Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:00, 26 April 2012

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• WP:VPP

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Proposal re.: Wording change needed to stop forbidding copying of properly licensed free content

This MediaWiki message, found at the bottom of each of the zillion edit pages our editors use, needs changing! :

• Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission.

However, it's often perfectly fine to copy and paste content from copyrighted websites. Nearly all of our own websites' content is copyrighted. Much essential Misplaced Pages content comes from copyrighted websites that license their copyrighted work. The CC-BY-SA 3.0 License itself was copied from the copyrighted website http://creativecommons.org! The improper instruction of the first half of the sentence, "Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites" is not rectified by the second half. In this discussion in a less-trafficked forum, several alternatives were considered.

So, I now propose we go with the following (Credit to Richardguk for coming up with this revision and listing some pros and cons.)

• Do not copy and paste from other websites unless permitted by Misplaced Pages copyright policy.

Advantages: brief, comprehensive. "Please" is unnecessary when warning people not to break the law.

Disadvantages: unspecific, no reference to copy-pasting from sources other than websites, no explanation of public domain and other exemptions. But anyone relying on public domain exemptions can reasonably be expected to have enough diligence to check the detailed rules.

For the sake of brevity, the text is deliberately ambiguous about who must have "permitted". This is intended to combine the notion of the source site permitting copying and the notion of Misplaced Pages policy permitting pasting.

"Copyrighted websites" is changed to "other webites" because many casual users don't know that nearly all websites are copyrighted, but they are so it is safer and simpler to cover everywhere – except Misplaced Pages itself.

The important thing here is to firmly deter potential abusers, briefly guide casual users, and usefully steer diligent users.

Thoughts? Let's get this fixed! --Elvey (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that wording.

• "Please" isn't redundant, we are asking editors to behave in a way that helps the project stay within US law. That doesn't mean each and every editor worldwide is under compulsion of that law.
• Permission to copy can only come from the copyright holder, by definition. A website is not a legal person, so while it may document such permission it certainly doesn't grant it.
• Misplaced Pages policy guides the behaviour of editors to help keep the project legal, but can't grant such permission either.
• Either "copyrighted websites" or "other websites" is improperly narrow, missing all manner of offline sources. The problem behaviour is the insertion of copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holder, irrespective of the mechanism of insertion or the medium of the source. It is just as bad (and in some ways more problematic) to type in verbatim text from a printed work.

LeadSongDog come howl! 13:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So, precisely speaking, there seldom or never such a thing as a "copyrighted website", it is the material within it that is/may be copyrighted. (?) North8000 (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hardly ever is a website under just one copyright, usually there are a great many for different parts of the site.

The website itself is not the publisher or owner of the site either. This site, en.wikipedia.org is not the Wikimedia Foundation which publishes it, and its content copyrights are held in very small chunks by millions of contributors, mostly under pseudonyms recorded in page histories. Similarly, NYTimes.com is not The New York Times Company, but in any case much of its content originates with other papers, distributed by wire agencies such as the Associated Press and Reuters. It is, for all practical purposes, impossible to be certain who owns the copyright to something we read whether it is on a website or on dead trees. The responsible action, then, is to entirely refrain from verbatim copying unless we know the source is in the public domain. Usually that knowledge is by dint of its age. So if we were to revise the line, I'd suggest simply "Please do not add copied content unless it is in the public domain." (The preceding post is copyright LeadSongDog, licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0) LeadSongDog come howl! 17:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Unsorted Error: Invalid RfC category specified: |Policy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

• I have to agree with the original poster. So often I see people here on Misplaced Pages using "copyrighted" to mean "copyrighted and not available under a license that is compatible with our own license" — we need to remember that copyright is the only thing that makes our licenses at all binding. Of course, if we added "without permission" after "copyrighted websites", I'd be happy with that, because a Misplaced Pages-compatible license is precisely the kind of permission that we need. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Same here; what Nyttend said.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agree about avoiding to frame the issue as "public domain" vs. "copyrighted", which is somewhat misleading. But I'm not quite happy about the proposed alternative either – we need something very simple, something that gets just the central message across to the clueless user, and without the reader having to first follow a link to the extremely confusing WP:Copyrights page. For the purpose of simplicity, I would think that even a slight amount of oversimplification is a reasonable price to pay. Perhaps something along the lines of "Do not copy text from elsewhere, unless it has been released under a free license". Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Who can write policy

