Talk:Brown Dog affair/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

BDA, WM & COI?

(moved from my talk page -- Crum375 (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC))
Can I do a reality check. Yamakiri's 20:10, 17 June 2008 edit substituted a coord template in place the the WM link. You have reverted that in favour of WM.

However, is it not the case that the toolserver page provides a link to WM, as well as 15 or more other maps ... whilst the WM link provides a link to, err, only WM?

Is it also the case that you have some interest in WM?

Are readers being better served by:

• A link to a single map site
• A link to toolserver's list of many map sites, including the single site

--Tagishsimon (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Simon, I have no more "COI" in WM than you, or anyone else. I do want WP readers to have the best possible information to be able to locate the statues. WM shows a square around the location of each statue, while none of the others does (to my knowledge). I see no problem in adding more links, including the general coord template. Crum375 (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added the generic template link also. Crum375 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept your COI answer. I raised the question since you have in the past appeared to be keen to see coords updated in WM, suggesting a closer affiliation with that site than, say, google.

IMO, one of the benefits of coord is that it provides an indirect link to many map sites. My view is that a more cogent argument is required than that there are "no problems with further links". I could as easily add direct links to google, yahoo, MS, multimap, streetmap &c &c. That WM places a rectangle around the location, rather than, for instance, a pointer, does not of itself seem to offer sufficient competitive advantage to justify its listing. From my persepective, the WM links do still appear to be evidence of partiality. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Simon, you say "evidence of partiality", which seems contradictory to WP:AGF. I actually personally like and use GoogleMaps a lot, as well as GoogleEarth and some of the other mapping services. I rarely use WM myself, but I think that for a wiki article where it's important to provide a simple link to a clear location, the WM link which has a rectangle around the target, is far superior to a confusing link farm like GeoHack, that requires extra clicking (after you figure out where to click) and zooming, and even then does not explain where the target really is. If you have another way of providing the same functionality and simplicity as the WM link, I'd be happy to support it. Note that I have added the GeoHack link also, so we now have both. Crum375 (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not very helpful to invoke AGF at this stage; I could as easily argue that your reaching for AGF itself falls outside the spirit of AGF. Here's what I see: you are promoting links to WM, initially in preference to and later as a complement to links to GeoHack, even though GeoHack provides WM links. You have in the past gone to the extent of emailing me (11 April 2008 16:47) asking me to confirm that WM has correct coordinates. I have vague recollections of other conjunctions of Crum375 and WM, though I have not (yet) done a a search for same. I come away with a reasonable deduction that you have a partiality for WM. And indeed, whilst refuting a COI, you admit this partiality - you like its rectangles.

For my part, I do not think it is helpful that articles should have multiple map links. Nor do I think the preferences of individual users should dictate which links are included. I argue that GeoHack is the accepted standard for map links, precisely because it ends any bickering over whether the map link is to Google or WM or Multimap, or wherever, and instead leaves it to the user - albeit at the cost of an additional click - to decide which map source they prefer.

I invite you to consider that your personal preference for map source should not have a bearing on the link issue, any more than my personal preference for a map source; or, in the alternate, to agree that the result of dispensing with the geoHack convention is that we return to the situation in which we either get revert wars or else a growing list of map links, one per source. Surely both of those are worse options than contenting ourselces with GeoHack. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Simon, as I tried to explain to you above, I rarely use WM myself, I don't promote it in general, and my general personal mapping preference is contradictory to my choice here. Please focus on the message (which map link is best), and not on the messenger. I do think that having a rectangle around the target is helpful, along with more information available when the mouse hovers over, or is clicked on the target. By having the direct WM link, which provides the simplest directions, along with the more confusing but universal GeoHack link, we let our readers have the best of all worlds. BTW, I would also like to thank you again for your excellent work in locating the sites and photographing them. Crum375 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not buying it. Why should WM get this special treatment? Why should not those with a google preference or a yahoo preference add their own links? It makes no sense at all to me. Its like putting book link to amazon, rather than use the ISBN. Can't you see that? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If the Amazon link had some special feature, that would help a user find useful information, and was significantly better than the other links, then I would certainly include it. Our goal is to help our readers get the best possible information, not to play favorites or conversely, try too hard to give every source an equal chance. In this case, the WM link has a box around the target, when the mouse hovers over it the target's name is seen, and when the mouse is clicked, more direct information about the target is provided. If another link has equal or better information, that can help the reader find the target faster or easier, let's present it. The generic GeoHack link is cluttered and confusing, and is not very helpful in quickly identifying small targets such as in this article. Crum375 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"not to play favorites". So let's not, then. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. So we need to focus on merits only, and per my message above, the WM target box and related information is by far easier to use and identify the target. If anyone is aware of a better solution, please present it. Crum375 (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You are playing favourites, by deciding that WM is in some way superior to any of the other mapping sites. How can that not be clear to you? How can that not be clear to you? How can that not be clear to you? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And FFS, WM: has rectangle, if clicked on has abstract of wiki article. Google: has pointer, displays wikipedia icons which if clicked on display an abstract from wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How is picking a link that requires the least amount of clicks to see a clear rectangle around a reasonably zoomed image of the target, where there is nothing else even close, "playing favourites"? And why would WM be my favorite, given that I rarely use it myself? Please try to focus on the simple issue: which link provides the simplest and easiest path to the clearly designated target at the proper image size. Crum375 (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We do not know what information people accessing Wikipedia are after. There are so many possible criteria for different location and geographical information service related merits, that it's impossible to choose any single service. A "clearly designated target at the proper image size" is just one of them, without any context for "proper". Therefore taking a stand on the type and quality of information we point people to over all the alternatives is clearly partial.

