Honestly I doubt even most scientific resources contain such videos, at least those available publicly in the western world. Of course that doesn't mean such a video wouldn't be valuable as an illustration, and I believe it is; but there's really no reason to be surprised (or feign surprise to make a point?) at such characterizations. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:20, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Atom has a POV here, he should admit it. One of the other editors a few years ago said the same more or less as you have here Equazcion. As I read through the archives his comments always struck me as eminently sensible and balanced. He said we should avoid if possible using content that would result in a "sexual surprise". Sadly most of the common sense editors seem to have given up on that page. All we have now, as I have started to point out in the discussion there mostly, is a raft of busybodies who have done nothing to create the page, but who seem to think they have the right to weigh in when they feel like it to overrule others who are actually interested in improving, researching the content. They have no positive input to give to the page. They just want to drive others out of it who would disagree with their agenda. Whether the text is accurate does not interest them. I spotted a glaringly incomprehensible sentence and changed it (during the brief period that it was not protected from editing). I changed part of the intro use proper terminology, and it was reverted. I had to explain and cite from another website to convince the editor who reverted my change. Same editor treated me like a vandal from I started working on the page. Showed little good-faith. Still hounds me.DMSBel (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak to your specific past troubles at an article, so I won't. As for surprises, there are a number of them at Wikipedia. Someone looking up a novel or movie who's never done so at Wikipedia might be shocked to read through its synopsis and find that they've just read the ending. Maybe we could be doing more to make sure people understand just how uncensored Wikipedia is before they start using it, which would address the "surprise" issue. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:46, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Oh please there is no comparison, if it is inevitable that by working here a long time I will end up comparing apples and oranges I think I might quit now. Anyone reading a synopsis should be prepared to find spoilers. Really! A certain ammount of intention to find out what the book is about is required first. If someone then finds out that "snape kills dumbledore" that not the same as seeing a visually "surprising" or shocking representation as you scroll down a page.DMSBel (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the same if you open yourself up to what might seem like extreme objectivity. Compared to most resources and websites, both are equally unexpected. The difference, if you're willing to admit it, is your offense at seeing a sexual image. Regardless, working towards making people understand the uncensored nature of Wikipedia prior to their looking at its articles would address both issues. If people know beforehand that they can expect a visual representation of any topic they look up, those who would be surprised or shocked by such things can decide whether or not they really want to do their research here. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:11, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

break 4 (begin by getting consensus)

Some might like to tread the path of least resistance, I prefer to work to improve the articles, where I can. There is a credibility issue here- there always has been with wikipedia. By editing I hope to improve its credibility - I will continue to do so for as long as there seems to be hope to improve it. There are a lot of great editors working on articles on all sorts of subjects. Its sad that certain projects get hijacked by editors with agendas, who see wikipedia as an easy platform and vechicle to push those agendas to the fore. I do my best to exercise good faith here, and will continue to. But good-faith only can be maintained while their is doubt about someones motives- the clearer those motives become - the more necessary it becomes to call editors out about there reason for being in an article.DMSBel (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

All that you say has been suggested to those wanting to keep the images. The responce is No-disclaimers. They are not in the least willing to compromise or else they are just imprisioned by policy so to speak and cannot think outside it for a moment to discuss the matter civilly and reasonably. DMSBel (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this your next argument, that the existence of sexual imagery discredits Wikipedia? I suppose to some people it might, but the percentage of others for whom it actually increases credibility is much larger. Even if the former were true, I think Wikipedia's top credibility issue is the fact that anyone and everyone is allowed to edit it. Sexual imagery contributes in a relatively miniscule way, if at all. I'm not sure what agenda you think everyone has, so I can't address that. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:26, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Please break out of the group-think for a moment if you can. You know nothing of the percentages either way. There are only a few editors defending the material - they like to project their own subjective views beyond themselves in their comments quite often, to give the impression of widespread support. No its not "my next argument" - and you reframe my argument incorrectly by using "sexual imagery" - I am well experienced in this debate by now, its amazing what you can learn in a week! and I can spot quickly someone reframing arguments - my argument is about pornographic content - not about "sexual imagery". Political correctness is the art of calling a spade a fork, and getting away with it. DMSBel (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You've done well to frame the issue yourself it would seem, so as to make the correct outcome as obvious as possible, in using the word "pornography" to describe content that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Perhaps we should both ditch our respective straw men and be more specific. What exactly about the image do you think makes it worthy of exclusion from the encyclopedia, if not the fact that it depicts something sexually explicit? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:44, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Ditch you own straw man :-) But show me how I am using a straw man here first. A straw man as I understand it is a simplification and misrepresentation of your opponents case with the deliberate purpose of making it look ridiculous. So in effect one is not arguing against an opponents actual arguments. Due to the current discussion going off on a tangent I have been talking about that page here. You are welcome to visit the discussion on that page, I have made my arguments there repeatedly. If you cannot bothered then that is fine - go and edit something else. It is nearly impossible to keep this from going of on a tangent here. The discussion here however is beyond that of the actual content of the page but about the manner in which the page is edited.DMSBel (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You refer to the image as pornography. Others' reframing of the issue is necessary, because your characterization of the image as pornography is crafted to help you make your argument. Regardless of the technical definition, "pornography" is generally used to describe sexual imagery intended to titillate. Titillation is obviously not the purpose of an encyclopedia. You've taken what you're arguing against and characterized it as something that's easy for you to discredit. That's what a straw man is, that's why people are reframing it as something else (and rightly so), and that's why I, too, have done so, and ask you to be more specific about your issue with the image if my reframing of the issue is inaccurate in your mind. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:25, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

No. I have framed it as it is, as it has been demonstrated to be by another editor. It needs no re-framing. To some of us the matter is clear. Seemingly to you it is not. I have been specific. I do not need to re-frame it as porn, as it is porn, no matter where it is, here or on the uploaders porn-channel. There is no straw-man in my argument. You think you are correct in your re-framing, that it is more accurate? How are you more accurate than me in this? Are you not re-framing it in a way that is easier to defend? And rightly so??? why rightly so? Please!! It either is porn or it is not porn. It cannot be both be porn and not be porn. If it is porn then wherever it is, it remains porn. But why am I even discussing this. Those who want it kept in have said its porn, you yourself said that you were told that porn has a history of acceptance on Wikipedia. You said that seemed like a better answer. So I am not re-framing it to make it easier to discredit. The issue is not, is the content pornographic on the page in question, the issue is the acceptance of pornography. This vacillating between "no it's not porn".... "ok then it is porn", by some editors is laughableDMSBel (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Since they say much the same things of your argument, it seems rather fruitless to go with the "yes it is" or "no it isn't" stance, since that's basically like saying "I'm right and you're wrong". As I said, I'm not claiming my reframing is accurate, I'm just asking you for more specifics on your problem with the issue. While the answer I got originally was that porn has a history of acceptance here, the word was used to mean something different than what you insinuate, if you are indeed insinuating something. No one really knows because the term doesn't adequately make an argument, though you're holding onto it for dear life as if it's basically your only leg to stand on. If you can't get more specific and explain your position beyond "it's porn and doesn't belong here", you've got no case. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:21, 23 Feb 2010 (UTC)

On disclaimers, I join others in not being in favor of individual disclaimers per-article. I'm speaking in general, that we could be making a better effort to make the public understand the full nature of Wikipedia's uncensored policy. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:37, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

There is a POV in this stance - it is "that porn is OK on wikipedia if it illustrates something": Yes, technically it is a "POV", meaning that it is technically an opinion. It happens to be the opinion backed up by consensus,current practice, policy and encyclopedic reasoning. Your POV, DMSBel, is that such depictions on WP are not OK. You're entitled to this POV, but it runs against consensus, current practice, policy and encyclopedic reasoning. To be fair, the "POV" has to be completed: porn is OK on wikipedia if it illustrates something relevant to the article subject. Like for any other subject. Human sexuality is an encyclopedic subject, meaning that it is a notable part of the human experience and our universe, just like comets, archeology, arthropods. We show images of comets, of archeological remains, of arthropods: why should we have a special treatment of images concerning human sexuality? Why is an image of an ejaculation more "offensive" than an image of a dobson fly? --Cyclopia^talk 02:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No it does not run against consensus. "Current practice" means to you what is currently practiced on this page I suspect. This is why I started this discussion here. BRD is blatently disregarded on the Ejaculation page. Deletions are nearly always met by bad-faith there. You like so many who want the video and will not compromise ignore the archives and the body of opinion there. You join in a discussion that you know little of the history of, and make your "expert pronouncments" as though all there must bow to your wisdom. One-issue editors. Have you read the page text? Could it be improved, for clarity, coherence, accuracy. Not one of you are even interested.DMSBel (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at you calling anyone a "one-issue editor". Cyclopia has edited 1,053 unique articles. The only one who seems to be a single-purpose account is you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No doubt cyclopia has edited other articles. But you are incorrect about me. I had very little interest in this page initially, I have edited several other articles: Humanism, CS Lewis amongst them, and try to look out for typos, gramatical mistakes and try to correct them in anything in wikipedia I read. I would like you to re-tract your remark about me as it is mis-representative. On the ejaculation page cyclopia is focused on one issue, whether he edits other articles is not important. You can be one-issue focused within a particular article. Who apart from myself has even suggested alterations to any other aspect of the article recently?DMSBel (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going by [33] which shows over 90% over your contributions are about one article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

