Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please try to post within news, policy, technical, proposals or assistance rather than here. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Scientology overcovered?

Here is Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology which now includes 240 articles. There seem to be about 100,000 Scientologists in the world so there is one article for every about 420 of them. Do you think this is a little bit too much? Thanks. Steve Dufour 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:Scientology#How_many_Scientology_articles_are_needed.3F for more on this discussion thread, also see comment there by User:Raeft: There should be as many Scientology articles as there are coherent and individual informative occurrences, locales, people, or other originators of encyclopedic content related to Scientology. Adding information serves to make Wikipedia -more- coherent and encyclopedic, not less, and adding too much material to one article makes it overlong and clunky.

Incidentally, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts has 319 articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons has 745 articles, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo has 1,608 articles. Smee 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

More people are interested in these topics than in minute details of Scientology doctrine and history. Steve Dufour 13:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? Have you talked to them? That is, both the people more interested in those other topics than in Scientology doctrine and history's minute details? Because I posit that I know many people more interested in the latter than the former, and thus we are tied. I mean, even if we HAD statistics stating exactly how many people were interested in every topic on Wikipedia, the current guidelines would NOT, Steve, NOT mean that this made one bit of difference.

The only number of people who need to be interested in an article in order for it to be on Wikipedia, is one. One person interested enough to find documents or examples, if they exist, of materials about the article subject which are verifiable, reliable and therefore notable. Please read these guidelines before you continue to make the mistake of equating sheer -number- of believers, interested parties, or adherents to the notability of an article.

I have said to you before that the bar of notability for Wikipedia is deliberately low. That is to say, if it CAN be written about in a reliable, unbiased, and substantiated fashion, it should be, if someone wants to write about it. The higher we set the bar, the more articles get taken out, and the less Wikipedia can claim to be a comprehensive and reliable encyclopedia on every possible topic.

To simplify this further, I quote Wikipedia:Notability:

• A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial1 or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."

Please, go there and read up on the discussions about what constitutes notability. If you, as such an experienced editor, with so many valuable edits, had known about this, I feel sure the recent failed AFD application for article Xenu would not even have been initiated and time would have been saved. Now, to the bulk of things:

Steve, I do not know how many times I shall have to say this in the space of encountering you on Wikipedia, but I shall say it for the 5th time here, without being so trite as to cite the other times:

The standard of notability on Wikipedia is not how many people are interested in, believe in, or know about a topic, of necessity. The standard relates only to the presence of reliable sources, and the verifiability of same. Wikipedia is a Wiki, a huge, capable, utilitarian and powerful distributor and container for knowledge. If one source on an article which is intensely reliable, or multiple trivial and valid sources can be found, an article can be written.

This spirit of verifiability and reliability is what makes it possible for TV shows, even ones no one has ever heard of or which were never shown on TV because they were dropped while still being written, to still have an article for every episode if we have reliable sources for them and verifiability is established. Interest does NOT equal notability, and I do not know any other ways to say it except those I have been using.

Even apart from this, there are many Scientologists (the Church claims over half a million), and aside from that, many people outside are interested. Pop culture has directed attention at them (YTMND and South Park, others too), aside from which, even the obscure articles in the Scientology series, you have -admitted- (I will not be so crass as to cite you now), are well written and well sourced. Since well and verifiably sourced equals notable by Wikipedia standards, well... I leave the other conclusions for those following the discussions on Xenu's talk page and the attempted AFD there, as well as that for Scientology, and Wikiproject: Scientology.

Peace. Raeft 15:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of hard work has gone into the Scientology series of articles. I just think that 240 is a lot on this one subject. Steve Dufour 17:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you measure that, though? How do -you-, personally, determine what is "too much" information about any one given topic? This is an encyclopedia, more information is a -good- thing. Now, if any of the information is inaccurate, not neutral, or in some other way messed up, that can be addressed on the individual article's talk page, etc. And can be fixed. But sheer number is -not- a reason for there to be less. Chances are good there will only ever be more, and since this is an encyclopedia being built? Bigger is good. If I search a topic I'm interested in on Wikipedia, and don't find some information, or it doesn't have a page, chances are good I'll MAKE that page. Everything can be written about, if you have the sources, that's the beauty. There is no such thing as too many articles about one subject. As long as each is unique and a stand-alone article. And if it's not, there's merging, but merging should be restricted to when two things are so close in topic that a suitably organized page can be knocked together from them. Peace be with ya.Raeft 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You say each article should be unique and stand-alone, but in the Scientology series a lot of pieces of information are repeated in multiple articles. Steve Dufour 19:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the reason for that is that Wikipedia pages cannot cite themselves. Each article has to be both unique, AND stand-alone. Statements and sources have to be repeated if they are condusive to information about the subject of the article. The triviality of difference between two closely related article can basically be summed up in saying that the closeness has to be great. Multiple similar articles are often used to keep already-long pages from becoming inconveniently long pages, AND to separate different topics. Really, if the information is repeated, one can only justify removing it from an article if it doesn't BELONG there, if the information does belong, it's perfectly acceptable to repeat it. Sometimes repeat material can be removed from an article if the information is key and prominent in a closely linked article (Such as in the "see also" section, or something linked in the text), but it can NEVER be removed altogether, since taking information which is well-sourced and verifiable out of Wikipedia is destructive to its overall goals. Thus, it is better to have the information twice, than to risk not having it at all, and if an article ceases being comprehensive due to someone removing material they feel is "repeated", and the lack of said material leaves a casual reader less informed, the editor has done a disservice to the base of knowledge present. But, I'm through quoting and paraphrasing Wikipedia guidelines, the process handles itself rather nicely when everyone does their best, and the number of Scientology articles on Wikipedia is not going to stop growing. Peace, and Eris be with you. Raeft 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that two articles could be merged if they contain the same information. Steve Dufour 22:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not if they only contain -some- of the same information, you see. For instance, sometimes the same information is relevant to two different lines of thought and discussion, and placing it only in one place would be counter intuitive to single articles being informative in many cases. Cheers, I'm done here. Peace. Raeft 01:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I might post another notice when the project reaches 365 articles, one for every day of the year. Steve Dufour 03:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Violation_of_WP:POINT. for more on this user's attempted disruption of the project. Thank you for your time. Smee 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Steve's statistic seems a bit exaggerated. If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/publicwatchlist you'll see that many of the articles listed are related to Scientology rather than about it - an important distinction. Examples include Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, Christopher Evans (computer scientist), Erhard Seminars Training, Gabe Cazares, Penet remailer and of course John Travolta. As for the rest, Steve needs to remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and therefore, to quote, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." -- ChrisO 07:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. There are a few on that list that do not seem to be mainly about Scientology, most do however. Steve Dufour 16:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is where I got the number 240: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Scientology articles by quality statistics. There are now 247 Scientology articles. When the count reaches 250 there will be one article for about every 400 Scientologists in the world. Steve Dufour 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God you must be joking!