If Wikipedia considered rectangles important, we would be providing the information ourselves or have all location related articles pointing to Wikimapia. Nobody has suggested such a thing of course, because it's not encyclopedic enough to be useful for inclusion and obviously promoting a single advertisement driven commercial service. Wikipedia needs to be consistent, and adding single map services in single articles is just trying to sneak in a viewpoint that would never be supported by the community Wikipedia wide.

The Wikimapia links in this article should be replaced with coordinate links of appropriate type and name. --Para (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't know what information our readers are after, but we need to guess at it, otherwise we'd write no articles. In this case, we are guessing that people would like to know where the target is within its general vicinity (e.g. city), and within its local area (e.g. park or neighborhood). We are also assuming that some people would like to actually visit the site by foot, and our goal is to make it easy for them to find it. Based on the above, we provide several links (wiki is not paper, so we are not limited to just one primary link). One of them is a link that after a single click shows the target within a reasonably zoomed aerial view, enclosed in an identifying rectangle, which shows the target name when the mouse hovers over it and more information about the target when the mouse is clicked on it. We also provide a link to the generic GeoHack link farm, that allows an interested reader to follow a myriad of links to various mapping services. I think overall this is a reasonable strategy to serve our readers. Crum375 (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not based on guessing. When information can't be included in an article and there are many similar external resources for the information without any quality criteria, we don't choose one or a few of them subjectively, but point to a link directory. See WP:ELNO#15. Pointing people to just one or a few external services is undue significance, as if they were the best ones when there are many others that may for most readers be better. This is especially true for projects with "wiki" in their name, which associates them to Wikipedia sister projects. In the case of the commercial Wikimapia project that doesn't share its data for reuse and displays advertisements for all visitors, it couldn't be much further from Wikimedia projects. Even with the exclusion of Wikimapia, there will never be agreement on what the best services are, and the opinion of a couple of editors isn't going to change that one way or the other. All Wikimapia links must therefore be converted to coordinates and/or removed and articles linked to the list of all available services. --Para (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the issue is here, but if there are two views on which map should be included, then please simply include both. I know the one I clicked on that was a replacement for the previous one was very confusing.

The bottom line for me is that this is a featured article so it would be good if it weren't changed unless the changes are unambiguous improvements. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That would amount to "this best one and all those others", for which there is no reason with this article. Many services provide just the same reliable information as the one some editor chose here, and so there is no reason for Wikipedia to drive all that traffic to that specific commercial service. Wikipedia needs to be consistent, not arbitrary, and most articles in Wikipedia have coordinates only without any specific map link. --Para (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really follow your argument, Para; apologies if I'm missing something obvious. As I see it, the issue is that an editor went to the trouble of locating the old and new brown dogs on a map at Wikimapia, and has (as I recall) placed rectangles round the locations to help people find them. Link to those maps were added here under External links. Someone else has come along and prefers another link. That is fine. We can add the second. But there is no need to remove the links someone spent considerable time on, especially given that the information is helpful to anyone wanted to locate the statues.