About "credibility": Explain how can an encyclopedia be "credible" if it refuses to illustrate properly even controversial subjects. Really, no kidding. I imagine the headlines: "Wikipedia: The encyclopaedia that treats all its readers like dumb children by censoring pictures". Grrrreeeeeeat for credibility, for sure. --Cyclopia^talk 02:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, Ejaculation is not a "controversial subject" - editors only make it so. You have not contributed to that page by way of editing, you just weighed in there without explantion. At least DES acknowledged he had not been involved in the page previously - Neither have you taken part in the RfC there - aimed at resolving the dispute. So really I have to wonder what you are getting involved in this discussion for. I would like to focus on the article and improving it, but I cannot while there are editors there, who have no interest in the page other than making sure the pictures remain, keeping the discussion focused on an entirely non-essential aspect of the article. And who as a result of their unilateral editing force the page to be protected. DMSBel (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you normally edit Cyclopia?DMSBel (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

People have this page in their watchlists, and there are dozens of other ways they could have ended up seeing this discussion. Questioning people's motives in participating in a discussion is a non-starter. If you didn't want wide participation by people who have never edited the article before, both the RFC and your posting of this section at Village pump were the exact opposite ways to go. You sent out the invitations for exactly this. Please don't bark at people for accepting. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:54, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I did not mention what page I was editing, go back and look at my initial post. The RfC is indeed set up to bring in outside comment. None of the editors who have joined since I set it up have even bothered to take part in the RfC. That is why I want to know why they are there. And excuse me, but consensus is generated between editors working on a page. Just being in the discussion does not mean they have made any contribution to the page - most of them have not. They should take part in the RfC or leave DMSBel (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

They should leave the discussion but participate in the RFC? That's confusing. An RFC is a discussion. Could you clarify what you mean? Equazcion ^(talk) 03:38, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Some people want endless clarification but won't bother to actually go the the discussion in question. If they wanted to contribute to the discussion there why did they not take part in the RfC? There is a specific section in the discussion called an RfC. None of them have commented in it.DMSBel (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't have started a discussion here too then, if you were unwilling to clarify your position here. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:52, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I am not here to discuss the page I have been editing - the discussion here veered onto that, but as you can see that was not why I came here, I deliberately avoided mentioning the page in my initial post to focus concentration on the matter of editing process. That discussion does not need to be carried on in parallel here. I raised a couple of issues here about the way the editing of that page was being done - that is what is relevant here.DMSBel (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that happens often: An editor has a problem somewhere and goes someplace else to discuss what he feels is "the deeper issue" that has caused the problem. You can't expect to be able to discuss the one without the other coming up. On Wikipedia it's all too easy for people to find out what actually brought you here and steer the discussion that way. They're not entirely wrong for doing so, if you ask me. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:09, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the RfC in question appears to concern a proposal to use inline linking for "sexually explicit" videos. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does - and the RfC on that page is where it should be discussed.DMSBel (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Something constructive

Back when we were actually discussing proposals, I proposed changing a sentence in WP:NOTCENSORED from "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." to "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should concentrate on whether it is appropriate and useful to include the content in a given article and not focus on its offensiveness." in order to change the emphasis. Any comments? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Both carry the same problem of ambiguity to me. Discussions shouldn't focus on offensiveness but on appropriateness? That's like saying "Don't discuss apples but you can discuss fruit all you want". The added word "useful" is good, but I'd forgo the whole "appropriate" thing and get more specific, into what constitutes appropriateness. Ie. useful, illustrative of the topic, good visual aid, etc. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:35, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

NeilN - you don't show good-faith on that page towards me. The policy is clear enough, rewording it won't stop it from be trotted out ad-nauseam by those who want to scuttle discussion, as you have done repeatedly there. DMSBel (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting other sections. I repeat, again, opposing your actions is not the same as not showing good faith. If another editor points out where my comments towards you on the talk page could be construed as being in bad faith, I'll be happy to listen. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that it would be an improvement over the current wording, but I would prefer something more direct, perhaps: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should concentrate on whether its presence in a given article is likely to help readers' understanding of the article's text and not focus on its perceived offensiveness." -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The comment has already been made that what is needed is an Understanding WP:ISNOTCENSORED, the same as there is a Understanding IgnoreAllRules. I wholeheartedly agree. It was V =I R who said this. This is what is needed amongst other things.DMSBel (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's an improvement over what I proposed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah that was an interesting idea (to DMS), but I feel like it would be exceptionally short for a separate page. Black Falcon has the right idea, as far as I'm concerned, and stated further up. Replace the word "appropriate" with specifics. Nothing too long, just a sentence or two. If it has to grow beyond that, it can always be split off into a separate page. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:58, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

We have already said this right at the start. Ludwig said that inclusions should be based on a "demonstration of necessity" - that it should be demonstrated that an article would suffer if a proposed inclusion is rejected. The important thing to avoid the endless WP:isnotcensored and that can only be done if discussion takes place on proposed content before inclusion. This is what I mean by begin with a consensus for inclusion. Most of the material that is disputed never had any consensus for inclusion to begin with - it was inserted unilaterally before there was any discussion. There has always been a conflict between "being bold" and forming a consensus. The majority of edits are non-controversial. "Being bold" is only meant to encourage timid editors, who have spotted gramatical errors and such like to go ahead an fix them. It not a license to insert controversial material unilaterially.DMSBel (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it already says in a few places that if an edit is likely to be controversial an attempt should be made at discussion first. Still, no harm in adding something controversial without discussion, in my mind, as long as you don't edit-war over it if it gets removed. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:05, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I am sure it does somewhere, lol if one can find it on wikipedia. The edit war I agree should not take place, unfortunately it does. What is better though is to submit controversial material to the discussion page first and talk about it. Someone earlier said that my proposal conflicted with "being bold". It doesn't if one properly understands the intent of "be bold" which I explained just above. Be bold has been contorted into a justification for unilateral editing without consensus, and as a way to "get stuff in under the radar". DMSBel (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

DMSBel (04:00, 22 February 2010) is wrong to say, ""it should be demonstrated that an article would suffer if a proposed inclusion is rejected," because assumes the default is "delete" if anyone claims inclusion is offensive. Even in the current version of WP:NOTCENSORED, the default is "include" if the content is "appropriate and useful" - and any change that is likely to get consensus will strengthen "appropriate and useful" and diminishes claims that a inclusion is offensive. --Philcha (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"it should be demonstrated that an article would suffer if a proposed inclusion is rejected" -- translates to "You need to prove something is damaging in order to get rid of it". The default there actually is inclusion; if proof isn't provided of damage, the thing would presumably get added. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:29, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

What I am talking about here is content submited to a discussion page for debate about inclusion. The onus would be on those wanting to place it into the article to demonstrate necessity and demonstration of necessity is done by showing that the article would suffer if it was not included. This places the focus on discussion before rather than after. Then insertion - once a consensus is formed. Deletions after there has been a consensus could be reverted by pointing to the consensus. When controversial material is inserted unilaterally - there is no consensus to point to. No one can say "we had a consensus about this before including it".DMSBel (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Maybe I was mistaken in my assessment above, it's late. Well, in that case, you're not gonna get consensus for that kind of policy change (as you can probably see for yourself by now). You don't need to prove the article would suffer without something first, in order to include that thing. Philcha is right -- there's no reason to default to a position of exclusion. That's entirely counter to what Wikipedia is about, and doesn't even seem logical, even for other mediums or publications. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:46, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I see it as default to a position of discussion not exclusion.DMSBel (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Defaulting to inclusion or exclusion is what the problem is, I am trying to find a better way. DMSBel (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's just semantics. As far as the content itself, the default position you're proposing is to exclude it. You're saying content must remain out of an article until it's proven the article needs it. You're proposing discussion as a way to determine that, but that doesn't effect the default fate of the content -- which is to exclude until proven needed. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:03, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Yes exclusion is the default but only until discussion takes place. Why should inclusion be the default anymore than exclusion in controversial material? It does affect the fate of the content. Are you saying the inclusion could always be vetoed or something? If enough agree the article needs the content then it goes in. I am saying lets have a discussion before putting it in, so that we can later look back to a consensus.DMSBel (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Images and videos are optional aids to articles, so necessity is an inappropriate criterion. Media should be judged by whether it is useful, as it is never strictly necessary. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are optional. But we are talking about controversial videos and images, so it is slightly different. That is why a demonstration of necessity is appropriate here.DMSBel (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

We'd lose the Muhammad images that way. And before you state this would be restricted to images involving sex, I would like to point out that person X's "hang ups" are not less important than person Y's "hang ups". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the reason for the controversy. If they are controversial only because their subject matter is objectionable or offensive to some, then no. You would be correct if we were discussing inclusion of non-free images, which do have to meet certain criteria of 'necessity' (such as lack of a free alternative and contextual significance; see the non-free content criteria), but "being objectionable" to some by itself is not a reason for removing media or treating it differently. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