Here's what you should do instead of telling us the ratio of articles to Scientologists: find some actual articles that are either non-notable or so close in information that they need to be merged. Atropos 20:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me get back to you on that? Steve Dufour 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Starting from the beginning of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/publicwatchlist here are some that have no cites from secondary sources (which discuss the topic of the article): Altered texts in Scientology doctrine, Andreas Heldal-Lund, ARC (Scientology), and Author Services Inc.. That does it for the A's. Steve Dufour 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the B-list: Believe What You Like, Bennetta Slaughter, Body thetan, Bridge Publications (scientology). Steve Dufour 17:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And the C's: Celebrity Centre, Church of Scientology v. Gerald Armstrong, Citizens for Social Reform, Clear (Scientology), Creative Learning: A Scientological Experiment in Schools. Steve Dufour 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The D's: Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science, Dianetics Today, Doctrine of Exchange, Dumbleton-Powles Report. Steve Dufour 19:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

E's and F's: Enturbulation, Fishman Affidavit, Fort Harrison Hotel, Foster Report, Foundation for Religious Tolerance of Florida, Frank A. Gerbode, Free Solo Processing, Freedom Magazine, Freewinds. Steve Dufour 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going hit the last article, Freewinds, with a notability template and see what happens. Steve Dufour 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The tag was removed. It seems that every ship that sails the seas, like every Pokemon character, has its own WP article. :-) Steve Dufour 23:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

These are the G's: Galactic Confederacy, Galaxy Press, Game (Scientology), Gerry Armstrong, Golden Age of Knowledge, Golden Age of Tech, Golden Era Productions. And the H's: Harry Palmer (Avatar), Helatrobus, Heron Books, Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, Hubbard College of Administration International. Steve Dufour 00:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The I's: Ignatius Piazza which might have BLP problems, Implant (Scientology), International Association of Scientologists, Introspection Rundown. And one J: Jesse Prince already tagged as non-notable. Steve Dufour 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Then we skip to the M's: Mark Bunker, Mary De Moss, Meade Emory, Medical claims in Scientology doctrine no secondary source seems to be about the topic, MEST (Scientology). And an N: Notes on the Lectures. And some O's: Operating Thetan, Orientation (film), OT VIII. Steve Dufour 01:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles are sourced up to: Reactive mind, Robert Vaughn Young, Ron Newman (computer programmer) already tagged for non-notability, Ron's Org, Ron's Journal 67, Route to Infinity, Rundown (Scientology). Steve Dufour 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Lots of S's: Safe Environment Fund, Sara Northrup, Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics, Scientology 8-8008, Scientology cross I contributed to this one, Scientology holidays, ScienTOMogy at least it cites itself, Security Check Children, Source (magazine), Squirreling I corrected the info on real squirrels, Standard Tech, Straightwire, Study Tech. Steve Dufour 02:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

T's too: The Cause of Suppression, The Creation of Human Ability its one cite is not about the topic, The Phoenix Lectures, The Process Church of The Final Judgment, The Scientology Handbook, The Technology of Study, Tim Bowles, Traumatic incident reduction already has 3 tags. Steve Dufour 02:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Finishing up: Writers of the Future, Xenu is not on this list, he has gotten lots of press coverage, Youth for Human Rights International the newspaper story cited did not seem to mention it, and lastly Zenon Panoussis. Steve Dufour 02:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientology Finance was not on the watchlist but seems to have serious problems. Steve Dufour 05:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And the count is now 252. :-) Steve Dufour 20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a really hard time believing that this list is in good faith. AndroidCat 21:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please check out any of the articles I mentioned and see if they are supported by secondary sources, unless something has been added to some of them since I posted the list. Thanks. Steve Dufour 21:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You obviously didn't check out all of them or you wouldn't have included Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto. There are quite a few others there as misplaced as your last [1] effort. That's why I have trouble taking this seriously. AndroidCat 02:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The article Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto is only sourced by court documents, primary not secondary sources. I am not saying it should be deleted however. Steve Dufour 04:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's -good- that you're not saying it should be deleted. Not simply because primary sources are -acceptable- when talking about the documents themselves (documents from a court trial are perfectly acceptable as sources about the documents themselves, and their contents (the case). Additionally, to imply the documents were untrustworthy would kind of be saying the supreme court of Canada is not a reliable source. I would then foresee that people who've used Roe V. Wade's text as a source, or oh so much else, would be bothered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.224.195.30 (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