There's no reason not to have links to more than one map. If it ever reaches the stage where we've included links to 50 maps of brown-dog locations, then we can rethink our approach, but as things stand, there's no problem. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Traditionally, when coordinates are added to an article, all external links to map services are removed to have that general coordinate link only. This is because the coordinates lead to all available services, including the one with the rectangles, so it's not removing any information but only making the information in the article more general. Readers can then make their own decision on what the best service could be, like with Wikipedia information generally. --Para (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you'll click on the provided generic link, you'll note that you get to a huge link farm, highly intimidating or confusing for most readers. Even if someone is smart enough to know (or guess) that the obscured WM link provides the relevant rectangle with further information, they still have several confusing optional links to choose from. Assuming they click on one, they get to the wrong zoom factor, that provides hundreds of rectangles over 99% irrelevant locations. On the other hand, when they click on the top level WM link that we provide, they get to the rectangle with a single click. Right to the point. That's our goal here — serve the reader in the best possible way, not ourselves. Crum375 (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone is intimidated by choice, they'll need to find a way to go back to the last century. You added those Wikimapia links yourself[1][2], and according to SlimVirgin, entered them into Wikimapia yourself as well. This insistence on keeping them in the article indicates a huge COI on your part, as Tagishsimon already noted. A single additional click is nothing compared to the risk of Wikipedia seemingly linking to Wikimapia as a primary external map service. I have converted the information in the article to a more general format, this time with the appropriate scale. --Para (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The goal is to make it simple and easy to our readers, not confusing, with the least amount of clicks and the least ambiguity. In any case, having both types of links solves the problem. Crum375 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You have now reverted four editors to keep your self-added and self-created links in the article. How many more do you think there needs to be before you can accept that not everyone thinks the rectangles are as useful or important as you think they are? There is no policy, guideline, or anything else to support your position of saving readers a single click, whereas Wikipedia:External links clearly advises against these types of links when coordinates are present.

Consistency Wikipedia-wide is everything. If you don't think that the majority of current location related articles have usable external links, you're free to start a campaign to include a rectangle link to them all. This article is now one of the few remaining Wikimapia links in Wikipedia for no particular reason, and it will be modified to match other Wikipedia articles eventually, just like has been done with ISBNs. --Para (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Consistency ... is everything" — not. Helping our readers to easily obtain useful information is everything. We need to be focused on our "customers", the readers, and how to best help them. If they can access useful information in one easy click, vs. accessing a confusing link farm with no easy way of knowing how to get to a properly zoomed and properly identified and labeled information about the target, then we should promote that. By adding the link to the link farm we ensure that nothing is missing, but by including the direct link to the useful single-click information we give them the most relevant material. Crum375 (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Consistency is important, but not at the cost of ease of use or useful information. Our primary goal is to serve our readers and help them find information in the best possible way and with the least amount of effort (or clicks). Providing a consistent link to a link farm of mapping services is reasonable, and no-one is objecting to it. The point here is that to help the readers we are adding a link that with a single click provides a properly zoomed aerial view with a rectangle over the target, which provides useful information and makes finding the target much easier. Wikipedia is not paper, and there is no need to remove useful information as long as it helps the readers. Crum375 (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Crum's personal opinion is that Wikimapia provides the best geographical information for people and is the most relevant. Five Wikipedia users have now disagreed with him related to this article. Wikipedia articles in general do not share his opinion, as otherwise they would all be linking to Wikimapia already. Please read WP:OWN. Again, if Crum thinks the current prevailing practices with external map services do not support ease of use, he can start a campaign to change that, but enforced keeping of self-created external content in a single article is not the way. Wikipedia's usability may suffer slightly from the principles of being an encyclopedia of neutral, free and accessible content, but these are important cornerstones of the project that can't be ignored just because of personal preferences for some external service over all the others. Wikipedia is not in the business of fooling readers to go to advertisement driven commercial websites when so many alternatives exist, but gives them the chance to choose by presenting all the services with no bias. --Para (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Every editor here expresses his or her personal preferences when it comes to deciding content, and that is normal and expected. Of course, we all also try to abide by the rules, and I don't think there is any rule being broken here. The issue at hand: we have a link that provides a single click access to a properly zoomed image of the target, along with an identification box, an identifying label and explanatory text. We also have a separate link to a confusing link farm, that contains hundreds of links, including the first simple one. I believe that Wikipedia, which is not paper, can afford to have both links, to help the users get to the relevant information in the quickest and easiest way possible, along with the generic universal link farm. This approach does not violate any policy, it helps the readers get to the core information in the quickest and easiest way, and it has been approved as part of a Featured Article by a consensus of Wikipedians. Crum375 (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's mind boggling seeing an administrator claim that Wikipedia is based on guesses and editors' personal preferences. What happened to WP:V, WP:N and WP:NPOV? Anyway, related to this article, please reread WP:ELNO#15 and WP:CONSENSUS. --Para (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Para, please focus on the message, not the messenger. And the links you provide are not related to this case. We have here a simple situation, where two distinct links are provided: one directly to a helpful image via a single click, another to a confusing link farm, which among others includes the first link but requires more selections and clicks to find it. We include both links in the article because Wikipedia is not paper, and because the first link makes it easiest for a user to find and identify the annotated target, while the second is universal and may help someone researching or comparing the efficacy of various mapping services. As far as consensus is concerned, this article is a Featured Article, and the link in question has been approved, along with the rest of the article, by a wide consensus. Also, for your information, WP:NPOV related to disputes among sources about specific facts: e.g. source A says the world was created by a supreme being, while source B says it evolved from a Big Bang. NPOV tells us how to ensure that we include all reliable sources and balance them neutrally. How to best present non-controversial information to our readers has nothing to do with NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CCC, 5-1. Redundant links will be removed. ---Para (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Crum's "I see no problem in adding more links" at top of section conflicts with the latest "confusing link farm" statement. More links are both OK and confusing? Actually, we don't encourage having many external links. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