what do you mean NeilN - please explain further if you don't mind.DMSBel (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Millions of Muslims find images of Muhammad extremely offensive and the pictures are not neccesary to the article (the article doesn't even refer to them). Therefore, by your criteria, they would be removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Please avoid language like "hang ups". You are implying that those who object to porn have "hang ups" are you not? What do you mean by "hang ups". Speak plainly please. DMSBel (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think "hang up" simply means "qualm", "objection", or "reservation". It is your personal opinion that any of the images on the Ejaculation article constitute "pornography", which is defined not only by the "depiction of explicit sexual subject matter" but also depiction of such "for the purposes of sexual excitement". I will repeat Equazcion's request above: please do not frame the discussion in the fashion of a straw man. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Black Falcon, I realise you may not be familiar with the discussion on that page, but it has been demonstrated there to be pornographic (the photos) beyond any reasonable doubt. The photo are from a porn-channel video. They are just freeze frames. People commented on this very video on the porn-channel that it came from, saying I quote :"Hot! take your shirt off man!" - that's mild compared to the other comments btw. So it clearly goes beyond merely "sexually explicit" to your definition of porn.DMSBel (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the entire discussion, but I was aware of the source of the media. To keep the discussion together, please see my comment below regarding context. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't seen any pornography on the articles I've worked on. I'm saying most of us have different things we find offensive. For example, I find swearing in polite company offensive (well, in most company) yet I don't object when I run across it here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well NeilN I have seen pornography. Taking something out of porn site (its where its from - proven) doesn't make it cease to be porn. Putting it into a wikipedia article doesnt somehow change it from being porn. Some the editors who want to keep it say its porn - they see no problem with it being porn. Lets not go back to denial of the obvious here. Cyclopia for instance has given up denying it is porn - his argument now is "so what?"DMSBel (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, that is your opinion. I am not suggesting that it is wrong, "prudish", or inappropriate, but it is an opinion and not a facct. I believe that context matters, especially for a concept (pornography) whose definition is tied to intent ("for the purposes of sexual excitement"). For example: I would consider it inappropriate for a male to expose his genitals to a random female on the street (or a male, for that matter), but the same action is not inappropriate in the context of a male patient being examined by a female doctor. That you choose to ignore the context in which the media appears does not make them "porn" for everyone. By the way, I think that these types of subjective debates are part of the reason why offensiveness is not a valid factor when deciding whether to remove or retain media. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but can you clarify what is opinion and not fact in my comment? I am going by original context of the material and that was not a clinical attempt to depict a pysiological event for educational purposes. It was an exhibionistic effort to satisify voyeurs. What changes when it is moved to wikipedia? It was not made for wikipedia, or with any educational intent - it is a vanity video (albeit now in in four still photos), done to impress and excite, which it did, those on the site who watched it! DMSBel (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Context is everything. A Neo-Nazi group making a video waving a Nazi flag should get tarred and feathered. If the group met WP:ORG and the video was uploaded here, it could be used in their article to demonstrate their activities. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

So these photos would be better on a page about exhibitionism then?DMSBel (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The only definition I can find of a "hang up" is someone with a pre-occupation about something. One could say those wanting to keep the ejaculation video are as pre-occupied with it as those who want to delete it, so we get nowhere. Fact is my interest in the article is broader than the video dispute, it extends to the other content and working on it. Can the same be said of those who want to keep the video?DMSBel (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Currently what happens at times is that default to inclusion trumps the consensus over a longer period (because basically in a long running dispute, people dont always look back through the archives). This is wrong. Totally against what I understand wikipedia to be about. The worst example is that on the ejaculation page surplus controversial material is inserted to weary those objecting to something that is already in. That is, before there is a consensus about current content, more of the same is added. While the discussion is going on about the video - someone inserts more photos. When these are deleted someone puts them back, then after a couple of delete / reverts. The page is protected with them in. Utterly, utterly improper and inflamatory!DMSBel (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You know it's not that hard to remove/replace images that the current guidelines say are inappropriate. I've done it many times (I can give you an example if you wish) and no one has raised objections. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying there is no difficultly removing either the video or the photos from the ejaculation page? Lol, you jumped on my deletion immediately then interogated me about it! You also semi-protected the page right away, before another editor got jumpy and put full-protection on it even though no edit-war had taken place. Have you forgotten?DMSBel (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. I've bolded the important part. And as I'm not an admin, I can't protect the page. No admin deeply involved in the discussion would, BTW. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

So if I revert the the non-consensual and unilateral edit of Atom on that page, would you put it back NeilN?DMSBel (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Disregarding your characterization of Atom's edit, I would not revert until and unless I saw discussion on the talk page supporting Atom's edit. Even then, I would wait for someone else. You'll note that others have been reverting your removal of the pic/video in the last week, not me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(E/C) There is truth in this - the difficulty of removing a poor image choice depends largely on how many supporters the image has, and how far they are willing to go to preserve the image. a couple of experienced editors with a prurient interest in a particular image can effectively stonewall any effort to remove it indefinitely. --Ludwigs2 06:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Also editors who have merely hovered over a discussion objecting to deletions are not actually the editors who built the page. Consensus on what should be in the page is decided by editors, not individuals hovering about a particular discussion, who have only one interest in it. I would like to see some clarity on this so that the editors who have a broader interest in an article than one image or video or sentence are the ones who decide what goes in or stays out. DMSBel (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

God, no. See WP:OWN. Outside editors should always be welcomed to check for WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS. A small band of involved editors should never control a page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok NeilN I see your point about control. Thats not what I am arguing for. Control though is currently exercised by outside editors on that page. They could be said to be involved also but only in one aspect of the article. That in my view is worse.DMSBel (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a quick look at WP:OWN, I have to get to bed soon though, and will study it better later. It seems though that the primary contributors to that article (ejaculation) are no longer working on it and I am trying to work out who they were. Those currently objecting to the deletion of the video are too pre-occupied with only one aspect of the article though to be neutral or suitable to check for NPOV, they have their own POV which becomes quite obvious at times.DMSBel (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

[34] might help but remember that the primary contributors have no special say in these matters ("if you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here"). It does drive some outside subject matter experts and academicians crazy to see their work "mangled" but that's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia - anyone can edit content if their contributions meet our guidelines and policies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't actually tell us who primarily contributed to the written content. Some editors have been soley focused on images in the discussion. Can you see what I mean about one issue editors. Why should they exercise control over the article? DMSBel (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors are focused on the images because that's the topic that gets raised again and again (many times by new users such as yourself). What's your point here? Editors should not object to the removal of content they find important if they don't edit other parts of the article? I don't think that'll fly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

back on the constructive point

With respect to NeilN's suggested "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should concentrate on whether it is appropriate and useful to include the content in a given article and not focus on its offensiveness": I think this is a step in the right direction, and I'd be willing to support it. I might ask for a somewhat sharper wording as follows: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should concentrate on whether it is appropriate and useful to include the content in the given article. "Being objectionable" is not by itself sufficient grounds for removal of content that has encyclopedic value, but decisions on content should always reflect tact and sensitivity." that revision replaces the last two lines of NOTCENSORED; same idea, just a bit stronger language. would that work? --Ludwigs2 06:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me Ludwigs2. I'd certainly support a change along those lines. DMSBel (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain how "tact and sensitivity" would apply in the case of the Muhammad article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I could not support that as worded, as I believe that it would undermines the very premise and purpose of WP:NOT#CENSORED. Discussion and interaction with other editors should be carried out with tact and sensitivity, but not decisions on content. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to have to guess that the problem here is the display of images of the prophet? or are you talking about a different problem? If you give me a more concrete problem I can give you a more precise answer, but in general tact and sensitivity means recognizing that someone is offended and that they have a reason for being offended (in this case people are offended because displaying images of the prophet is against the beliefs of certain muslim sects), and then accommodating that as much as possible without compromising the informativeness of the article. That might mean removing such images if they are of no direct value, or it might mean choosing different images that minimize the offense, or it might mean doing nothing at all if the particular images are important for clear and explainable reasons. it's hard to give an exact answer out of context, but the general formula would be to (1) decide whether such an image is required for the article - meaning that proponents should give clear and explicit explanations of what the image adds to the content of the article - and if it is decided that it is required then (2) discuss whether there is some more broadly acceptable alternative that fills the same role.

I mean, there's no pleasing everyone, but people are generally loathe to make unreasonable demands against reasoned arguments. Tact often means explaining to someone why they can't have exactly what they want in a way that they can accept as reasonable. --Ludwigs2 06:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the display of any images of the prophet. There's 14 archives of Talk:Muhammad/images and most of the arguments to keep boil down to WP:NOTCENSORED. Basically we keep the images as we do with any historical figure. You'll have stiff resistance if any wording change means removing the images. Just something to keep in mind. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Any editor who will fight against changing the wording of the policy because s/he wants preserve his/her ability to display a useless offensive image is reprehensible; I have no interest in their opinion, and I sincerely doubt they'd last 15 minutes in a debate with me anyway, so I think we can effectively dismiss them as irrelevant. I haven't really looked at that page in detail (a few cleanup efforts in response to an RfC a while ago, but that's it), so I don't know the details of the debate. my first question would be whether displaying an image of the prophet is necessary. if there's some essential reason why we have to, then we do it, and our obligation at that point is to explain to opponents why it is we have to, and give them a chance to suggest alternate solutions. if there isn't an essential reason, then we should probably remove them out of consideration for the opponents - why keep an unnecessary image over the objections of others? I'd bet real money that the reason there are 14 archives of disputes is that the proponents have been relying on NOTCENSORED exclusively, without even trying to explain why the images are necessary. as I said, that kind of approach is guaranteed to produce endless, intractable disputes. --Ludwigs2 07:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not participate in the Muhammad images controversy, but I have read some of the discussions. My impression is that the 14 archives are not primarily due to repeated and unreasoned linking to WP:NOT#CENSORED (thought that was an issue), but rather because those who were offended by the images simply did not care about any of the reasons for including them. The images offended them at an emotional level and nothing short of their removal could or would change that. You suggested that "people are generally loathe to make unreasonable demands against reasoned arguments", but that is not the case when the issue at hand is a raw emotional reaction to the content of an image. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I support removing an image if it has "no direct value" regardless of whether it is offensive or non-offensive, and I support replacing a controversial image with one that one that is as good or better. I oppose, however, removing an image of moderate value or replacing it with a lower-quality image solely because someone considers it to be offensive. In the context of this discussion and WP:NOT#CENSORED, the wording that "decisions on content should always reflect tact and sensitivity" seems to suggest exactly that, even if that was not what you intended (and I recognize that possibility).

I did not have a particular example in mind, but I can provide one. If I told you that I consider depictions of women that reveal significant amounts of skin—e.g. File:Girl in bra and panties - black and white.jpg, File:Volleyball game.jpg, and File:Marie-Louise O'Murphy (1737-1818) painted by Francois Boucher (1703–1770).jpg—to be offensive, what do you think would be the best response, both in terms of what to say to me and what to do about the hundreds or thousands of affected images? In reality, I don't consider the images to be offensive at all, but there are individuals and cultures which would consider them inappropriate and, in the case of the first one, even borderline pornographic.