My list was in response to Artopos's suggestion to mention some Scientology articles that were non-notable. I am not saying that they should all be deleted. However, there should be some secondary sources added to that article. Steve Dufour 17:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto is extremely notable in Canada and is cited in a great many cases involving areas of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is covered in law schools. Comparing it to Row v. Wade isn't out of line. The article is primarily part of WikiProject Canadian law, rather than Scientology Series. AndroidCat 05:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

But still its WP article has no secondary sources. Steve Dufour 17:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And just in case you were wondering, Atropos is not a sockpuppet. :-) Steve Dufour 15:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am! Stop denying it. Atropos 06:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The first comment on this topics says, "There seem to be about 100,000 Scientologists in the world ..." However our article on the Church of Scientology says: "The Church has said that it has anywhere from eight million to fifteen million members world-wide, and has stated that Scientology is "the fastest growing religion in the world."" -Will Beback · † · 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article does contain that sentence. It then goes on to mention quite a few surveys and censuses which seem to indicate about 50,000 Scientologists in the USA and a couple of thousand or so in each of a handfull of other countries. Steve Dufour 21:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If the article is more accurate than the church's own statements then that's an indicator of the value of this material. -Will Beback · † · 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Will. :-) Steve Dufour 23:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it: most articles are just a repetition of others. All the "doctrine/practice' stuff could be merged, and so could the "controversy" sections. This thing is just artificially blown up. Instead of having dozens of stubs, several long articles would do better. Misou 22:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But try to delete or merge any and see what happens. :-) Steve Dufour 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that Tim Bowles is now up for deletion. And the count is still 252. :-) Steve Dufour 04:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And it survived the test!!! The count is still 253. :-) Steve Dufour 03:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But now it is up for deletion review. Steve Dufour 11:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it passed that too. Steve Dufour 14:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

253. Steve Dufour 17:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A big jump today! There are now 272 Scientology articles. Steve Dufour 00:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article on Ken Ogger, an ex-Scientologist trying to get on with his life, has now been nominated for deletion. This one might have a chance. The count is still 272. Steve Dufour 15:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ken's article went down!!! But there are now 288 Project Scientology articles. So over one a day have been added in the last month. Steve Dufour 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Compared with other religions, this is pretty scant coverage. There are 17,800 pages mentioning moonies, 2,080 pages mentioning sikhism, 3,110 pages mentioning falun gong... --Infrangible 23:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The Unification Church also seems to be overcovered for its number of members. There are 23 million Sikhs and at least 2 or 3 million Falun Gong members in the world, according to their articles. Searching the same way there are 3,970 pages with the word "Scientology". That's one for about every 30 Scientologists. Steve Dufour 05:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles per Scientologists is a rather misleading measure of overcovered, undercovered or anything of the like. 10800 pages on Wikipedia use the name "George Washington", using the google method used above. Does that mean that George Washington is overcovered? No it means he's famous. I could go on with similar examples. The US Supreme Court has nine members and is mentioned 5170 times (and 3010 times as Supreme Court of the United States), does that seem overcovered? No, because those articles are notable and important. The category United States Supreme Court has more than 355 pages in the main category and principal subcategories. That's more pages than scientology for an organization with only nine members. Cool3 21:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the Supreme Court is one of the most important institutions in a nation of 300 million people, while Scientology is mostly only important to its members. BTW I would guess that about one article for 10,000 people would be about average for WP. Steve Dufour 01:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientology is mostly only important to its members - Excuse me? You don't know that. May I suggest that you just drop the whole issue you have against coverage of Scientology on Wikipedia? Your whole argument consists of (1) random statistics that no one has analysed to see if they actually mean anything and (2) broad generalisations that you have no idea are correct. --Iamunknown 02:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if Steve keeps posting idle tidbits, the Twisted Metal thread will be archived, and this month-long thread of little content will be top of the charts. AndroidCat 06:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I felt like commenting about that too; I wish this thread would go away. --Iamunknown 07:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support--SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 18:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Before it does, I forgot to mention that Xenu, a fictional character created by L. Ron Hubbard, is mentioned on 745 pages and there are now 276 Project Scientology articles. Steve Dufour 13:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter, a fictional character created by JK Rowling is mentioned on 7940 Wikipedia pages. These statistics, really don't mean too much. The city of Chicago is mentioned on 77300 Wikipedia pages. Quantity of coverage of this that or the other doesn't matter so long as the articles involved are factual, well-written, and follow Wikipedia policy. Cool3 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think Harry Potter is only 10 times more important than Xenu? Or Chicago only 100 times more? Steve Dufour 17:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're missing (or perhaps disagreeing with) my point that these numerical comparisons are misleading and nearly useless. Nonetheless, I would like to ask you something, do you feel that Wikipedia is a complete and finished encyclopedia with articles about everything that should have an article? I seriously doubt it. Wikipedia still has lots of room for further growth and development. Any growth of well-written, encyclopedic articles is worthwhile. If you really think that the coverage of scientology is out of proportion to that of Harry Potter or Chicago, then the best thing to do with your time is write more articles on Chicago and Harry Potter or whatever other encyclopedic topics you may choose. Cool3 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia isn't paper, we don't need to fit everything into 30 (or 100, or 1,000) volumes, and if the articles are good, then they're good. If people are willing to do the research and write good articles on a topic they're passionate about, their contributions should be valued, because they're valuable. We have articles on nearly every concievable sexual act, articles on obscure acid rock bands, articles on nearly every officer in the US Civil War. That's what will hopefully make Wikipedia the Best Encyclopedia in the World someday... we have articles on everything :).--SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 18:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is getting ridiculous. Does anyone else not think that this particular thread is pointless and is taking an inordinate amount of space on this project page, because of one editor??? Smee 08:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