True, we don't encourage having too many external links, and the primary reason is to prevent clutter and confusion for the reader. In this case, we have one link which provides, via single click, instant access to a properly zoomed aerial view, with a labeled box over the target. Another link resolves when clicked to a large link farm, which is provided as a "catch all" solution to cover all bases. To the best of my knowledge, none of the links in the link farm gives us a properly zoomed and direct view with a labeled box over the target. But overall, we provide two external primary links (per item), which is not excessive by any measure. Crum375 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

Would whoever keeps removing one of the links please stop? Our "customer" is the reader, and our primary concern is his/her convenience and enlightenment. With the link you are trying to remove, with one click the reader gets the exact location of the statue. With the link you want to replace it with, one click gets the reader a link farm, with no indication where the statue is, or which link on the list might be helpful.

Even though the first link is clearly more useful for anyone trying to locate the statue, there's no need for us to choose between them. We can keep both as a compromise. I'm requesting that everyone here agree to that rather than trying to impose your personal preference. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is your personal opinion that WikiMapia is the most useful out of all online map services. You personally can drive your customers to any commercial service you prefer, but as a general information resource, Wikipedia will not have any part in that. Your opinion is not supported by others, and you have been reverting in this article against consensus. If WikiMapia really was the best service available, all location related articles on Wikipedia would be linking to it. They however are not, and there is an ongoing consensus backed project to remove existing links from Wikipedia articles. Nowhere in Wikipedia policies or guidelines is ease of use a top priority goal that trumps everything else. Wikipedia is all about information, balanced with the goals of the project to control its dissemination, and mentioning in the article that one of many commercial services happens to have a rectangle about the location is irrelevant, like it would be with any of the various other services. This is going around in circles, so let me present some opinions that Wikipedia editors and a majority of readers are likely to have:

• Bird's eye imagery of the object and its surroundings from Live Search Maps is the best way to see the area.
• Directions to the location from Yahoo Maps are better than in any other service.
• Free street maps from OpenStreetMap are closest to the free content goal of Wikipedia and should be promoted over anything else.
• The flexible user interface in Google Earth and all the data available through it is the best way to cover everything related to the area.
• Maps from Multimap.com are locally more accurate than any of the previously mentioned services and they combine the maps with Wikipedia placemarks.
• Ordnance Survey maps from the OS site are as close to the source as possible.
• Nearby photos from Flickr, Panoramio and Geograph British Isles are most relevant.
• Aerial images from many providers through Flash Earth give the most complete understanding of the area.
• Many other services that find nearby accommodation, weather, restaurants, etc are the most useful and most relevant for readers.
• Any service that gives a view at world/continent/country/neighbourhood/landmark level is best for locating the object.
• Any service without advertisements is better.
• Any expert edited content is better than volunteer community edited content.

All these people may think that their personal preference would serve readers better than the unreliable user contributed copyright violating advertisement foisting rectangles at Wikimapia. Most reasonable editors however understand that none of the services are clearly more helpful or useful than others, and they won't try to impose their choices on all Wikipedia readers. Since rectangles seem to be so important for some, note that most other services also have an equivalent placemark to indicate the location of the object and the location they give is just as exact, so Wikimapia isn't any better there than the more popular services.