Another example might be File:Flag of Nazi Germany (1933-1945).svg, which I could consider offensive because it is a symbol of a regime that murdered millions of people. I bring up this example to illustrate that potential 'offensiveness' is not limited only to images of a perceived sexual or erotic nature. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) @ Black Falcon: decisions are supposed to be the outcome of discussion and interaction. the reason I phrased it that way was because I didn't want to give the impression that people should be courteous in discussion solely - the courtesy should extend all the way through the decision process. If it were phrased as "discussion of content should be tactful" that would be interpreted by a lot of editors as meaning that we should be nice to people as we tell them to fuck off. that may be required sometimes, but it shouldn't be the goal of the policy. --Ludwigs2 06:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock." was not quite what I intended. :-)

I still interpret the phrasing of "decisions on content should always reflect tact and sensitivity" to suggest that quality should sometimes be sacrificed in order to avoid offending someone, but that may just be the phrasing or me. If that is not what you meant, then I really can't disagree with the principle, but I believe that it is already covered in other pages, such as Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which contain guidance devoted specifically to that topic. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

At least we still have a sense of humour here, parts of the last two comments have made me LOL.DMSBel (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Honestly, Black Falcon, I'm coming to the conclusion that you and I aren't disagreeing all that much - we're just trying to guard against different misinterpretations of the policy. As I said, I'd like a somewhat stronger statement than the one Neil originally suggested (mostly to guarantee that NOTCENSORED is not used as a bludgeon to crush considerations of tact, good taste, and common sense, as it too frequently is), but if you think my version goes too far I can accept that. Do you think Neil's is good enough, or is there some way of incorporating what I'm after that's better than what I suggested? --Ludwigs2 07:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll look in later, been on this all night. Can't think clearly to comment any further now. Good discussion though.DMSBel (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that's true, and it seems to be (at least in part) due to the fact that we have, apparently, had different experiences with discussions involving objectionable content.

On the matter of wording, I would support Neil's suggestion of 03:27, 22 February 2010 if "appropriate" was dropped, or I could suggest a longer version which I think incorporates a part of your point:

Discussion of potentially objectionable content should concentrate on whether it is useful to include the content in a given article (i.e., whether it helps readers' understanding of the article's topic or text), and not on the perceived offensiveness of the content. "Being objectionable" is not by itself sufficient grounds for removal of content that has encyclopedic value, but content may be removed if its value is not expressed. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should always be conducted with tact and sensitivity, and decisions on content made in accordance with consensus.

The main differences are:

1. Exclusion of "appropriate", which can be understood as "non-offensive" or "non-objectionable", per discussion in the preceding subsection;
2. Retention of the guidance that discussions should not focus on the perceived offensiveness of content (this includes, among other things: if you say that X is offensive to you, then I should accept that it is; I may express my own opinion, but I shouldn't suggest that your feelings are somehow 'wrong' unless there is a blatantly obvious misunderstanding);
3. Definition of "useful" as "whether it helps readers' understanding of the article's topic or text";
4. Addition of explicit guidance to remove content if no one can identify its usefulness; and
5. Replacement of the phrasing that decisions should reflect sensitivity with "decisions [should reflect] consensus".

Thoughts? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd accept this, mostly. I'd ask for one clarification - to say something like: "but content may be removed if some concrete value is not explicitly expressed". This is just to defuse tautological justifications like "the image has value because images always have value". it's impossible to have reasoned discussions where people are relying on non-responsive truisms to carry the day... --Ludwigs2 18:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that, or a similar "but content may be removed if its value in a {given/particular} context is not expressed" to clarify that decisions to retain or remove media are generally made on a case-by-case basis. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to usefulness as a criteria. Unfortunately in an article I am editing I see little or no usefulness in certain content (because I see the existing content as sufficient to illustrate) that others claim is useful. There has to be a limit on what is actually put in. Each image may if assessed in isolation prove to be useful. But if there is already images illustrating the article, however useful an additional image might be when considered on its own, its usefulness becomes diminished when considered in conjunction with what is already present. I am speaking very generally here. What might be useful in an article with no illustrations, becomes superfluous in an article with several.

Also this is slightly off topic here, but relevant in the article I am editing. Retaining a video in an article can be done by using an INLINE LINK - this simply means the video only becomes visible and plays when someone clicks on it. This has always seemed to me like a good compromise and I cannot see how it could be considered censorship. Should there be an amendment to the WP:NOTCENSORED to allow for using INLINE LINKS. For myself I think there should be.DMSBel (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's censorship. Censorship goes beyond providing no access at all; it also includes providing only restricted access as well. Powers ^T 13:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Is having to click a link really a restriction? I could understand restriction here if it meant age verification, needing a password or something else. But with a INLINE LINK the material is one click away. While that is one step away from being fully visible could it really be considered to be placing a restriction on it? It actually can be argued that it provides control to the reader.DMSBel (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

While it may be true that the added utility of an image is less in an article that already contains multiple images, the "limit on what is actually put in" depends on the added value. If adding an image detracts from the quality of the article (e.g., if the article is already overwhelmed with media), then of course it should not be added; but as long as adding an image results in a net improvement to the article, there is no reason to not include it. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Many previous discussions have indicated that editors consider inline linking to be censorship. They feel so strongly about it that two previous templates for inline linking went through a thorough discussion in a deletion discussion, and then were deleted. I have made the point before that inline linking is a form of censorship, yet it has been ignored. I am not giving my opinion, I am trying to relate what the consensus is. Also, I have made the point that the shortcut for the video is inherently an inline link. One cannot play the video unless they click on the link. If one does not wish to view it, they need not click on the link. A last point I made was a request to editor DMSBel to give me an example of where an inline link is used effectively ANYWHERE on Wikipedia. I am sure there must be one someplace, but I have been unable to find even one example. If the use of the inline link is not used on any sexuality article, or even on any article that I am aware of, and given the past history of extremely strong editorial opinion against use of the inline link, then is it even realistic to talk about it? My last point is, if the visual for the inline link, or the video itself does not meet the needs of the article, then why inline link it? If the video is not appropriate for the article based on the standard wikipedia criteria, then it should be removed from the article, not inline linked. Atom (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Atom, as consensus on wikipedia is open to change I think we need to maintain the common understanding of what an INLINE LINK is. You will recall that I mentioned this in response to you in the RfC. If there was a rejection of templates for an INLINE is it fair to ask me where they are used effectively, presumably they cannot be used if there is no template. So we cannot see their effectiveness or lack thereof. Maybe you could point me to the previous discussion on the use of inline links, as you know I am fairly new here. I was not aware of the previous discussions. Things of course can be floated for discussion many times here on wikipedia, and because of that it is better not to alter the definition of what an INLINE LINK is. To do so would scuttle any future discussions before they happen. DMSBel (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

DMSBel, take a look at the linkimage deletion discussion, the Linkimage deletion discussion and the Offensiveimage deletion discussion. I have no objections to you floating another discussion on the topic. It has been a few years -- I am all for open discussion, that is how consensus is reached. Atom (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose changes. Images and videos are visual aids that can be helpful and positive additions to an article even if relatively redundant per se -we don't need of course tons of random images to every article, but the burden of proof should be on who asks for the deletion of images instead than retention. See the Bible article: the images of bibles there are for sure not fundamental, but they for sure make the article much better and more pleasant. If content is proven to be misleading or otherwise unsuitable for the page then it can be removed, otherwise it should stay. --Cyclopia^talk 13:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  Cyclopia - I think you're misunderstanding the point. No one objects to the images of bibles on the bible page, so the fact that they only have decorative value has never come into question. If someone did object, however (on the grounds, say, that visual depictions of bibles was against their faith), would you insist that we retain the images and continue to insult them and their faith simply to keep pictures that you yourself admit are only there to make the article more pleasant? --Ludwigs2 18:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  I don't know about Cyclopia, but I would (though I think that the images in Bible have more than decorative value). Do the images add value to the article by illustrating the topic of the article, providing visual aids, and making the article easier to read? Yes. Would removing them detract from the quality of the article? Yes.

  People can be offended by absolutely anything (e.g., see my examples above), which leaves us (broadly) with three choices: (1) unambiguously establish that we evaluate content by its encyclopedic value, not its perceived offensiveness, and remove objectionable (and non-objectionable) content if we cannot identify its usefulness; (2) remove any content that causes someone, somewhere offense; or (3) remove some content that causes offense and retain other content that causes offense, and open the way to charges of bias, double standards, and endless debates about whether my reason for being offended is more or less valid than yours. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  Black Falcon: The raison de etre of consensus policy on Wikipedia is that we try to achieve consensus about what constitutes a respected and respectable encyclopedic entry. is it your contention that a respectable encyclopedia would insist on including offensive material over well-known objections, merely for decorative purposes? You seem to be trying to legislate what we can and cannot find consensus about, rather than creating rules that allow for balanced and inclusive consensus discussions, and I have to object. all three of your above points are unrealistic, hyperbolic abstractions; in the real world these issues can be decided sensibly through discussion, as long as some protections are given to the discussion to ensure it isn't squashed by avid advocates on either side. --Ludwigs2 18:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  however (on the grounds, say, that visual depictions of bibles was against their faith), would you insist that we retain the images and continue to insult them and their faith simply to keep pictures that you yourself admit are only there to make the article more pleasant? : Absolutely yes, per BlackFalcon above. If people are offended by images, they can avoid to see them: WP:NOSEE. Instead if pictures are absent, I cannot choose to see them. The distaste of a few cannot override the advantages for the many. We are an encyclopedia: hosting relevant information is our job. That's the gist of WP:NOTCENSORED, and that is why I don't want it neutered by such changes.