The best featured article

What do users think is the best featured article? --Hadz^Talk 11:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You excpect an answer? Alphabetagamma 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Try the random generator at Wikipedia:Featured content. Carcharoth 03:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't answer what's best because I've only read a few of them. My favorites are chess and The Turk. YechielMan 05:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sesame Street rocks! -- Zanimum 17:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (doing shameless self promotion)

There is no such thing as the "best" FA. Although different users might have different perceptions.--Kylohk 22:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The KLF won a wikimania award. 86.31.103.208 13:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I was impressed with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Steve Dufour 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No solution

There is no solution to the edit-warring problem. Every tactic we use can be used by our opponents. As Wikipedia grows to encompass the world it will be riven by conflict just as the world is.

Information can be shared, but control cannot. In the end, someone gets their way and someone doesn't. Stability requires totalitarianism; freedom implies chaos.

Some people cannot share the same world. If they cannot be given different worlds (different Wikipedias) they will fight over what is available.

I am sorry I cannot help you.

--Ideogram 10:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... yes, someone gets their way and someone does not. It is logically impossible for two people to simultaneously get their way, if they want different things. Why is that bad? -Amarkov moo! 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We have to live together or die together. We no longer live in a world where we can simply exterminate our enemies. --Fuarco 19:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Consensus. Corvus cornix 20:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of Wikipedia editors who refuse to accept that principle. What do we do with them? --Fuarco 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you do with rude co-workers, family members who won't get along, apartment dwellers who are too noisy, etc. etc.? You work with them, live with it, persuade them, wait them out, and a dozen other strategies. No magic bullet - in life or wiki-editing, alas. - DavidWBrooks 21:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I never was good at compromise. --Fuarco 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars often end in sad ways for one side or the other, especially if they don't stay calm on the talk pages. It often ends up in arbitration, where one of the involved persons would be blocked from editing pages in a certain category. I guess it's just human nature to be competative at times.--Kylohk 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Compressing footnotes-- some issues

Three or four significant articles that i have worked on, in some cases articles that i created and developed from scratch, have had footnotes compressed, by three or four different editors. I'd like to offer some comments for discussion.

• There appear to be several different styles of footnote compression. I don't have any particular preference, but it seems to me that mixing different styles can lead to daunting barriers for an average editor seeking to add referenced content.

• Compressing footnotes has a couple of significant benefits, but in my experience, having them compressed by someone who wants to do so in order to "help out" during someone else's extended editing sessions is like throwing a monkey wrench into the project. Every step thereafter, it is necessary to move that wrench out of the way to get productive work accomplished. Spend the effort to study one person's compression style, the next one to come along is completely different.

Well, that can perhaps be dealt with, and any inconsistencies cleaned up later.

• But there's a common practice during footnote compression that is very damaging to the integrity of the article. That is the practice of moving footnotes during compression. I've seen this frequently—a footnote that is in the middle of a sentence or paragraph, for very good reason, is moved to the end of the sentence or paragraph. It may facilitate the compression process or seem more attractive, but it makes the article dishonest. In fact, i think it is particularly unattractive to have three or four footnotes moved from within a paragraph, all stacked up at the end. They are thereby rendered unhelpful in judging the veracity of sources, because not even the original author may recall which note applies where. The footnote compression process scrambles everything to such an extent that textual comparisons are nearly impossible, so the only "fix" for a botched compression job is either massive effort to re-correlate references, or undoing the compression entirely. What can be done about this?

— Richard Myers 21:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• What can be done is to revert. If you are convinced that formatting concerns have distorted the actual content, I would suggest doing so. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some of my experiences to date have been discovery of moved footnotes days after the footnote compression. I expect that i'll need to begin inspecting more thoroughly for such changes, immediately after the edits.

Is there a forum or discussion page for those who do these footnote compressions? Thanks for the response — Richard Myers 16:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Also, when making a complex, interesting point, you can capitalize the first-person singular pronoun I, as has been done in English for hundreds of years, so the broken spelling rule doesn't distract readers. - DavidWBrooks 00:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• The article being talked about is Molly Maguires. The version I saw looked like this. The version after I had edited looked like this. Using the same footnote more than once is covered in WP:FN. The "moved footnotes" claim is hardly relevant, as can be seen by the edit that moved it back, I simply moved it to the end of the sentence rather than leave it in the middle and that was the only moved footnote. I don't do footnote compressions per se, I'm a member of the Irish Republicanism WikiProject and it's a project article and I was simply improving it, in my opinion anyway. The only thing that is currently "damaging the integrity of the article" is the lead that Richard Myers has added. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, my primary concern was with a couple of other articles, which involved systematic repositioning of footnotes. The single Molly Maguires example reminded me of the previous examples, which were a greater concern. As far as the lead, please feel free to be bold... best wishes, Richard Myers 07:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

deadline extension for participation in Wikipedia study

Dear English Wikipedia community,

I am conducting a study of the Wikipedia communities in six different languages for my diploma thesis. Please read my initial announcement for more information.

I owe a big "thank you" to everybody who has helped answer my questions.

So far over 50 people across six Wikipedia communities have contributed to their community's answers and I am grateful for their help. However, for the study to be comprehensive I need more people to get involved. Some communities also seem to need more time to discuss and work out the answers.

Therefore I have extended the deadline for participation until May 13th.

I have used mailing lists and village pumps to spread the announcement about my research questions, but every community has their own channels for the distribution of information. So, I ask you to help get more people involved to make sure the results accurately represent your community.