The only thing that is clear is that to provide the best information to our readers in a neutral unbiased way, we cannot link to any single geographical information service, but only to them all. Wikipedia guidelines on external links already explain this to confused editors, it's prevailing practice on Wikipedia, and the topic of this article is not exceptional in any way to justify deviating from the common Wikipedia style. The majority of editors involved here agree. How is the behaviour of the keepers of the COI links in ignoring all this anything else but disruptive and tendentious refusal to "get the point" to keep their self-created redundant content? --Para (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Para, you allege disruptiveness and tendentiousness in others, yet it is you who violated WP:3RR while deleting other editors' links, to the point of being blocked. You must try to understand that Wikipedia is about individual editors trying to create articles that cater to our readers, not about sweeping arbitrary rules that sacrifice ease of use for the sake of commonality or uniformity. In this case, the direct Wikimapia link clearly provides the easiest and simplest access to an informative image, showing the desired target inside a clear rectangle. There is no other link that provides that service, yet we supply the generic link farm for the sake of completeness. This is a reasonable compromise solution, which satisfies both the need for ease of use and simplicity as well as covering all bases, just in case we missed something. I see no problem at all with this compromise, where everyone gets what they want. Crum375 (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is unbelievable, I have never seen an editor so persistent to impose readers with his personal preferences, and in total ignorance to community consensus, guidelines and project goals. Wikipedia is a community project and editors are expected to respect its members and comply to what has been decided together. You have but one reason to keep your COI links and it's not supported by others. Crum375 and SlimVirgin have a long history of meatpuppeting, forming together a tag team where one appears out of inactivity to support the other in disputes, which conveniently makes them exempt from 3RR and allows them a 6RR. This time however, that hasn't helped their case. All services can show the location of coordinates for a placemark of just a few metres, that is in no way unique to Wikimapia.

I have given multiple reasons why the links are not necessary and why it's harmful for Wikipedia to link to a single service as the primary source of further information. The tag team has chosen to ignore this justification, Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided#15, the contributions of User:Yamakiri, User:Sfan00 IMG, User:Tagishsimon, User:HARDASNAILS, and me, and instead kept repeating an argument that amounts to ILIKEIT and revert warring over it. This WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour of yours has already alienated the original creator of the article from working on it. Please do not ignore consensus. If you don't have anything further, the links will go again. --Para (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Para, my apologies, but I'm not quite seeing where you're coming from with this. First, WP:EL is just a guideline, not a policy, so no one can go around trying to enforce it on people. Secondly, there doesn't seem to have been much consensus for the changes you're trying to impose — I see two people agreeing to it during the discussion in March 2008; you and SEWilco. Was there another discussion somewhere else that I've missed?

As you know, there was a strong objection from one editor, who wrote: "A positive statement encouraging the use of GeoHack does have consensus, but Para's protracted efforts to repeatedly push for deprecation of everything else are starting to look like a campaign of attrition, hoping that if kept up for long enough those opposed will get worn out and go away. This is not how consensus works: grinding down your opponents by repeatedly re-hashing rejected proposals is downright disruptive and is swamping this discussion page."

As for Crum and myself working on this page together, we are two of the editors who worked hard on the article to bring it up to featured article status — from this version to this one — so naturally we do our best to maintain that quality. I hope you can respect that. I also hope you can see our point of view that it's far from pleasant when two editors arrive, who have never edited it before, in order to remove a link that is informative, for no reason other than a consensus apparently arrived at by those two people alone. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines for article editing exist to make Wikipedia consistent, so that readers know what to expect. Wikipedia article body layout is fairly well followed because of them, but in a wiki environment there's always work to be done. Likewise, most articles do not have external links to maps, because Wikipedia expresses the location of objects as information, their coordinates, not information that an external resource may be able to show the location. Throughout this discussion there hasn't been any reason to make this article different from all the others.

Glad to see someone is prepared to read about the arguments presented. Perhaps if you read them through, you will see where I'm coming from? The most concise version of them is in Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 20#Issues with inclusion or exclusion of map service links, where they remained unrefuted, with consensus at Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 20#Evidence of existing consensus for removing map service links and the one existing before that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/archive012#Replace uses of Geolinks with a text and coord and along the discussion under the main heading. Throughout all the discussions from September 2007 to March 2008, there were many people with good justifications for their choice, and many others with no reason. The same seems to be the case here, again with nothing to support keeping such links but personal preferences, ie. ilikeit. I won't repeat all the arguments again, except for the last one: "Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons." You have none.