  You seem to be trying to legislate what we can and cannot find consensus about : Yes. Local consensus cannot override general consensus: WP:CONLIMITED. Therefore there are general decisions that do not rely on local consensus but on global consensus -that's what policies and guidelines are for. When these do not apply, then local consensus can apply. But this is a general issue, and unless you can convince the general consensus to change WP:NOTCENSORED, you cannot override it case-by-case by local consensus. --Cyclopia^talk 19:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding local consensus. Is it not a misreading and a misunderstanding of the WP:NOTCENSORED to assume that it prohibits consensual editorial discretion to remove objectional or offensive content at a local level? The first couple of paragraphs of WP:NOTCENSORED read more like a disclaimer to me. But quite often it cited to imply wikipedia must not be censored. I think this misreading is what is playing the most havoc. The policy seems to me to merely saying, be aware that the nature of wikipedia is such that you may see something here that offends you. Its not prohibiting editors from discussing that content and even taking it out.DMSBel (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The point of the policy is basically to tell people that content being offensive isn't reason to remove it (no matter how much you discuss it). Wikipedia doesn't censor things merely due to it being offensive. There must be some other legitimate reason. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:33, 23 Feb 2010 (UTC)

You'll notice the word "generally" - which means "in most cases". In most cases, that content is potentially objectional is not sufficient reason to remove it. In other words the possibility of there being exceptional cases is kept open (quite correctly).DMSBel (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nearly everything on Wikipedia is "generally", due to WP:IAR. It's still giving us a clear directive on how concerns of offensive material are to be taken -- and "seriously" is not the directive I'm seeing. You're free to discuss the issue all you want; no one's saying you can't, as far as I know. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:18, 23 Feb 2010 (UTC)

In my understanding, the "generally" bit is for images that are completely unnecessarily, randomly and disruptively problematic. Say, if in the Bible article someone tries to post a picture of someone pissing on the Bible, it should be removed -it has very little value for the article, and it is merely trolling. Of course, if for any reason there is an article about Pissing on the Bible, the image would be appropriate there. The point is: if an image depicts the article subject, or its content, unequivocally and in a proper context, it can and should stay. --Cyclopia^talk 18:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It is my contention that a respectable, international encyclopedia would refrain from evaluating the merits of the values and sensitivities of different individuals, groups, and cultures that give rise to offense, from giving primacy to the values and sensitivities of one culture over another, from basing content decisions on such evaluations, and from undertaking practices which may promote such a perception. If 'offensiveness' is turned into a valid basis for content decisions, then that is precisely what we will have to do, over and over; to use my example above: depictions of women may offend some, but the removal of depictions of them to mollify one group may offend another group.

  You wrote, You seem to be trying to legislate what we can and cannot find consensus about... - Only to the extent that "'being objectionable' is not by itself sufficient grounds for removal of content that has encyclopedic value" is a rule concerning "what we can and cannot find consensus about". If there is a general, project-wide consensus that content should not be removed merely because it is objectionable (and there is), then a localized "consensus" should not overrule that. Local consensus on a particular article's talk page extends to local issues and should be about whether the media being discussed has or lacks encyclopedic value in the context of that particular article; it should not turn into a general discussion of the NOTCENSORED principle (objections to the NOTCENSORED principle should be raised and discussed in a higher-level discussion) and does not override project-wide consensus.

  All three of my points may be abstractions (though I disagree that they are either unrealistic or hyperbolic), but that is because I am considering this issue from a project-wide perspective, and not the perspective of a specific article or a specific image. It is useless to specify that "'being objectionable' is not by itself sufficient grounds for removal of content that has encyclopedic value" at the project/policy level if we ignore the principle at the article level and allow "being objectionable" by itself to be sufficient grounds for removing content with encyclopedic value. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps I can present the grounding of my position from another perspective. Let me ask you this: If you are willing to accomodate the values that give rise to offense at seeing a depiction of the Bible, would you also be willing to accomodate the values: (1) offense at a deliberate decision to hide or remove a depiction of symbols of my chosen religion; (2) offense at depictions of women without "proper" (by my definition, not yours) coverings; (3) offense at depictions of the symbols of countries, ideologies, or regimes which I find to be repulsive; (4) offense at seeing any content that does not correspond with the dogma of my chosen religion; and so on?

  Are the values that give rise to these obections somehow less 'valid' or 'inferior' to the values that give rise to offense at seeing depictions of the Bible, or of the prophet Muhammad, or of sexual content? In other words, are my values any less valid than your values or someone else's values? More importantly, is it our place to make and act on these types of judgments?

  I don't think anyone here disputes the principle that we should not retain offensive content if it is not useful, and anyone who includes content specifically for the purpose of causing offense needs to be sanctioned (Wikipedia:Disruptive editing), but those principles are a far cry from the proposed one that we should sometimes remove offensive content even if it is useful. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a bit difficult to follow: would it be possible to clarify what is meant by "values that give rise to offense at seeing a depiction of the Bible." I am not sure what those values would actually be. Any help?DMSBel (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, here's the standard I go by (it's simple but works for me): Don't add images/videos to articles purely for the purpose of shocking/offending readers (which is what Black Falcon has said directly above - slaps head). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

guys, can we try to keep the indents sensible in this discussion? I'm having a hard time following who's saying what.

Black Falcon: You seem to be using the word 'accommodate' as a euphemism for 'give in to'. I think we are all adult enough here not to give in to people just because they whine petulantly about something that annoys them. IMO, if someone complains about images of scantily-clad women, bibles, swastikas, inverted crosses, body-builders, the four horsemen of the apocalypse, marijuana leaves, or anything else you're likely to find on the bedroom wall of your average 15 year old punk, then we should all recognize that they have a perfect right to complain, and that we should listen to their complaint, discuss it, come to some reasoned conclusion about it, and if we decide that it does indeed have merits, then yes, we should accommodate it. If we don't, then we risk wikipedia turning into a replication of the bedroom wall of a 15 year old punk (filled with images whose main value lies in rebellion against those 'stupid adults' who try to boss us around).

nor does your moral relativist (are A's values better than B's values?) argument work. Moral relativism is fine for positive assertions (i.e. your values are just as good as mine, so you do your thing and I'll do my thing), but moral relativism is horrific as a negative assertion (i.e. my values are just as good as yours so I'm going to force you to do what I want). please...!

now, I actually agree with what Neil said - Don't add stuff to articles purely for the purpose of shocking/offending readers. The problem is that I've actually been using this argument over at the goatse dispute, and it's gotten me nowhere. The proponents simply assert that the screenshot has value beyond shocking the wikipedia reader, but when I ask them to explain what that value might be, I get no response (or a fairly weak comment about how images intrinsically have value by virtue of being images). so how do we distinguish whether an image has real value or has just been added to shock the reader? well, as I've been saying, we have to look to see whether the image actually adds anything concrete to content. I don't want to extend the goatse debate here, so please don't take it that way, but in general if an image has clearly expressible content value does, the proponents can claim that the image is justified despite its offensiveness, and there's not much opponents can say about it (except to suggest more temperate images). if the image doesn't have clear expressible value, proponents should straight-out lose the right to defend it.

then we risk wikipedia turning into a replication of the bedroom wall of a 15 year old punk: Nonsense. We're talking of images that illustrate article subject or article content, not of a random gallery of stuff.

I've actually been using this argument over at the goatse dispute, and it's gotten me nowhere. The proponents simply assert that the screenshot has value beyond shocking the wikipedia reader, but when I ask them to explain what that value might be, I get no response (or a fairly weak comment about how images intrinsically have value by virtue of being images) : If you don't understand how the image of a visual meme has value beyond its description, I don't know how to help you. Would you delete images of La Gioconda Mona Lisa because the textual description is detailed enough? --Cyclopia^talk 18:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think something more is needed here to demonstrate usefulness, than merely saying it illustrates. Articles don't have to be illustrated, but sometimes doing so results in an improvement. Individual articles may not in themselves be like a punks bedroom wall. But there are articles on wikipedia that are of questionable merit. Maybe it needs to be added to the list of what wikipedia is not, that it is not an illustrated "urban dictionary"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMSBel (talk • contribs)

I do understand how a visual meme works; apparently I understand it better than you do. it's a visual analogy that doesn't bear reference to the actual original source, but only to its implications. it's a lot closer to Freud's concept of dream metaphor: one does not need to see a video of a couple having sex to understand the implications of a train racing into a moss-covered tunnel. there's actually a good bit of research on the topic from marketing people. one of the problems from back in the '50s/'60s was creating a drip-proof spout for liquid detergents (and the like) that didn't instantly remind everyone of a penis. can't beat evolution for solving technical problems like that.

re: La Giocanda - the only picture on that page is of Amilcare Ponchielli - I don't get the meme reference. did you make the right link? --Ludwigs2 18:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Cyclopia was pointing to particular images in that article, only using that subject as an example to illustrate a point; if there were images of the opera in that article, would you advocate removing them, if the text would seem to adequately describe the subject without them? As for the other point you bring (the other point is actually from DMS, my mistake) you're basically saying that articles on memes shouldn't exist. That's another matter entirely, and I'd say it'd probably garner even less support than the current proposal, if that's possible. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:04, 23 Feb 2010 (UTC)

No actually I was not making particular reference to articles on memes, I apologise for interjecting when memes was the current topic. I was thinking more of the sexual slang terms that are on wikipedia. If slang is the right word - I mean articles such as cum shot, pearl necklace are of questionable merit in an encylopedia.DMSBel (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

first, don't be pissy - currently maybe 5 or 6 editors have weighed in on the subject, so don't go making unsupportable claims about how much support you think your own side has. let's focus on the arguments, not on demagogic silliness.

second - why would I have a position of the removal of images I haven't even seen. show me the images, we'll discuss them, and we'll see what happens.

third, don't misrepresent - DSMbel (so far as I can see) wasn't talking about memes at all. he was making the (very sensible) point that images are not mandatory on any article. They might be useful, they might be nice, but their use on an article should be a matter of consensus about their value on the article, not a matter dictated by a narrow and largely senseless interpretation of policy.

pardon me a deeply needed grrrrrrrr...' --Ludwigs2 19:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Mona Lisa (in Italy it is better known as La Gioconda).