When phrasing the answers, please approach it as if you were writing a Wikipedia article: try to work on joint answers that your community can agree on. The answers don't need to be neutral in an NPOV kind of way, but please try to give a comprehensive picture of the processes and ideals of your community.

The questions can be found at User:Kurt_Jansson/questions; please edit the questions page to contribute.

Best wishes,
Kurt

Editing experiment website

I have created a website which intends to be an "editing experiment" for Wikipedia involving a relatively-tightly-knit community based solely on article development. I mainly designed it for those who are disillusioned by the present community of Wikipedia but still want to work on articles. If you're interested, please send me an email. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain more please. Whats the experiment? -Icewedge 22:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The experiment is what I call a "semi-fork", however, articles must be copied from Wikipedia by demand. Basically, I want to create an alternative atmosphere where the people of the community know each other (basically so that they're more than just names) and there is more focus on collaboration and generally working on articles (as opposed to some of the other stuff I've seen on Wikipedia). My wiki is supposed to be attractive to those who are disillusioned with the Wikipedia community yet still want to edit articles. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Curious. Where did Vanity gallery Go?

Vanity gallery was an article I contributed a small bit to a few months ago, but now it's not there anymore -- Even my contribution list doesn't have it. If I hadn't mentioned it on the talk page of Vanity press I might not even have remembered it. I haven't dug much into the mechanics of Wikipedia, but what happened? I'd be the first to admit it wasn't a great article (I can cheerfully do that because I didn't write it.) -- a small definition and a long list of galleries with their fees. It wasn't great, but certainly something on the subject is worth doing. Artemis-Arethusa 00:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is odd -- the edits seem to have been deleted, yet there is no deletion log entry. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Since spelling and capitalization count, you probably created it with a different name and it was deleted. You could try looking through articles for deletion archives, but it wouldn't be there if it was speedy deleted. Also, deleted articles no longer show up in your edit history. I've tried a few misspellings that you might have done, but no luck. An administrator would have to find it... if you could interest one in spending the time... Jaksmata 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write it, I only contributed a minor edit. And it was spelled and capitalized exactly like that because my (now inactive, but back then it worked) link to it still exists in that form. Me, I would have capitalized both words. It makes sense that deleted articles vanish even from edit histories. I wondered why because it seemed a worthy subject (if a mediocre article) -- vanity galleries are a serious plague on artists, big time. Artemis-Arethusa 12:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Vanity gallery was deleted, but for some reason there was no deletion log entry (perhaps a server glitch) It doesn't look like an obvious speedy delete, so i have undeleted it. DES ^(talk) 13:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple English Language

Could someone please explain the point of having a simple english language? Is the only point of this language for some kind of mockery of english speakers? I honestly do not get it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moistspike (talk • contribs) 04:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

For little kids and English as a second language speakers, of course. It probably helps as an intermediate step towards translating articles into foreign languages as well, since reading the simple version of an article might only require en-2 or -3 skills while the main version might require en-4 or higher proficiency to understand. --tjstrf talk 04:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't fully understand it either. I guess it helps with non-native speakers, but I don't know too many kids so little as too have significantly limited english profiency that spend time visiting online encyclopedias. As for people who speak english as a second language, I tend to feel that they might be better off reading in their native language (which is generally possible). If they are in facy aiming to improve their english skills by reading, though, shouldn't they read the real thing? In any case, I think that all of the simple english editors should come back to the main en wikipedia. We're nowhere close to having a perfect encyclopedia here (but we are getting closer every day :-)). Cool3 22:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the Basic English article might help. I once had a book named Basic Tagalog which built on the Basic English philosophy, but for the Tagalog language. I found it useful, but couldn't get up the motivation to apply myself to it hard enough to become conversational in Tagalog. -- Boracay Bill 02:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what they say, start from the basics. If you throw someone into the deep end when learning languages, you are likely to run into a brick wall early and give up. So, I guess the Simple English is designed for people who want to brush up their English skills before moving up the next level.--Kylohk 22:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion - are invalid comments disregarded

I've seen a number of deletion discussions recently , where the reason for a keep or delete "vote" has been false (for example "delete - single use templates are bad" - the template is used on more than one page; "keep - Google shows this is notable " - another editor had already described in detail how the Google results all referred to a different meaning of the term concerned). I realise that some of these issues may be value judgements, but many are clearly not. Do closing admins take such matters into account? If not, should they? Andy Mabbett

I do, especially if someone comments on the reason explaining why it's counter to policy and/or wrong. --ais523 08:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps deletion policies should be amended to give admins a remit to do so (indeed, to encourage, if not oblige, them to do so)? Andy Mabbett 16:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-embarrassment

As a fairly experienced user of 4 years' standing, I don't know where else to post this, so I hope this is an appropriate place.