I have no doubt that you are trying your best, but continuously failing to see or even acknowledge other viewpoints beyond yours is just astonishing. Choosing to ignore an argument doesn't make it go away. I only joined this discussion when I saw Tagishsimon giving up with the unbelievably single minded behaviour of Crum375, and it would be a bit thick to say that he has never edited the article. It is not just two editors that have edited this article to remove redundant map links, or two that argued for general map link removal in all the discussion. If you disagree, please indeed go through the archives and histories. --Para (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Para, it isn't fair or accurate to say that I see no point of view but my own. I am perfectly willing to compromise by having both links. It is you who is saying you must have your own way entirely.

Regarding who has edited this article, Crum375, Rockpocket, Tagishsimon and myself have made the most edits to it, so I think we should have a say in what happens, and it seems to me that, because we disagree, a compromise is the only way forward. That is how Wikipedia usually works, with compromise where it's possible and reasonable to do so.

I've looked through the earlier discussions, but so far I've not found a consensus that only Geohack links are allowed from now on. Can you show me where I can find that, please? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You feel that Wikimapia is best for everyone, but fail to see that it's just one minor service out there, cannot be everyone's best, and that Wikipedia does not endorse any single service over all alternatives. A compromise would be to include links to all the services I mentioned above, and probably many others, but that would be pointy. Therefore the only reasonable compromise that could be made to keep rectangles in this free project you're a part of, is to draw a map yourself using reliable sources with as many rectangles as you like, and licensing it freely for anyone to use for any purpose.

Regarding on what to do when major contributors disagree with the majority of other editors, please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Consensus. It's great that you all made this a featured article, thanks for that, but you still don't have any more say on how it's edited than any other Wikipedia contributor. Consensus is how Wikipedia usually works, with good justification. If you want to count heads in previous discussions, it's easiest with the last of the links I provided above, or with the second link to see the prevailing practice, or by going through the discussions at the first link and counting users 2005, Bkonrad, Dan Beale-Cocks, Dispenser, Ned Scott, Nyttend, Para, Qyd, SEWilco, Wikidemo and Zenwhat (these from a cursory look at the archive). But please let's not get into a he-said-she-said; if you disagree with previous discussions and their outcomes, start a new discussion there to have them changed.

Direct links to map services are of course not banned altogether and there probably are some exceptional cases with no suspicion of partiality. Those could perhaps be when the service contains information no other services has, when the information in the service is notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia and when a free alternative cannot be found or made. In this case however all the popular services can show the location of the object and specific links directly in the article are redundant. --Para (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Para, you talk about a lot of issues, but you ignore the most important one, which is what is best for the reader. The reader wants ease of use and quick access to information. Wikipedia internal politics and arguments are of little if any interest to our users. In this case, the WM link provides a clear rectangle around the target, which best identifies it, all with a single click. No other link comes close in simplicity and ease of use. WP is here to help users get to information quickly, not to present a jungle of links to overwhelm and confuse them. In any case, for those who disagree with the above and still insist on the link farm, we provide both options as a compromise. Crum375 (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that Wikimapia is best for everyone; I feel that a mapping service (any mapping service) that points the reader to exactly the location for us is best. Also, the majority contributors to this article don't disagree with the majority of editors on the mapping issue, as you said above. There seem to be only a very small number of people who agree with you.

Anyway, we're going round in circles. We can compromise by having both links. There's no point in any of us insisting that it's our way or the highway. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

When 6 users require for the removal of the links, and 2 to keep them, keeping them is not a compromise. Consensus does not imply unanimity. The path to all possible information may suffer slightly when the ideals of the project are followed with ISBNs, DMOZ, or map sources, but that's how it is, not everyone with COI content can get their link up. Please restart reading from the section. --Para (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Who are the six? And what is the COI content? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you people make us constantly repeat ourselves when you disagree, what kind of an argument technique is that? Tagishsimon already got tired of it and left, is that the goal here, attrition? I already pointed out in the message at 08:22, 9 July 2008 that among all the other reasons for removal that you are ignoring, users Yamakiri, Sfan00 IMG, Tagishsimon, HARDASNAILS, me, and since then SEWilco have required the removal of the links. For the rest, please start reading from the top of this section starting with Tagishsimon's original comment, like you were already instructed. You don't have to agree, that's not what consensus is about, but just read the discussion. Please? --Para (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