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There is an ongoing Mediation case which is slowly working to rewrite the Misplaced Pages:Verifiability policy. I'd like to see a discussion take place with people's views on the propriety of the Mediation Cabal undertaking a case with a specific goal of rewriting Misplaced Pages policy. 05:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see anything wrong with an attempt to mediate the language of an RFC that will then be submitted to the community for normal discussion. If any user can submit an RFC, I don't see why an RFC can't be the goal of a mediation, as long as the participants think it makes sense. Just as long as everyone is clear that the RFC isn't somehow special on account of the medcab involvement. Monty₈₄₅ 06:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• I am the mediator of the MedCab mediation. And Monty845 is exactly right, there will be nothing special about the RfC. There's not all that much special about the mediation either - it is just a way to get the participants organized. After the last RfC back in October-December 2011 ended in no consensus, the discussion on WT:V had been going round in circles, and the "under discussion" tag has remained on WP:V despite several attempts to remove it. The mediation is an attempt to kick some life into the discussion, so that we can finally find a broad community consensus and remove the tag. So it is not nearly as sinister as the original poster makes it sound - the entire goal is to get wide agreement among the community. Anyone is welcome to comment on our progress at the mediation talk page, by the way. — Mr. Stradivarius 23:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  Who the hell said anything was "sinister"? And you're a Mediator?!
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  Well, I'm sure there's a lot more that I can learn about mediation. I have had a few eye-openers from the verifiability mediation this time round, in fact. About my earlier comment, "sinister" was probably a bad choice of word, sorry. What I meant was that from the original post, people could get the impression that the results of the mediation would go directly into policy, when in fact an RfC is the goal. (And I thought that a policy mediation without an RfC would be quite a sinister thing.) — Mr. Stradivarius 23:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  Ohms law, if you're keeping an eye on the mediation page, or even in glancing, how can you not notice Mr. Stradivarius is the mediator? Please tone down your comments. You asked for peoples' input, and we're giving it to you. I don't see what you're getting so worked up about. Whenaxis (contribs) 00:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• That Verifiability policy dispute is truly lame. It is essentially an argument over whether we can or can't define or examine Truth, and its really just a philosophical discussion, not a policy discussion. The policy is written perfectly fine as it is now, but some editors worry that the average editor is too shallow to perceive deep concepts. -- Avanu (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• On the titular question, anyone can write advice pages, and WP:PROPOSAL tells you the usual process for asking the community whether what you've written reflects its real policies (=what the community actually does). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Citing Highbeam sources

I am writing my first article using HighBeam Research sources ("Hearts and Souls"). I am wondering what the proper way is to cite such sources. Should I include put HighBeam Research in the publisher parameter?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam isnt the publisher, they are merely a method of accessing the data that was previously published. The publisher is the original news source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thx.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It's analogous to specifying |archiveurl= and |archivedate=, which are rendered only when |deadurl=yes. The important thing is to attribute the original to the publisher, but wp:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, not presume that Highbeam's archived version is a faithful and complete reproduction of the original. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fair to assume that HighBeam is as faithful and complete as Google Books or any similar service. In neither case are you required to specify your method of accessing the source; it's just a convenience link.

I suspect that the folks at HighBeam handed out those accounts specifically to drive paying customers (Misplaced Pages readers) to them, so I'm sure that they would appreciate such links. But we do not require them per Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#Links_to_sources (previously part of SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:HighBeam/Citations The example there shows how the HighBeam project was hoping the citations would be formatted. 64.40.57.37 (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:HighBeam/Applications. Nageh (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability (geography)

As of now Misplaced Pages:Notability (geography) is an essay. Unlike the previous failed proposal, Misplaced Pages:Notability (Geographic locations), it looks like a reasonable starting point. I would like to invite you to Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (geography) page to make it into a solid Guideline Proposal. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"Do not disrupt" and Demonstrating Misplaced Pages's Counter-Vandalism

I'm part of a group discussion about the reliability of Misplaced Pages; and I know a lot of people really don't realize how quickly vandalism is removed from the site. I was considering a demonstration--intentionally vandalizing (in a minimally disruptive way) an unlocked page and coming back to it within a couple minutes, expecting to see the vandalism reverted and a warning submitted to me.