Does anybody else have the same problem I have? I have told only a selected few of my friends or family about my involvement with Wikipedia, for the simple reason that the name "Wikipedia" sounds, well .... silly, and even embarrassing. Many of my friends and family seem never to have heard of WP, going on the fact that they've never mentioned it to me. When I have broken through the silly-embarrassing firewall, and told some friends about it, typically they confirm it's something they've never heard of, and when I tell them a little of what it's all about, they immediately say it couldn't possibly work, and/or since it's open to anyone at all, how could it possibly be regarded as an authoritative source for anything? Almost as if a site with such a silly name is obviously not worth a cracker. So, I've learned to just get on with my editing and shut up. Can anyone relate to this? Am I just projecting my own internal stuff onto others? (Oh, and if you happen to be my closest friend, or one of my siblings, Hi!). JackofOz 06:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia"??? How ridiculous. you should be ashamed of yourself. Rhinoracer 08:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi jack, i have experinced the above, when i talked to my dad about using wiki (it's his PC/connection i use weekends) he just used his 'indulgent smile', the one he used with me as a kid when i use to come up with/out with those 'crazy assed' ideas i had (and still proudly do!) - and then i found out a few weeks later that he had started accessing wiki to help him with crosswords, although he would never admit to it. Perry-mankster 11:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Helping to run a forum, I don't really see so much of a problem in helping other people and distributing content for the world to see. There is only a problem when Wikipedia starts to take over your life when it will start to become embarrassing. If you really are unsure, then show them articles like 0.999... to confuse them, or George Washington (inventor) for surprise, or even the current featured article. x42bn6 Talk 18:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Another good one for raising eyebrows is Karl Marx (composer). I'm interested in "There is only a problem when Wikipedia starts to take over your life when it will start to become embarrassing." Can you tell me more of your thoughts on this? It might just be irritatingly relevant. Thanks. JackofOz 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The article on Marx was shocking! Who knew that Marx's songs would be used in Nazi songbooks?:-) Steve Dufour 17:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've not encountered a negative reaction from mentioning to people that I contribute to wikipedia. In fact a few go so far as to praise wikipedia unabashedly. (So much so that it can be tempting to give a more balanced perspective.) — RJH (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about this today. Be sure to say that the reason you are volunteering here on WP is to make a positive contribution to the good of humanity, not that you are doing it for fun. Steve Dufour 00:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it is entirely possible to contribute for both reasons at the same time. :-) — RJH (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read a while back that Wikipedia is one of the fastest growing webpages. Therefore, eventually, it should be widely accepted that you'd actually want to actively say you are a Wikipedian.--Kylohk 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Operating system screenshot

This is [2] screenshot of BKUNIX, a GPLed operating system. But it also contains some output by computer's ROM including bootup messages, indicator string at the top of the screen and the font of the letters is also ebeeded in ROM. How should I proprly provide the license information?--Dojarca 07:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

IIRC Font bitmap output is uncopyrightable under US law. --Random832 00:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

1980 Winter Olympic Hockey Medalists Incorrect

There seems to be some confusion as to who won what medal in ice hockey during the 1980 Winter Olympics. Obviously the United States won the gold. However, some people, including me, have mistakenly placed Finland with the silver, and the USSR with the bronze. This is being reflected in some player articles having the wrong medal credited to them. I personally went back and forth with Fetisov's article. The confusion lies in how hockey standings are used during the Olympics. In the Olympics, playoffs are "round-robin" and a point system is used, a win counts as 2 points, a tie 1 point, similar to the NHL. This is what determines who gets what medal. So officially, the USA got the gold with 5 points, the USSR got the silver with 4 points, and Sweden got the bronze with 2 points. Finland placed fourth with 1 point. With that said, it looks like 1980 Olympic Ice Hockey player's articles for the four teams mentioned above in Wikipedia are going to have to be looked though to make sure credit is given where credit is due. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maximus92 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Go to it then. :-) Steve Dufour 16:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

USA, USA, USA, USA....

sorry... just reliving the moment :>) Blueboar 18:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject scope

I'd appreciate any comments from the wider community on the discussion going on here concerning the scope of WikiProjects and what pages they should and shouldn't be tagging. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved to here. Carcharoth 01:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

%s

I have listed this at RFD to try to generate discussion on what to do with this title --Random832 00:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism that isn't vandalism

What do I do? I try to make a couople of small amendments to pages relating to Irish & Northern Irish History and contemporary events and they are reverted as vandalism. I then get a final warning from someone who lives in England and probably has a granny who knew someone from Limerick. What do you do if you dispute content and simply try to make it read a little better (whilst maintaining a studied neutrality)?

Regards

Tlufs (talk · contribs)

Bear in mind this is the editor that vandalised a template featured in this news article, and his other contributions speak for themself. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• What? Like this? Or this fun little bit of template vandalism, which actually got mentioned in El Reg this morning? That kind of non-vandalism? Yah right :b - Alison ☺ 00:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• When you are planning to make an edit, no matter how small to an article whose subject might be controversial, it's a good idea to consult the talk page before you do it. Otherwise edit wars may occur.--Kylohk 22:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia meets the resume

Simply put, would you ever consider using, or have you ever used, your experience as an editor and/or admin on Wikipedia as a volunteer experience on your resume? --Saaga 00:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Never thought of it. It might work if you could mention being elected an administrator or something like that. Steve Dufour 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't updated mine in years, and hopefully never will! But, yes, I think it would be valid inclusion among one's activities/interests. Particularly if you can find anything significant to mention: "...for which I have written over 100 articles, some of which have been featured on the main page" or "...the processes of which have given me invaluable experience of dispute resolution and policy development". Adrian M. H. 23:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

being a wikiadmin would count against you in a job application, just like trainspotting or playing videogames. dont do it. 86.31.103.208 13:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How exactly? Wikipedia administrators are usually chosen for being responsible, trustworthy, and giving-a-care. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

funniest thing i read all day! ;) 86.27.129.210 11:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I put my wikipedia editing into a resume for a job as a technical writer. Corvus cornix 18:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you get any reaction, positive or negative? Did anybody mention it as an impressive indication of your dedication and interest in the technical-editing process? Did anybody mention it as a laughable waste of time that shows you're only an amateur? Did anybody ignore it, because it is routine to see it on resumes, or ask you about it because they didn't know what wikipedia is? (I mean these questions sincerely, by the way, not snidely - this is a very interesting, and I think quite new, indication of how wikipedia is perceived in the outside world.) - DavidWBrooks 19:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We went into a discussion of Wikipedia and what it is, and how editing works. I had also printed out some articles that I had created and showed them what I could do. I didn't get the tech writer job, though.  ;-} Corvus cornix 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I put it on my resume. Most people in the outside world don't know about administrators, but they do know about Wikipedia and my contributions to articles in my field demonstrate knowledge, expertise, and work ethic. Dcoetzee 20:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Faux-Scientism as style

I have detected that there's a trend to not use common language terms and expression but to give articles and article names a exaggerated sense that everyone and everything is a scientific phenomenon and not part of the shared human experience. It needs to described in specialist terminology. There's an expression of distance, as if we needed the perspective of Martians to write about humans for a human audience.