$Insertformulahere$

I have been following the discussion and, since we are now discussing consensus, would like to note that I think a compromise of both links is the most sensible resolution. Rockpocket 16:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on why the multiple concerns of users Yamakiri, Sfan00 IMG, Tagishsimon, HARDASNAILS, SEWilco and me could be totally ignored? This is not a question of having one link or the other where a compromise could be made, it's about having the WikiMapia links or not. --Para (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. I don't think your concerns should be "totally ignored". I note them, but don't share them. I am simply looking at this from the POV of a reader who may like to look at a map. I see no reason not to add the direct link to WikiMapia because it contains contextually relevant information to the article. Rockpocket 19:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't feel they are being noted when nobody addresses them. I was hoping for something a bit more detailed than that. Let me rephrase:

1. Is consistency with other Wikipedia articles unimportant with external links?
2. Is it notable that WikiMapia has information on the location, when so many other services have the same or better information?
3. Is it neutral to link to only one service, when there are so many alternatives, some of which are better?
4. Should the other services mentioned above be linked directly as well?
5. Should those other services be more difficult to access than WikiMapia?
6. Should Wikipedia attempt to choose a single best online service related to specific further content for a topic, instead of aiming for awareness of it all?
7. Are readers more likely to click the neutral coordinates link next to a globe icon than on a link saying "WikiMapia"?
8. Is a service called "WikiMapia" clearly unrelated to Wikipedia?
9. Does the arrangement of having one primary preferred link and another for all similar information in other services advance the Wikipedia goal of helping readers access all human knowledge?
10. Do the map preferences of an individual editor or a small group of editors reflect those of most readers?
11. Should articles link to multiple services and ignore the external links guideline of keeping links to a minimum?
12. Is the concept of links to map services as sources for further information different from links to book retailer sites for further information about books?
13. Is a link to a specific map service necessary when the article contains a single general link to a list of many geographical information services already?
14. Should redundancy in Wikipedia's external linking be supported?
15. Is it better for Wikipedia to link to a service with advertisements than a service without advertisements?
16. Should Wikipedia promote commercial services over free services?
17. If a site shows advertisements, does it not make it commercial?
18. Is linking to one service and none of the others not promoting the linked service?
19. Should Wikipedia link to services that encourage users to contribute but do not share the contributions for reuse the way Wikipedia does?
20. Should Wikipedia drive the majority of readers to a commercial service when the same information is available elsewhere as well?
21. If a service is reusing content from another service, and a Wikipedia article needs to refer to the same content, should Wikipedia link to the second-hand content instead of the original content?
22. Is it possible to choose a map service that is "best" for most readers?
23. For an object visible in the service as 30×30 pixels at best, is a rectangle around it a better way to indicate its location than a conventional pinpoint placemark used by most other services?
24. Do most readers want to see the location zoomed as close as possible by default?
25. Are most readers interested of the location with its map and the satellite view only, but do not want to see a more natural oblique view of it (or any other of the content in the services linked above)?
26. Is it better to link directly to a satellite view than to link directly to a map view?
27. Is it irrelevant that the linked service shows copyright violating content and profits from the views?
28. When someone creates content on an external site and adds the link to Wikipedia, can the conflict of interest be brushed aside?
29. Should Wikipedia link to external content that anyone can edit with hardly any review?
30. When the majority of involved editors disagree with keeping such a link, should it be kept?
31. For taking an action, does a single reason for doing it overpower an opposite action with multiple reasons from many different viewpoints?

For your information, my answer to all of them is no. It would be good to hear what others think. If you have the energy to participate here, please also try to explain your answers. --Para (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to most of those. Many require value judgments and they appear to phrased in a general, rather than specific manner. I am not informed enough to offer a meaningful opinion on such wider issues. I have no dog in this particular race, and if there are other services that would show me the same contextually meaningful mapping information, then directly linking to those would be fine by me also. However, my opinion remains that as a reader I found the link WikiMapia particularly useful because it contains information that is directly related to the content of article. That is good enough for me to support its inclusion directly. I understand that you disagree. Rockpocket 00:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

They are however all directly related to this specific case. Wikipedia would not work if every article was considered a separate entity with no relation to the rest of Wikipedia and common reader preferences. I don't doubt that WikiMapia is useful, but there are so many other services that are equally if not more useful. I don't know what would be contextually meaningful in your mind, but it seems to me that all the alternative services would be very relevant, yet your support of such linking would be clear link farming in a Wikipedia article. Please consider the issue in its entirety. Polling ie. taking sides without justification does not demonstrate consensus. --Para (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I offered my opinion with my justification. I stand by that and expect it to be noted apropos your argument that "6 users require for the removal of the links, and 2 to keep them." Rockpocket 17:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Rockpocket, Crum et al. Including both links is perfectly fine. R. Baley (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dashes and spaces

In one section of the article, we have this:

In 1902, they enrolled as students at the London School of Medicine for Women— a vivisection-free college which had visiting arrangements with other London colleges—partly to gain medical training, and partly as undercover anti-vivisectionists.