Articles don't have to be illustrated, but sometimes doing so results in an improvement.: Almost always illustrating a subject/concept is an improvement. One thing is to read about, another is to see. Imagine taking all the articles about insects and removing the illustration. Would you understand what a butterfly is by reading the following description: Adult butterflies have four wings: a forewing and hindwing on both the left and the right side of the body. The body is divided into three segments: the head, thorax, and the abdomen. They have two antennae, two compound eyes, and a proboscis. ?

it's a visual analogy that doesn't bear reference to the actual original source, but only to its implications.. No. You're talking about pareidolia or something like that, but what I refer is something much simpler, at least in the case we're talking about: The term "Internet meme" refers to a catchphrase or concept that spreads rapidly from person to person via the Internet. The "concept" in this case is an image. Now, does it make sense to have an article about an image without showing the image itself? That's why I asked about Mona Lisa (or, why not, L'Origine du monde, which probably at the time was almost as shocking for people as goatse is for us now): regardless of the artistic merit, goatse.cx is an image, and it is notable as such. That's why not showing it is nonsense. --Cyclopia^talk 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)DMS was making that argument (sort of) but his latest comment seems to be one of article inclusion instead, rather than image or content inclusion: "But there are articles on wikipedia that are of questionable merit. Maybe it needs to be added to the list of what wikipedia is not, that it is not an illustrated "urban" dictionary? " On memes, I think Cyclopia and I are referring to internet memes, which might carry a different definition than yours of memes above. The reason you would make a general argument regarding images is presumably because you're defending DMS, who has apparently made such an argument, although we presume it's merely been made to support his current argument regarding specific types of images. That's why Cyclopia brings another specific example where he feels even DMS would agree that his stated generalities would fail. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:33, 23 Feb 2010 (UTC)

@ Cyclopia: you're not disagreeing with me, you're just being tendentious.

• I don't disagree with your first point; I do disagree with your effort to elevate 'almost always an improvement' to (apparently) 'always a requirement'. that's silly if that's what you're trying to do, and if it's not what you're trying to do then I don't get your point at all.
• pareidolia doesn't fit the bill, and an 'image' is never the same thing as a 'concept'. a concept is a mental representation of an idea; an image is a physical object. again, this is just a ridiculous assertion: there are any number of people in the world (myself included, before I came to wikipedia) who have never seen the 'hello.jpg' image who understand the goatse concept perfectly. I'd even go so far as to question the entire idea of a meme (which is still a fringe theory as far as mainstream psychology goes), except that I happen to think the idea has some merits. don't push me on the psychology of it, though, because that is not a discussion you will win.

@ EQ: if we are really sitting here disagreeing over what DMS mean, I suggest that we stop and wait for him to catch up with the conversation. if you would like to take my comment as something I believe and disregard the reference to DMS entirely, let's restart from that perspective. --Ludwigs2 21:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm clarifying my position and the reasons I'm arguing with DMS. So far I can't really tell what exactly your position is on his proposals, Ludwig, so I'm not sure if we're in any disagreement. Lastly, I've given up relying on DMS to explain precisely what he's advocating, because he tends not to say specifically, and his argument tends to change. Someone can say they're in favor of making the encyclopedia more encyclopedic, for instance, but without specifics that's a pretty useless explanation. Even saying "I don't think porn should be allowed in the encyclopedia" is a pretty ambiguous statement. I tried to get clarification further up from DMS, but he insisted on sticking with the "porn doesn't belong" argument. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:06, 23 Feb 2010 (UTC)

And what exactly is wrong or weak in the argument "porn doesn't belong in an encylopedia"? Because, apart from one or two editors, most favouring inclusion of certain content attempt to redefine it, usually just by a mere assertion, as "medical" or "scientific", thus showing that they know it would be folly to argue for including it as porn. DMSBel (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

well, I'm after this: I want some statement in policy that sets a slightly higher bar for potentially offensive material, such that there needs to be a clear and unambiguous reason for its use in a given article. it won't make a difference in 99% of cases, but in those few cases where there is an image being used that some people find offensive, and the reasons for using it are weak to non-existent, then opponents ought to be able to say something like "This image doesn't have any content value, and it is offensive, therefore it should be removed". currently they can say that, of course, but they will run into a litany of "offensive images cannot be removed per NOTCENSORED", and no proponent will permit discussion or consideration of the image's use-value in the article. it's just dumb. I still think goatse is a excellent example: whether you believe the screenshot is needed for content or not, it went through several RfCs and god knows how many objecting editors before they ran into someone pigheaded enough (namely myself) to force them to try to explain why the image is needed (honestly - I was arguing on-stop for at least two weeks before I got past the notcensored stuff and someone dreamed up the 'meme' argument). I still haven't gotten an adequate explanation, mind you, but at least I've pushed past the mindless recitation of NOTCENSORED to something resembling a real consensus discussion. do you think it should have taken me two weeks of tendentious head-butting just to get them to consider explaining what value the image has? I don't, and I'd like to put a stop to that kind of silliness. --Ludwigs2 05:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In the goatse case, I'd say the arguments against removal were probably based on the fact that people saw its value as obvious, since the image depicts the article topic, so the only possible argument against it would be someone finding offense, and in that case the recitation of NOTCENSORED was the obvious counter, and valid in my mind. I think I'd have responded to you in a similar way. I'd need to look at your specific arguments on that to respond any further. On the proposed policy addition, I don't think any allowance based on offensiveness should be added, because offensiveness is too subjective, and that would be too easy to abuse in whichever situation a user wanted. Maybe this would be better: "NOTCENSORED should be seen only as a response to issues of people finding content offensive, but other arguments against content can be discussed". Equazcion ^(talk) 05:20, 24 Feb 2010 (UTC)

You know, I really find this 'offensiveness is too subjective' argument troubling. Basically it's a subjective argument in its own right (i.e., the claim that nothing is actually offensive) which has no foundation in reason. I mean, I understand the problem: you don't want some irrational/emotional judgment to exclude content that's needed for encyclopedic reasons. but it's absurd to counter some presupposed irrational/emotional judgement by insisting on an equally irrational judgement in the opposite direction. It's a bit like having some friends over for dinner and insisting on cooking pork chops so that no one gets the idea you like your jewish friends more than the rest. All opinions are subjective, and the only way to deal with the m properly is by creating proper consensus discussions, which is impossible if you decide that some subjective arguments are ok and other aren't. --Ludwigs2 05:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a more apt analogy would be letting everyone bring their own food, without any prohibition based on who might not like any particular one. We're not claiming that nothing is offensive per se, just that it's too subjective a criteria to be of any use for an encyclopedia that everyone can edit. The problem isn't merely that something "benign" might get excluded by some "oversensitive" person; it's rather that because of the wide editing community, you yourself could be seen as oversensitive by someone else, with something you propose for removal being benign in their eyes. There's no objective way to judge these things. The line is in your head, and everyone else's heads, and its location varies accordingly. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:07, 24 Feb 2010 (UTC)

hm. you should read the article on group polarization and see if you still think that logic makes sense. the fact of the matter is, you're still privileging a subjective opinion: a liberal, hedonistic subjectivity, but still...

So here's what I think. It is certainly possible to come to decisions about whether material has content value - we do this every day as part of editing the encyclopedia. so, If some material doesn't have much content value, and there is someone (anyone) who objects to it... exclude it! why not? what difference does it make? very little is lost by being conservative and excluding material that has little content value, and a lot is gained in terms of consensus and editing harmony. we don't have to make people feel bad just to demonstrate that we can, you know...

the real problem here (if you ask me) is ego. someone gets it in their craw that a particular offensive image belongs on a page, and they simply don't want to give in to the (subtext: stupid irrational bigoted) 'moralists' who complain that it's offensive. it rapidly stops being about whether the image is useful and becomes a mere power-play, where it is important for them to retain the image just because they don't want to give in to people they disrespect. I don't think you realize it, but that is what you're advocating for here. Is that the kind of behavior you mean to champion? --Ludwigs2 06:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. And I do agree this happens; arguments do disintegrate that way, there are irrational and immature people here. However I think it's possible for bad behavior and misuse of policies to continue even if the policies themselves are sound; and furthermore that policies shouldn't necessarily be changed based on people's misuse of them. Just because I advocate WP:IAR as policy isn't reason to say I advocate people doing whatever they want for any reason they like, for example, even though that occurrence is one unintended result of it. Though my proposed addition of "NOTCENSORED should be seen only as a response to issues of people finding content offensive, but other arguments against content can be discussed" attempts to address that misuse somewhat.

It certainly is possible to come to decisions based on the value of the content, and if content doesn't have any particular value, then it can be excluded. Policies other than NOTCENSORED take care of that. Content gets excluded all the time because it just isn't valuable in illustrating the topic. To exclude the goatse image though, for example, would not be a good demonstration, because that image basically is goatse, so it is utterly valuable in illustrating the topic.