Stories about people become anthropology. Articles about organizations and institutions become an analysis of ideologies. Maybe this tone of scientism is motivated by editors seeking objectivity, but it seems awkward and strange to me. To others I believe it might obscure what is actually meant by the editor, or to a marginal reader of English result in an unreadable article. patsw 15:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you have made a good point. One of my pet peeves is the article on Bigfoot. That seems to me to be kind of a "low-brow" subject, but after a couple dozen words the article starts talking about Gigantopithecus blacki. Steve Dufour 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

List of RMS Titanic passengers

I have put a message (from WP:fr) here about the list of RMS Titanic passengers. Thanks for an answer. Regards. Jpm2112 06:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

a little backup?

I made a proposal on my blog that the Discogs site could become an open Wiki-- and now I'm in the middle of an "experts vs. consensus" argument. It needs a bit of balance. Anyone want to visit and present a nicely-worded defense of the wiki concept? Here's the URL: http://startlingmoniker.wordpress.com/2007/05/07/discogswiki/

Thanks!

--Daephex, Wikipedia contributor

Dense Articles

Many wikipedia articles have become so long and dense as to be completely incomprehensible. The article for Rhetoric for example is obese with redundant text. I think that Wikipedia in general needs to thin out the articles to make them more efficient without subtracting from their informativeness. 63.229.221.191 02:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have expected better in an article on rhetoric. :-) Steve Dufour 14:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Reindeer Lake

this article has the coordinates of the location floating in the wrong spot(top right above the heading) and i dont know how to fix, so it needs fixin --Johnrob69 03:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

de-Wikipedia ↔ en-Wikipedia

User:DerHexer (sysop on German Wikipedia) worked for four days on en-Wikipedia and wrote an interesting report about his days here. He described among other things some differences between vandal fighting here and vandal fighting on German Wikipeda. Are there any similar reports here by users who went to the German Wikipedia but mostly work here? What do users think of the German Wikipedia? --de:Spongo 08:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading German Wikipedia in English

As a result of trying to read the above report I had an interesting experience. To see what I found try the following link: Interesting report translated by Google. "No big deal", you say, "I knew that Google could do that". Well fair enough, but try clicking on any of the Wiki links on the page. Now that's cool! Suddenly the German Wikipedia is browsable in "English"! -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Interviews for a research about Virtual Communities

The internet is still a fairly recent phenomenon. Whereas communities and groups enjoyed thorough research, theories and knowledge about virtual communities are relatively limited. I am busy with researching how virtual communities communicate, interact and exchange knowledge and information. Most importantly, I am interested in the relation between virtual communities and knowledge creation.

As Wikipedia is one of the biggest and most popular virtual communities, and as it is focused on knowledge creation and knowledge exchange is it perfect to contribute to this research.

I can get lots of data and information from the site it self. But in this context, people are crucial. Crucial for understanding the motivators and visions which are necessary to have a website as successful as Wikipedia.

I am therefore looking for people who are active on Wikipedia who would find it interesting to give interviews. These interviews are necessary to complete this research successfully. Obviously you will be able to express your own opinion and illustrate Wikipedia as you see it. NeniPogarcic 08:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Project pimping

One featured article per quarter is a group of like-minded editors attempting to increase featured article counts on the English Wikipedia. We're always looking for more talented writers, copyeditors, and reviewers to assist in the project, so come on by. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Q

What does "!vote" mean? Simply south 20:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-politically correct way of saying "a formal expression of opinion for the purposes of group decision making that is not strictly decided by majority rule". In other words, a vote, just with variable cutoff points for victory and suffrage. --tjstrf talk 22:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is derived from Mathematical logic, where the prefix "!" is the Negation of what is being prefixed. --Iamunknown 00:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Flags in inboxes for people

Could somebody please confirm Wikipedia official policy of whether, or not, a flag should be put into a person's infobox as part of the location of birth information. Thanks.

My question follows the continual deletion of the Scottish flag from the infobox for Billy Connolly (by a user who thinks that the Scottish flag is "rubbish" and "cute"), and the recent deletion of the flag from the infobox for Graham Chapman (by a person who wants to avoid a discussion on whether the English flag — or the UK flag — should be used in his infobox).

Also, with respect to infoboxes of people born in countries within the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) there seems to be a lot of confusion about whether the UK flag should be used, or whether the flags of the individual countries should be used, within infoboxes to show the location of birth. Because there are four individual countries within the United Kingdom, I feel that the individual flags should be used in infoboxes (i.e. the English flag for people born in England — the Scottish flag for people born in Scotland — the Welsh flag for people born in Wales etc.), instead of the all-encompassing UK flag (because the UK flag covers too broad an area). A discussion regarding this topic has already taken place on the Talk:Hugh Laurie page (under the title "English rather than British".

I feel that the decision of whether, or not, a flag should be in a person's infobox, should be made on an official level and, therefore, 'uniform' for Wikipedia as a whole (as an encyclopedia), and just not rely on an individual user's own POV on the subject. Figaro 00:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:216.243.164.219&redirect=no

while I understand that you have a computer ISP for my computer but I use a home computer, shared with no one, and I have never edited or added anything to Wikipedia.