As you can see, after the name of the school, there's a dash, with no space before it, but with a space after it. Personally, I like a space before and after a dash, but I often see dashes with no spaces on either side, and I know that's acceptable too. Obviously, it's not right to have just one space. Between colleges and partly there's a dash with no spaces, so I would have changed the first example to match that, but I found that in a subsequent section, we have dashes with spaces on both sides:

Mason writes that a verbatim report of the speech was published the next day by the radical Daily News — founded by Charles Dickens — and over the next three days by other national and regional papers.

Can anyone tell me which is correct, and where I can read up about house style? (Also, the second extract I quote uses the mdash, while the first seems to use a hyphen, as can be seen in the source code.) Thanks. Stratford490 (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Louise-Lind-Af-Hageby.jpg

The image Image:Louise-Lind-Af-Hageby.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic Language?

Should we not replace the phrase: "The book was reportedly a bombshell"? 203.3.186.10 (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not if it reflects what the sources said. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Libel procedure

The article states that "Bayliss demanded a public apology, and when it failed to materialize, he issued a writ for libel." Courts issue writs, not individual litigants, who may file motions for writs, etc. Could this be changed to reflect the actual procedure?--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This reliable source says: "Bayliss issued a writ for libel." If you have a source which says, "Bayliss had the court issue a writ for libel," please provide it and we can link to it. Crum375 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates

Hi Leandrod, I removed the templates you added here. Per WP:CITE#Citation templates and tools these should not be added to articles that already use an accepted reference format: "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. Where no agreement can be reached, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Also see Wikipedia:Citation templates. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Battersea Council

I suggest that the sentence 'Battersea Council grew tired of the controversy.' at the beginning of the section called 'Exit the Brown Dog' should be deleted, as this was not really the case. The existing council was still supportive of the dog and reasonably enthusiastic about it, although it's true that it was a bit of a headache. It was the opposition party that did not want the dog, and when there was a change of power they moved swiftly to get rid of it. So I suggest this section should start: 'A new Conservative council was elected in Battersea in November 1909 amid talk of removing the statue. (Squeliebird (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC))

Sorry, Squeliebird, I just saw this. I see your point. I'll take a look at the sentence with a view to rewording. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sfn

I'm in the process of trying the {{sfn}} template in the article. Per WP:CITEVAR, if anyone objects, please let me know and I'll undo it. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brown Dog affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714160355/http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6694/full/394635a0.html to http://nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6694/full/394635a0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brown Dog affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6M3E4fJB3?url=http://advan.physiology.org/content/274/6/S18.full.pdf to http://advan.physiology.org/content/274/6/S18.full.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

archive.org link for cited book incorrect

The archive.org link in the citation for the 1903 Lind af Hageby/Schartau book,The Shambles of Science: Extracts from the Diary of Two Students of Physiology, is incorrect. The archive.org link is for a 1904 edition, which specifically omits the chapter, "Fun", which relates their observations of the brown dog vivisection. So, this archive.org link does not help the reader find the relevant cited material. I think the easiest thing to do is simply remove this link from the ref (archive.org does not appear to have the 1903 edition), but I thought I'd post here first in case someone has a better idea. Cheers, Doctormatt (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It may therefore be sufficiently notable to add that the related chapter was removed in the following year's edition and an explanatory comment included in the preface - demonstrating how controversial it was - and keep the link. There's a searchable Google book version at Google Books stated to be 1903 but not available as a full ebook. I'm not sure if that's any more use. --KenBailey (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC) (UTC)

Good idea. I have made some edits to the article to include this information and correct links. Cheers! Doctormatt (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent additions

Regarding this set of additions: material that is added needs to be appropriately sourced, and needs to comply with Wikipedia's policy regarding neutrality. Phrasings like "soon to disappear in under four years in mysterious and secretive circumstances. Not stolen by a thief but taken down by a new incoming borough council of a different political hue" are not encyclopedic in nature. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)