I decided against this activity because it is contrary to the "Do not disrupt to illustrate a point" guideline. Does anyone have an idea for another way I could illustrate this to the group? Perhaps a sample page which shows a vandalizing edit in the history, the speed with which the edit was reverted, and perhaps even that user's talk page showing the helpful warning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marstead (talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalizing pages on purpose is a bad idea, even if you do it for a noble purpose. You could simply select a random sample of existing vandalism and analyze it. Navigate several pages with the "Random article" link and look their history; keep record of the X first pages where vandalism is found in the last month (or year, or half decade) and look how quickly it was reverted (and if it wasn't then revert it yourself, so that your experiment will actually help Misplaced Pages instead of disrupting it). Diego (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If you follow special:Recentchanges for a few minutes you should see plenty of vandalism being reverted, better to use that as an example. Definitely don't start vandalizing "for education purposes" yourself, I know people have been blocked for doing that in the past. Yoenit (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I remember statistics being made in the past that gave some numbers how long Vandalism lasted. I also remember wikipedia requesting help to crunch those numbers, so I dont know how well it went and if there is a concurrent effort to keep the data uptodate. I would look around and try to contact who ever is/was in charge of it, Belorn (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"Vandalism" itself is not a great way to measure anything at Misplaced Pages. That could only count the vandalism that has actually been identified - so as any type of a "valid" statistic, that is just a gross estimate. And how exactly do you identify "vandalism" from an edit from someone who is just plain wrong. Oh, I thought that the normal human body temp was 88.7 degrees. I guess my American schooling in science sucked.?

You would be better off measuring "accuracy". Selecting articles and doing a personal fact check to see if and how many and what types of "errors" exist and comaring error rates between different types of subjects: celebrities, current politicians, dead political figures, niche hard sciences, general high school sciences, biographies from English speaking countries, biographies from the rest of world.... -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The vandalism that was counted was those that got reverted with an edit summary claiming to be reverting vandalism. Its not perfect by all means. It includes false positives, misses reverts with bad summaries, and does not include unidentified vandalism. It does also not show reliability of the content, just how quick identified vandalism got reverted. On the positive side it does cover the whole Misplaced Pages, and is somewhat more objective than to let an expert search for errors in articles. Belorn (talk) 06:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Circular Reference Menace

I am unsure of what appropriate policies there are to deal with this or if more are needed. As wikipedia mautures the number of other web sources that draws from its information increases. Though I wish to avoid exmaples to avoid diverting the discussion to specific examples, there seems to be both a risk and examples of the following:..

1. Dubious or incorrect information is added.
2. This is not picked up on.
3. Sufficient time passes for other sources to use this information.
4. Other editors add these as sources.
5. An editor wishing to correct the original misinfomration faces an edit war with others who use the "sources" as evidence.