As for weighing value against potential for controversy, I think we already do that. Sexually explicit images are replaced by cartoons often (I remember when that wasn't the case), and I doubt the Muhammad article would contain that image if there were some less controversial one we could use. This is probably the result of avoiding controversy rather than avoiding offense per se, but the de facto result is the same. I don't think this needs to be spelled out in policy though, and I think it would be asking for trouble to do so. Again, anyone can claim offense at anything, and combine that with a claim that the value of certain content is low so it should be excluded. It would give everyone more leeway on which to base their subjective drama. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:00, 24 Feb 2010 (UTC)

You know, I really find this 'offensiveness is too subjective' argument troubling. Basically it's a subjective argument in its own right (i.e., the claim that nothing is actually offensive) which has no foundation in reason. - 1)Offensiveness is utterly subjective (there is nothing that is objectively offensive regardless of personality or culture, isn't it?) 2)This does not mean that nothing is actually offensive, which is of course nonsensical: quite the contrary, everything can be potentially offensive to everyone 3)The point is different. The point is that being offensive for a subject is irrelevant. We cannot and we must not decide what content to include or not on the basis of offensiveness, because this is a criteria which has no encyclopedic bearing. We are here to store, structure, condense and present notable information. Offensiveness is entirely orthogonal to that, even if it was an objective property of information. 5)The fact that being offensive is merely subjective means also that, to please everyone, every conceivable content will be subject to jeopardy for non-encyclopedic and non-rational reasons, practically putting the whole project into trouble. This is not only limited to specific images or subjects: someone can find "offensive" that we dedicate an article to Holocaust denial or to Satanism or to Pedophilia for example, and ask for its deletion just because they find offensive the mere existence of it. 6)For this reason, giving weight to offensiveness evidently impacts content by nullifying WP:NPOV, because anyone can play the "it offends me" card for biasing articles (in good or bad faith, does not matter). This is far from being hypothetical: articles about touchy subjects like,say, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or religion, would immediately fall prey of that. --Cyclopia^talk 13:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

About your specific objection: that's silly if that's what you're trying to do, and if it's not what you're trying to do then I don't get your point at all. - It is not required meaning that of course an article can exist without images. However once a relevant image of the subject is added (and you will agree that the screenshot of hello.jpg is a relevant image to the subject of goatse.cx), it should stay, because it gives information about the subject that no words can convey (and if you think to have "understood perfectly" what it is without the image, good for you, but this doesn't mean that other people can find the visual aid useful). That said, again: explain me why the image on goatse should not stay and why the one of the L'Origine du monde, or Mona Lisa instead should. If you think they shouldn't too, good luck trying to remove them. --Cyclopia^talk 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

@ EQ: my main point (again) is to put something in policy that supports exactly the kind of behavior that you're suggesting, to prevent people from using NOTCENSORED like a club to silence discussion. I really, honestly don't see why you're arguing with me when it seems like we agree. do you just have some 'thing' about clarifying policy?

@ Cyclopia:

1. please don't quote me so extensively that half of your post is my old post - I understand you are trying to be clear, but it's having the opposite effect
2. in the same vein, please use actual bullet points, rather than bullets wrapped into the text. it's a bitch to read.

to the main point: where you say: " The point is that being offensive for a subject is irrelevant. We cannot and we must not decide what content to include or not on the basis of offensiveness, because this is a criteria which has no encyclopedic bearing" - this is exactly the kind of 'head in the sand' attitude that causes so many problems on wikipedia. when we are talking about material that has questionable encyclopedic value in the first place, offensiveness is just as good a reason as any other. let's take an example: suppose I want to add an image of the prophet Mohammed to the lead of the Mohammed article. people object because it is offensive to their religion; I argue for it because... what, it looks nice? the article needs some visual imagery? the lead needs some color? why is my entirely subjective opinion that the article looks nicer with a picture any better than a muslim's entirely subjective opinion that it offends his faith? and yet my 'it looks nice' opinion counts, whereas his 'it offends my religion' opinion can't. that is stupid. granting that if I have some reason better than 'it looks nice' then I win and the picture stays, but I don't think my minor subjective aesthetic opinions outweigh anyone else's opinions, and I don't think that policy should enforce the idea that they do.

re goatse - again, I would have no objection to the image if they had some concrete reason for its inclusion, but as far as I can tell their only reason is to replicate the shock site on wikipedia. you seem to be hyper-sensitive to ethical judgements and completely blind to subjectivity of other sorts - I don't know what to do about that bias except to keep pointing it out. 'the image is relevent' is not a fact or a reason - it's a subjective opinion like any other. why is your subjective opinion better than mine?

at any rate, I'm tired of re-explaining the same misconstrued points over and over again. either you get it or you don't, and it's not worth my time trying to make you see it. do either of you have any objections to NielN's earlier suggestion? I'm happy to go with that if we can agree on it, and we can let the rest of this slide. --Ludwigs2 16:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I explained already why I don't think this should be spelled out in policy. I know you've been in heated discussion over this but please don't ignore what I've already told you in favor of saying I "just have some 'thing' about clarifying policy". On goatse, replication of the shock site is not the reason people are saying the image should stay. The reason is that the image is goatse. It's not just relevant, but utterly and completely descriptive of the subject. That fact is actually pretty objective: If you want to wax philosophical you can basically call everything and anything subjective, but practically no one can say the image doesn't represent the topic, or that Wikipedia's articles shouldn't attempt to include images that represent the topic at hand. Let's be honest then: The reason to exclude it is that it's shocking, not that it's valueless in describing the topic. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:36, 24 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, can you clarify? Do you think my suggestion is pointless or unnecessarily restrictive? I don't think we're going to get big changes to policy at this stage - just incremental improvements. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I was talking to Ludwig. I don't know what your suggestion is, Neil. Is it the same as his? Equazcion ^(talk) 16:54, 24 Feb 2010 (UTC)

first, this isn't a discussion about goatse (if it were, I'd tell you that I've already explained why the goatse isn't the image, and why the identification between the two isn't sound logic - lyou seem to be hyper-sensitive to ethical judgements and completely blind to subjectivity of other sortet's take that up elsewhere if you want to discuss goatse). second, this entire discussion began by my trying to modify Neil's suggestion. If you don't know what Neil's suggestion was, what are you arguing about? --Ludwigs2 17:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing about the policy addition you proposed to me above [35] when I told you I didn't know what you were advocating. If that's close to what Neil proposed originally then I suppose the same arguments might apply to his, though I can't be sure. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:25, 24 Feb 2010 (UTC)

well, it would be high time for you to get sure. --Ludwigs2 17:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be high time for me to get sure? For someone who once told me not to get pissy, you sure seem pretty darn pissy. I don't think I'll be offering that any serious response. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:54, 24 Feb 2010 (UTC)

It looks like I replied to Neil's proposal at the time he made it, so you can see my responses there. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:45, 24 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

1. Ludwig2, you said: (I quote it despite your suggestion because I don't know of a better way to do it -I hope that explictly declaring who I am quoting makes it clearer) "let's take an example: suppose I want to add an image of the prophet Mohammed to the lead of the Mohammed article. people object because it is offensive to their religion; I argue for it because... what, it looks nice? the article needs some visual imagery? the lead needs some color? why is my entirely subjective opinion that the article looks nicer with a picture any better than a muslim's entirely subjective opinion that it offends his faith?":
   • No. Because visual imagery of the subject is otherwise irrepleaceable information about the subject. Which is an objective and encyclopedic reason. Removal on the ground of offensiveness is a subjective and unencyclopedic rationale.
2. Ludwig2: "when we are talking about material that has questionable encyclopedic value in the first place"
   • Why questionable?
3. Ludwig2: "you seem to be hyper-sensitive to ethical judgements and completely blind to subjectivity of other sorts"

   • Don't understand. Can you explain?

4. Ludwig2: "I'm tired of re-explaining the same misconstrued points over and over again. either you get it or you don't, and it's not worth my time trying to make you see it."

   • Good, me too, so why don't you drop the stick?. Unless you want to explain me why the picture on L'Origine du monde is fine and the goatse not. I'm still curious.

5. About the suggestion: I see no need at all to change the policy. I think the emphasis is OK as it is, and if policy has to be changed this should be discussed on the policy talk page in an appropriate manner. --Cyclopia^talk 17:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am restructuring your comments above with bullet points, and responding to them by number here. hopefully this is clear.

1. actually, no - because the first (and obvious) thing that any muslim will tell you is that any image you place on the article is not an image of the prophet. there are no known images of the prophet. therefore you are placing a spurious image that you claim is tha prophet on the article, for no particularly good reason. why should that be allowed?
2. I'm talking about questionable images because we are only dealing with borderline cases here. if the image has clear content value there is no grounds for removing it; if the image is completely spurious, there is no grounds for including it. however, there is a wide-ish gray area of images (such as the above) that add only a little bit of incidental value but cause a clear offense to some people. why should we keep those marginal images?
3. re: hypersensitive to some but blind to others: you complain when someone objects to an image because they find it offensive - offensiveness is an ethical judgement, and you explicitly reject it as subjective. however, you allow any number of other subjective judgments (the attractiveness or satisfaction qualities of mere visual imagery, assertions of vague value contributions, etc) as valid arguments, so long as they are not ethical judgements. again, why should the subjective judgement that an article is visually improved by a given image count as a valid reason, when the subjective judgement that an image is offensive is disallowed as a reason? If you are going to disallow subjective judgments, then you should disallow all subjective judgements. doing it selectively speaks to a bias.
4. re dead horse: because I have an argument, and you don't. why don't you drop it?
5. I'm glad to see you've already made up your mind. now, perhaps, you'll let me continue the discussion with others without interruptions. --Ludwigs2 17:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

re: #1: There's a pretty good reason -- the same we reason we usually include paintings or drawings etc of subjects where a photograph isn't available. We need a specific reason to include an image of a subject when it's not specifically a photograph? I've never heard of this and don't see the logic to it. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:51, 24 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(replies to Ludwigs2)