I use it, enjoy it, get pissed off by it, but, up until now as I write this, never once did anything upon it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.243.164.219 (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

We're sorry this happened to you - it does indeed happen whenever an IP address is shared by more than one computer over time, something fairly common in many situations. The edit made by whoever had your IP on the 7th will not count against you in any way, but if you really want to make sure that you don't get these kinds of message, you may want to consider registering a username. That way you'll only get messages directed to YOU. Confusing Manifestation 06:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it my browser, or the wikilinks changed color?

File:Firefox links wikipedia.jpg

you see what the problem is?

I am using wikipedia for over a year and contributing and I am not joking. Is there a change on the wikilinks color? When a page does not exist they are still red, but when it does exist they have changed from the regular blue to Maroon. I am using Mozilla firefox and I really find it confusing. As a matter of fact, I find out as I am browsing that some elements such as Table of contents, citation needed button, the sidebar, edit this page button etc, are still in blue. The colors of wikilinks also changes after some time to blue, and back to maroon as I browse wikipedia! If it's not my browser it's frustrating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexignatiou (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

I think it is your browser or settings... links are still blue for me. Blueboar 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That happened to me as well. Maybe it was just general MySQL flakiness? Everything appears fine now. — RJH (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion on the technical section The problem should be fixed now, if you clear your browser cache. DES ^(talk) 17:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In-jokes on wheels

I rarely participate in Wikipedia's inner workings despite having been an editor for a few years. What's up with all the in-jokes regarding the phrase "On Wheels"? There seem to have been some pages created to explain it, and all those pages appear to have been deleted. Why the censorship? Can I be let in on the joke? Fishal 16:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Old case of a repeat (and now banned) vandal... he would put "On Wheels" at the end of the title of every article he touched. Stupid as hell, but then vandals usaually are. You're not really missing anything by not being "in" on the joke. Blueboar 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethics: Is Editing Wikipedia a Community Service?

Occasionally I consider being the sort of person who allots a percentage of time each month to community service. In my mind, this means painting over graffiti or volunteering in soup kitchens. In other words: gritty and unpleasant work. But it occured to me today that editing Wikipedia might also be considered a community service, as long as one's contributions are arguably helping one's fellow man. Am I rationalizing my desire to spend more time editing Wikipedia in my pajamas, and less time picking up trash on the beach? Or is there legitimate ethical weight to considering Wiki-editing a part of one's monthly ration of public service? Jonathan Stokes 23:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're rationalizing; no, it doesn't count in the tally of "good works" we carry in our heads. IMHO, of course. - DavidWBrooks 00:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Am I rationalizing my desire to spend more time editing Wikipedia in my pajamas" Yes. "is there legitimate ethical weight to considering Wiki-editing ... public service" Yes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ONUnicorn (talk • contribs) 04:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Well, it depends. Writing a featured article on an undercovered human rights issue like the Lord's Resistance Army certainly would in my opinion give you brownie points. The other stuff, well it might be nice, but it shouldn't replace actual community service.--Pharos 05:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

And I definitly wouldn't suggest putting time spent editing Wikipedia down for community service for a court punishment or college application ;). --Ybbor^Talk 13:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by community service. If you are talking about the punishment on delinquents then it's definitely not true! People edit Wikipedia because they enjoy doing so. I take editing as a hobby.--Kylohk 14:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Slogan for Wikipedia

I think a really good slogan for Wikipedia could be: "Everything about everything"

Just an idea, given that Wikipedia has mostly in-depth articles on just about everything :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TurboForce (talk • contribs) 01:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't think that quite catches it. :-) Steve Dufour 14:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "...mostly in-depth articles..." If only! Adrian M. H. 20:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

How about: "Everything about some things and something about everything"?  :-) Steve Dufour 04:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Or we could just use "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." --tjstrf talk 04:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You could suggest this at Motto of the day, where there's a new Wikipedia motto every day. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this allowed and where?

Is it allowed to discuss ArbCom decisions with the wider community, or will it only get me blocked for disruption? Or maybe it is irrelevant since it will not change anything? If it is allowed and relevant, where should it be discussed? --Ideogram 18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be absurd if you were blocked for doing so, but it's also completely useless, since Arbcom is not subject to community consensus. -Amarkov moo! 04:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC

I keep seeing this everywhere as a way of communicating with people. What is it and how exactly does it work? Simply south 22:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:IRC. Feel free to ask more questions here. --Ideogram 22:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk about talk

On Talk:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, we're running into people talking about the same issues over and over again without reading the whole talk page to see their questions have already been asked and answered. To solve this problem, I rearranged the headings, and User:TTN quickly reverted my edit because “Topics go in chronological order. It helps make which topics have come and gone clearer.”, but that's just it! The topics aren't going away, and people keep asking the same already–answered questions about Smithy, music, screenshots, etc. I reverted TTN's edit stating, "However the same topics keep coming up again and again! This prevents that.", which TTN quickly reverted stating, "Take it up at WP:TALK if you care that much. Every other talk page does it chronologically.)" I read WP:TALK and found my way here. Suggestions? Taric25 00:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Check how it is done at Talk:Wii. Archive, and leave a few comments about frequently asked questions to prevent them from reappearing. -- ReyBrujo 04:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! We're going to refactor it and add an FAQ section. Taric25 20:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia in another language

I would like to know how Wikipedia in a language other than the existing may be started. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.43.222.171 (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Instructions are here. There are a lot of Wikis already, so you should check the list of Wikimedia projects to make sure that the language you're thinking of doesn't already have a Wiki. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)