Thoughts please? Dainamo (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This is part of why we must not only have sources, but reliable sources. If a source is getting info from Misplaced Pages, it doesn't qualify as an RS.--Fyre2387 18:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not that simple, incorrect information originating from wikipedia has been published in respected newspapers and even scientific publications (see the "glucojasinogen" entry in wp:List of hoaxes on Misplaced Pages). It is a recognized problem, but we can do very little about it from our end. The problem is with journalists not checking their facts. See also this comic. Yoenit (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is not that simple. But it is a serous problem at times. Two weeks ago I had a loooong discussion with a user who insisted that although a website said some of its information was from Misplaced Pages, given that we do not know which parts came from Misplaced Pages, it could be considered WP:RS! Eventually after wasting a few hours of my life someone else shot that argument down. But there needs to be "clear policy" that as soon as a website says its content is Misplaced Pages-based then it is a no-no as a source. How can that get formed as a more clear statement? History2007 (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think wp:CIRCULAR is fine, what is your problem with it? Yoenit (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Does it make it clear that if a website uses "any" Misplaced Pages information to compile an article of its own, then the entire website is useless as a source? The other user's argument was that some of it is Misplaced Pages, some is not and so it has been compiled from multiple sources and it can be used. So the "one bullet, the website is dead" argument should be clarified there. It should probably say: "if a website uses any Misplaced Pages information, that usage alone will automatically disqualify the website as a source for Misplaced Pages". That is what I would like to see stated clearly. I will suggest it there anyway. History2007 (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If we can't tell which parts are from Misplaced Pages and which are from other sources (and by "tell" I mean, the source clearly identifies which material comes from which source), then the source is not reliable. It's not so much that the whole source is unreliable, rather that we cannot reliably tell which parts are and which aren't. Of course, if the source doesn't even attribute Misplaced Pages and it's a generally reliable publisher, then (as we cannot prove either way) there is little we can do except local consensus not to use it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Guide to requests for adminship

I proposed a change to this guide on the Talk page. However, only one other editor (the author of the text) is discussing the proposal - and probably only because I left a note on his Talk page. He and I have reached an impasse in our discussion, and it would be helpful if others (admins and non-admins) would comment. The discussion is here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Require well-formed code in articles?

I was thinking because MediaWiki parses pages into XHTML by default that we should encourage users to write wikicode that (if it includes HTML syntax) is for the most part well-formed. That is:

• Always use escape sequences for & < >
• Close and nest tags properly (e.g. <br/> not <br>)
• Does not contain certain characters

This is just to lighten server load. Not sure about this one myself. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really make a difference. The MediaWiki code cleans up HTML anyway, primarily because it's a security threat. Beyond that, there's the whole WP:PERFORMANCE mindset (ie.: "you, as a user, should not worry about site performance."). If this kind of thing ever becomes a significant issue then we can talk about what may need to be done with the ops folks. There are good reasons to avoid all sorts of xHTML style markup (and especially CSS) in wikitext, for usability reasons, though. It's usually a good idea to replace xHTML stuff with templates, for instance. That's a bit of a different subject, though.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The general user can not be expected to think about and analyze performance issues. Many users at large are historians, artists etc. and not programmer types. History2007 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki actually uses HTML Tidy to clean up HTML, including converting breaks. HTML Tidy does not work in MediaWiki interface pages, where an incorrect break can cause issues. HTML Tidy also induces problems, many of which have a workaround applied. We are switching to HTML5 (coming real soon) which supports both <br> and <br />. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  19:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Wait, we're switching to HTML5? Which reminds me, I had a suggestion for an HTML5/AJAX feature to be used in the editing UI (See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Use AJAX for live editing). 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the backend which translates Wikicode into HTML is switching to HTML5. We won't have access to those features directly. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Cite templates insert current date

When citing in an article, I exclusively use the "reference" icon and/orcite templates on the edit toolbar. When you select "Insert current date", on the citation templates, they insert the European style of dating. This gives the article a consistent style of dating on the references. It never occured to me before today that it should be otherwise, especially when you sign a talk page that also dates in the European style. As soon as Grace Towns Hamilton appeared on the Main page as a DYK today, there was a good-faith edit that switched around some - but not all - of the citation access dates to the American style. The editor was using Template:Use mdy dates I reversed it back, because the Notes section was then inconsistent on the access dates. I have noticed once or twice before (and can't remember the editor) someone coming in behind me doing scatter-shot changes to the date style in the article. You can find a conversation about today's Here. This is not about any specific editor, as far as I am concerned. This is about how future articles are written. If we use the citation templates, we're going to get the European style dates. Nobody can force any editor to sit there and manually override the cite templates on every citation, especially with multitudes of editors not knowing they're supposed to override the automation of it. And while today's edit was in good faith, the hit-and-miss of it messed up the consistency of the access dates on the inline citations. I think this is an inconsistency that should be reconciled to avoid future confusion. And just as a post thought, I used to manually insert the American style dates into the citation, but back then some other editor came along and reversed my American style to insert European style. Maile66 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