1. So, if they're not the prophet, why complaining? :) Apart from that, they may be not real images of it, but they are artistic representations of it, and they're obviously representation of how it has been imagined and represented by artists in time -which is a notable feature of the subject.
2. You say: "because we are only dealing with borderline cases here." -In my opinion they're not borderline cases at all, they are of clear, obvious value.
3. Do you really believe that you can describe, say, a non-trivial object/artwork in all detail without showing it, and reproducing the same artwork? Do this experiment. Take two groups of people skilled in drawing. To one, you briefly describe (say, with less than 500 words) without showing it, [this bug] or [this artwork]. To another you actually show it. Then you ask both to reproduce it. Guess who will make the most faithful reproductions? It is not matter of a subjective feeling. It is matter of an objective information content.
4. What is your argument? The "everything is subjectve, therefore I'm right" thing?
5. It depends. --Cyclopia^talk 17:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

yeah, well, it's a basic tenet of logic that you can prove anything if you're willing to start from a falsehood. if you want to continue to insist that all images have value by virtue of being images, regardless of whether they have any actual value, then there's no point discussing the matter with you. I'll leave it up to others to judge the competence of your position, and I will personally write you off as just another tendentious editor more interested in getting his way than in considering the issues. if you change your mind and decide to engage in discussion properly, let me know. --Ludwigs2 18:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

All "all images have value by virtue of being images" iff they appropriately depict (an aspect of) the article subject/illustrate article text, yes. That's basically it. Is it a falsehood? I'll leave it up to others to judge it, too. But please assume good faith: I am very much interested in "considering the issues". We disagree on the issue: for you it is offensive images that ought to be removed, for me it is preventing offensiveness as being considered an encyclopedic argument of any sort, for reasons explained above. Let me know when you've made up your mind on the counterexamples above, by the way. I'm still waiting for an answer, it will help clarify your position. --Cyclopia^talk 18:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Lists

I've been editing a lot of lists, and I've come across Lists of lists of weapons[List of lists of weapons.

I discovered there is no end to this list phenomenon. I know that people say that lists are featured, but I think we really need to get rid of lists for all and for once. No one can use the argument that featured lists should stay, because if we allow them to stay, then other lists will appear, and the cycle of lists will restart.

Most of the lists are really just a repository of links. Although they are not external, they are internal.

The argument that these give better content than categories is very tenuous. Categories have a tree structure.

Categories are a lot easier to maintain.

Lists are hard to update.

Lists are hard to create, whereas just appending the category is to an article will show the article where the will be located, on the category pages.

If we get rid of lists, the course of action would be to save what we can and incorporate them into relevant articles. Lists are not too useful.174.3.98.236 (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would advise reading WP:CLN and/or badgering the developers to improve Categories. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Calgary Flames players, List of Calgary Flames draft picks. By all means, please inform me when categories can show that information. Resolute 19:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I randomly clicked on 6 featured lists, after you gave me the links to those calgary articles and noticed that 6 of the features lists I clicked on were not featured lists at all but tables. I suspect this is no coincidence. I know that currently lists include tables. I am working on all these guideline articles at the moment trying to make clear what is allowable and what is not.

Once again I clicked on a few more featured articles, and they were all tables, either sortable tables or tables (non sortable (including tables with merged cells)). A long held suspicion of mine is that the guidelines are conflating lists and tables together. Can we have some agreement over this issue?

Lists like I proposed, and STRICLY lists should not be on wikipedia.174.3.98.236 (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There are limitations with categories currently (see WP:CLN) that make non-tabular lists necessary. Good luck getting the developers to address the problem. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Lists of lists", such as those found at Category:Lists of lists, are a type of navigational page, similar to disambiguation pages.

E.g. Lists of people and Lists of countries and List of prizes, medals, and awards are good examples for understanding why categories are inadequate. If categories are improved enough that they can take over the many tasks that these lists perform (different readers have different needs), then discussing the deletion of the "Lists of lists" might make sense. But not until a superior replacement is ready. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Lists of random stuff fail WP:NOT and lists of lists fall into that category. The problem is, there is no agreed defintion of what a non-random list is. There is a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists#Notability_of_lists, which in theory should try to define what are the inclusion crtieria based on verifiable evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would fully support the elimination of lists from Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose this proposal.

174.3.98.236 – let’s examine your position one point at a time

• I discovered there is no end to this list phenomenon. I know that people say that lists are featured, but I think we really need to get rid of lists for all and for once. No one can use the argument that featured lists should stay, because if we allow them to stay, then other lists will appear, and the cycle of lists will restart I am not quite sure what you discovered here, lists are not a phenomenon, but an accepted article methodology in WP. Most certainly other lists will be created by editors in WP.
• Most of the lists are really just a repository of links. Although they are not external, they are internal. Although your Most, may be statistically correct (who knows), I would argue that repository of links is a poor characterization. Lists, especially well written ones, are both a very functional navigation and development tools, but an article methodology that allows editors to provide context to a large group of related ideas that facilitates research on the broad subject of the list.
• The argument that these give better content than categories is very tenuous. Categories have a tree structure. Categories, although useful, have two flaws that lists on the other hand overcome and excel at. The first flaw-Categories are unable to provide any context at all to the articles it contains other than the Category name. Take for example this list: Mountains and mountain ranges in Yellowstone National Park. Each entry in that list has at least three contexts—coordinates, elevation and mountain range, plus through the use of {{GeoGroupTemplate}}, a reader can see all the entries in Bing or Google maps. These contexts and views are simply not feasible with categories. The other flaw: The category tree structure is very tedious for complex subjects. Navigating to and from sub-categories buried 2,3,4 levels down is tedious and one can easily lose context as to what they were or are looking for.
• Lists are hard to create, whereas just appending the category is to an article will show the article where the will be located, on the category pages. You make two assertions here. Lists are hard to create. They may be hard for you personally, but there is nothing fundamentally different in creating a list than any other article. Your assertion is just simply false. Lists may contain articles contextually related to the list title, but it might be inappropriate to include a related category on the same article. For example: In the List of Yellowstone National Park related articles, there is an entry under politicians: Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar (II), but it would probably be inappropriate to include the Yellowstone category in his article. He is already a member of 12 other categories and if we added him to every category on subjects which he had some relationship to, there is no telling how many he would end up with. Yet, his entry in the list is perfectly appropriate, has a relevant context, and allows readers to find his article relative to their interest in Yellowstone.
• Categories are a lot easier to maintain. Lists are hard to update. Flowery words but simply a false assertion. Lists are no harder or easier to maintain than any other article.
• If we get rid of lists, the course of action would be to save what we can and incorporate them into relevant articles. Lists are not too useful. So are you saying that Embedded Lists are OK but Stand-alone Lists are not? Not a very practical solution. My suggestion to you, as someone else above stated is to review WP:CLN very carefully. If you believe a specific list should not be in WP then by all means nominate it for deletion with rationale consistent with WP polices and guidelines. Merely asserting your opinion that Lists are not too useful won’t sway many wikipedians IMHO.

--Mike Cline (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Lists are among the most useful and relevant assets of Wikipedia. They are structured content which presents information in a compact, organized way for further research and navigation. See this for example. The IP proposal is mere nonsense. --Cyclopia^talk 19:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• What Cybercobra and Cyclopia said.
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 04:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of lists: as with any content there will be 'good' and 'bad' lists. But I often find lists very useful to get an overview of a subject or see very quickly, for example, all professionals that have won a particular award or what have you. I feel they complement rather than usurp categories, providing useful annotations and being more pleasingly presented. As noted, we have featured lists, I would hate to see such work removed due to a general antagonism against the form. --bodnotbod (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see why we need to have both lists and categories in Wikipedia. The category system, enabling us to click on hypertext, is quite a new feature in Wikipedia (although having said that, I do think that the world wide phenomenon of hypertext, or as it is called in Wikipedia, "wikilinks", is just a version of what, in old written reference books, would be the instructions of "q.v."). In written reference works, we might have list of Nobel prize winners, for example. In the same way, if we wanted to know who won the Nobel Prize or the Templeton Prize in a particular year, or who presidents of particular state had been since year x, it would be useful to have a list (it would take a long time to find out who all the Nobel Peace Prize winners would be if we relied on a category system). So please - keep both categories and lists - the former to find out what other members may go with topic x or may bear common features, the latter to find out positions of honour in order in which they were awarded. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose- Lists and categories complement each other nicely. Lists within articles can show information that categories cannot. Reyk _YO! 03:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I take it that that last "Oppose" was an opposition to the original proposal, not to my last comment on this issue. However, I would also like to add to my last point on this proposal. Suppose one wanted to find out who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1963. By going to List of Nobel laureates just now, it took me 45 seconds approximately to find the answer. Suppose one also wanted to find out the Nobel Peace prize winner in 1971, the Nobel Prize winner for Physiology or Medicine in 1972, the Nobel Physics laureate in 1969 and the Nobel Prize Winner for literature in 1981. Imagine how much longer it would take by trawling through various categories than it would take to go to List of Nobel laureates. I lay this challenge open - if any one can seriously claim to have found this information more rapidly by trawling through categories than by going to the afore-mentioned list, the proposal might have some validity, but otherwise, I stay with my position that both lists and categories are necessary, albeit for different reasons. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC) This comment was made some time before today (February 20) and I see that discussion of it presumes to have died out - presumably, the comments made by various Wikipedians (myself included) above were sufficiently cogent in persuading people that lists should remain a feature in Wikipedia. Do you think that we should now archive this? I cannot really see the suggestion of removing lists from Wikipedia ever becoming policy, and I think that, as I say, the discussion now appears to have waned to zero, so it might be wise for some to archive this discussion. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It will be auto archived 7 days after the last response which, until today, would have been two days from now. If no one answers after this, it will archive on the 27th. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)