My reversal has now been reversed by a different editor. Misplaced Pages needs to get itself together on this issue.Maile66 (talk)

But, we are "together". See: MOS:DATEUNIFY. I don't understand what the problem is.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, because I already went to that. What I'm saying - is that if the citation date style and the body text date style are to be the same, then the citation templates should not have "insert date" at all - but maybe force the editor to type in a date. The insert style is going to insert the European version. That's the inconsistency.Maile66 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Go talk to the people who are maintaining that tool? What buttons people put on their tools, and how they're implemented, aren't really a Misplaced Pages policy issue (and, incidentally, there was still at least one month d, year formatted reference dates in the version you reverted too...).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

To set the date style, see Misplaced Pages:refToolbar 2.0#Automatic date insertion. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  19:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

But that would use the same date style on all articles, unless you go back and change it, right? Then it's the same problem, just a different style causing it. However, I don't agree that it's necessary to remove the option entirely to address this. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You can ask the refToolbar folks to add an option, but response has been slow. You can try ProveIt GT which works in a similar manner— I can't remember how the date works. I use the script User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates to clean up dates in a consistent style. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  23:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Lasting notability of an event

Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction."

Guidelines say:

WP:PERSISTENCE: "The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance."

But:

Some articles, dispite coverage only lasting a few months, get lots of page views.

Typical examples:

• UFC 108 (2010) gets 6,000 hits per month: http://stats-classic.grok.se/en/201204/UFC_108
• UFC 135 (2011) gets 16,000 hits per month: http://stats-classic.grok.se/en/201204/UFC_135

I am really on the fence on this one. Can many page views be considered an indication of notability? Should/could this criterion be in the guidelines? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

We specifically disregard pageviews in determining notability. Notability and persistence is based on sourcing, and that's all. And even if there's only a couple months of notable sourcing, that's usually acceptable for our notability standards. Events that only appear in the paper for a day or two are the type we disregard as non-persistent. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• • We don't require persistence for a lot of other things. I'm much more on the side that if it got massive coverage, it's probably notable. Even if that coverage was fairly brief. Look at all the Dr. Who episodes (for example). I don't think there is a massive amount of long-term coverage there. But there was a lot of coverage at the time, so we have the articles. Hobit (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Episodes of popular tv shows are persistent since they can be re-aired and re-experienced, and hence have long term coverage. The same applies to the UFC events above as (I believe) they are redistributed to home video, hence having persistence there. Compare that to an average baseball game - widely covered the day afterwards but unless it had a major impact (say, a perfect game) that's all you hear of it. That's the persistence issue that we're looking for. --MASEM (t) 03:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Although fairly brief, UFC 135 did get pretty good coverage at the time, but now such articles are vulnerable to AfD due to lack of persistent coverage, despite continuing page hits. I really don't know what to think anymore. Why are page hits disregarded? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Because notability is a scholarly aspect - what reliable sources talk about a topic. Do note that if we pass the persistence test at the short term, then we presume the topic remains notable - notability is not temporary. It's just that you have to show that the topic wasn't a flash in the pan. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

These MMA events (not just UFC) get coverage in the lead up from the MMA specialist sources, normally in the form of confirming who is going to appear, the event happens, the following day the main stream media report the results and then there is nothing. Much like football games (of any code) or MLB or NBA games. Most of the MMA event articles contain prose only relating to the lead up to the event in a "background" section and then just a copy of the results with no actual analysis of the event. A comparable example from the world of TV would be America's Next Top Model, we don't have articles on every episode but on the series as a whole America's Next Top Model, Cycle 18, each episode would probably pass WP:GNG given coverage in reality centric sources but the coverage is just the routine stuff these types of sources give to TV shows. Mtking 04:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please Mtking. I came here to get some neutral views on the page hits matter. I referred to UFC events as a case in point. Please don't use this thread to sway opinion. I want to hear from others. This is not the place to continue this effort to delete UFC event articles. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"...Because notability is a scholarly aspect...wasn't a flash in the pan." That makes good sense. What about a month of coverage after an event? Is there a rule of thumb? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No, there isn't. It's a "I know it when I see it" aspect. It usually depends on the type of coverage, as if the topic is still getting coverage but only in primary sourcing, that's probably not as good an indicator as if it was secondary sourcing. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Many thanks for the input. It's been educational indeed. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Artist interpretations used as illustrations of historical figures

I'm sure that this has come up before, but please indulge me.

This image is used in the main infobox for the article on Shen Kuo. It is a modern artist's sketch of a modern statue. I perceive this as being an interpretation of guesswork (as, unless I'm missing something, the modern statue's sculptor would have no idea what Shen Guo actually looked like), but that's besides the point. Why are we using a non-notable artist's sketch in an article at all? It strikes me as being an OR issue, and therefore being bad practice, but I couldn't find any policy on the matter, and being that the article is an FA, clearly other people have seen the image before and not taken issue.

Assistance or guideance would be welcome.

Sven Manguard Wha? 20:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we have any idea of the date of the bust/statue? If it still exists, and the bust is out of copyright, a free picture can be taken of it. If it is the case that the bust is still under copyright, I am definitely not thrilled with using a sketch. That's both OR issues and the derivative work aspect. I'm surprised there is not freely available imagery otherwise. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There is File:Beijing Ancient Observatory 20090715-19.jpg, which might be the source, and it looks covered by FOP. I could upload a crop and then do a replacement, but that dosen't answer the underlying policy questions, which I'd like to know before I make any edits. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The closest thing we have to a policy on this is probably WP:PERTINENCE, in particular the following sentence "Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images." Yoenit (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

So does that work for or against this? I'm not trying to be dense, I'm just really confused here. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That pic on commons is what we should be using. China has freedom of panorama laws, meaning that as long as that's installed in a public area, along with a few other credits required in the image descript. While this means the sketch is ok, there's zero reason to use it over the free photo. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

possible violation of wp terms of use-need to talk to someone

Hello! I'd like to discuss a case of possible violation of the Misplaced Pages terms of use. Since it is complex and may be a borderline case, I'd like to interact with a Wikipedian who is knowledgeable in policy issues via my talk page. Thank you! Cristixav (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A Challenge To The Idea Of Notability In Music

I think your criteria of what's important in music is wrong and is too heavily dependent on commercial considerations.

I think there should be space for musicians that have created a body of work that's already on MusicBrainz perhaps. I strongly feel that less financially successful... less famous... but serious musicians, like my uncle 'Rockie Charlies Merrick', President of Soul... who was known globally...but on a small scale for his live appearances over 40 years... that his recorded work and the work of other serious musicians like him... should be searchable and preserved.

I feel working musicians with verifiable bodies of work should be able to catalogue their works in the Wiki system so they're not lost to future interested persons/researchers.

In my uncle's case, he built up a significant following over 40 years in the industry. I feel that Wiki is missing out on the chance to preserve important things in the interest of the easy way to make a music catalogue. How is it that a teen-ager who did nothing more than sing to a backing track quite badly could be 'notable' but he isn't?

This was him

I rediscovered his work last year during a song-a-day-for-a-year project that I successfully completed. I'm here in this discussion room today because I had intended to share my experiences and what I'd learned after spending all of 2011 writing songs everyday and exploring social media from the point-of-view of a novice... learning by doing. Although I studied Music in university, I knew nothing of how to the music industry actually functions, nor did I have experience in social media or anything remotely IT related.

A technical writer that I know wrote a summation of my work and an editor friend of mine was going to submit it on my behalf, when I decided I didn't want to do it that way. My project was non-commercial and after reading your guidelines, I felt unsure of myself. I felt that according to Wiki, I needed to sell lots of copies of my music be notable, but my project wasn't the least bit commercial at the time. And now, regardless of what happens once the songs are remixed and sold in albums or placed by publishing companies, I can't help but feel there's something wrong with the value placed on money and awards.

This is me

In my travels, I've discovered world music that may never be cash-cows for the corporate entities which dominate the music industry and most 'significant' music charts. I re-discovered the music of my uncle, who was overlooked for the 'big-time' in his life, but made some incredible Blues music that should not be lost.

There can still be strict guidelines on self promotion, but I feel there's something wrong with the way you judge what's important and what's not important in music.

I told my friend that I would find it hurtful, after studying music to the post-graduate level... to have my work rejected on it's own merit, but to have these same songs accepted once I or someone acting on my behalf sold enough copies of some of them. That's how your system looks to me... closed to anyone that hasn't sold enough copies of their work or won an award that's mainly (not always) based on how many units were sold.

I know this seems like a personal question, but since music is my life, I guess is personal. I think any owner of original copyrighted material should be able to catalogue the facts about their work and connect their Wiki page as composer/songwriter...to their MusicBrainz page. Maybe even sync the two pages with updates?

I just wonder if you might not be able to find a better and more fair way to make musical works searchable regardless of the commercial side of things.

My name is Rhonda Merrick and I wrote this (I admit...long) email to say that I disagree with the way the Wiki community seems to decide what's important and what isn't in music. I'm asking you as a community to find a more fair way to be inclusive rather than exclusionary based on commercial success. I welcome ideas and discussion on this issue.

Thank you. Rhondamerrick (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhondamerrick (talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

While the poster may not understand how major of a role "coverage in sources" carries both at the music notability guideline, and in the other route (wp:notability) available, I think that the message asking for self-review is a good one relative to the other parts of the music SNG. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)The notability guidelines for music are essentially an offshoot of the main notability guideline - that is to say, if something has been covered in other sources, we should probably host an article about it. The reason the music guidelines focus largely on commercial success is because commercial success gets written about elsewhere; if an artist has created a platinum-selling album or charted highly on a country's national chart, chances are very good that they have received coverage in reliable sources for doing so. At the end of the day, Misplaced Pages reports on what other sources say; to do otherwise would be original research. To take your uncle as an example; he may not have been as famous as Justin Bieber, but if people out there have written about him (and that Nola.com source is a good start), we can write an article about him too. Feel free to start one; it looks to me as if there are plenty of sources to provide material. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I do however, Strongly Oppose the suggestion that musicians be encouraged to edit their own articles. MusicBrainz, whilst a good idea, is user-generated content and thus not suitable as a source - so why link it? - and suggesting they link to other pages about themselves is just an invitation for floods of linkspam. For every Rockie Charles, there's a spotty teenager with a record deck in his bedroom, who's determined to make a Misplaced Pages page on his alias "DJ Wickedfly Pixieknuckles" to promote his latest mixtape. That is not what we're here for. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Rhonda: The Music notability guideline is supposed to be subserviant to general notability policy. If your uncle doesn't meet the music notability guideline, then maybe he meets general notability policy? The fact that a newspaper wrote a full-length article about him, Rockie Charles, the 'President of Soul,' dies at age 67, suggests that he may be notable. Do you have any other newspaper articles about your uncle? Were any books (not self-published) written about him or covered him? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, that newspaper article says that Jeff Hannusch interviewed Rockie Charles for his book, "The Soul of New Orleans". If Rockie Charles is covered in that book, that's evidence that he might meet the general notability policy. I also found another newspaper article about him: Rockie Charles, 'President of Soul,' shines in the Blues Tent A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think A Quest For Knowledge's point regarding the General Notability Guidelines is very important and oft overlooked. So to emphasize, if a subject meets the General Notability Guidelines, the special notability guidelines do not matter, they exist primarily to provide advice on what subjects are likely to meet the general guidelines. Monty₈₄₅ 16:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

May sanctions that are actively in effect be removed from a user talk page

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:User pages#May sanctions that are actively in effect be removed from a user talk page. Particularly, may an editor remove active block notices and community sanctions from thier talk page? Monty₈₄₅ 17:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Template:Z48

Time to make WP:BRD policy?

There have been two cases recently that have troubled me, and I am sure I am not imagining the gradual erosion of consensus editing. I am not a particularly aggressive editor, but I seem to find myself being dragged into more and more edit wars over the last few months. As an example there was a case at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:71.239.128.44_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_31h.29 where I was threatened with a block for "tag-team" reverting. In that case, myself and three other editors reverted unsourced SPA edits against a consensus to the article. The problems were clearly discussed on the talk page but the SPA failed to address them; after semi-protection was turned down we continually reverted this editor (even after he was blocked and returned) but ended up being instructed not to make any more reverts to the article ourselves. I am not here to question the admin's interpretation of rules in this case, I freely admit I reverted a few times, but I wasn't really supplied with satisfactory guidance i.e. dispute resolution takes us to a consensus (which we have), it doesn't enforce it; I mean the SPA was reported and SemiP requested, and the situation just wasn't dealt with, which resulted in the continuous reverting. There has also been a more troubling case involving User:Armbrust, which resulted in a week long block and his retirement—I am actually pretty worried about him because he divulged very personal information which seems to indicate he is in a vulnerable state. He severely broke 3rr though, the admin was correct to block him, but in both my case and that of Armbrust we are ending up with situations where hard-working editors are facing blocks, and I am seeing this more and more with decent editors.

The main problem here is that editors are coming along with a total disregard for consensus editing, the defensive editor takes actions to protect the integrity of the article and both editors end up receiving a block. The net effect which we are seeing more and more of is that more productive editors are copping for blocks in trying to retain the integrity of the encyclopedia. It seems to me WP:BRD is a good ethos that if everyone was forced to follow, then Misplaced Pages would generally just be a nicer place to be. If BRD was a policy, we wouldn't have lost a brilliant editor like Armbrust. I'm quite happy to obtain a consensus for my edits, but similarly I don't like seeing my work trashed if I've spent an evening on it. Does anyone?

My proposal (or something to this effect) is to make BRD an active policy, applied to any type of edit that 3RR would apply to. BRD effectively dictates that you need a consensus to initiate changes to the articles. So if someone reverts you, then reverting the edit that reverts you should result in an automatic block. BRD insists that if someone reverts you then you should start a discussion on the talk page; a policy could add if the reverter doesn't respond in 24 hours then you are free to restore the edit, if they do and still challenge it then the policy would insist on a third opinion before you restore the edit. After effectively been barred from taking action to remove unsourced SPA edits from an article, and the loss of a great editor like Armbrust which will be severely detrimental to the Snooker Project (he designs and implements all our templates) I am becoming increasingly tired of pretty much entering a combat zone on virtually every article. I think enforcement of BRD as a policy would just make Misplaced Pages a more pleasant place to be. I think the bottom line is that people join because they like to contribute, and they leave because they hate to see their work trashed, so a move over to true "consensus" editing would be a good thing. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Involved Editor - Regarding the IP incident, I ended up filing an AIV filing before the 3RR filing was processed, which resulted in a 31h block and appears to have settled the problem. In part this was because the last time I filed a 3RR request I was explicitly told by the closing admin that I could have gotten faster results by going through AIV. I don't think it was appropriate for Betty to receive a warning in this instance as multiple editors were reverting a single editor who was not engaging in dialog before reinstituting their contested edits. I reviewed the 3RR filing and I didn't see anything to suggest I had opened myself up to a possible block, but if so then I think it would have been appropriate if I'd been warned directly (i.e. on my Talk page) as well. It also would have been an act of good faith, and I think an argument could be made that no editor should face a 3RR-related block unless they have been explicitly warned beforehand.

I don't think I'd support making BRD a formal policy, but I certainly think that Betty was operating in good faith and certainly not alone, and this may be a case where either the particular clerk involved needs to be told that their actions were unwarranted, or 3RR handling should be reviwed so that we don't have editors operating in good faith and not unilaterally facing blocks for allegedly being disruptive by reverting a clearly disruptive and unilateral editor. Doniago (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

BRD is a good concept to keep in mind whenever edit warring starts to arise, and action can be taken by the community when an editor flagrantly violates it repeatedly, but it is a terrible concept to try to implement as a policy since basically it can be thrown so much around whenever a disagreement comes up. It is effectively one strike, and it would harm new and experienced editors alike against those that like to wikilawyer. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but the wrong venue: we can't make policies on this page. I think you'll want to start an RfC on WP:Village pump (policy) instead. Would you mind moving this thread there? 28bytes (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment