Wikipedia talk:Glossary/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Early and undated comments that were not in a section]

[made the stuff that was above TOC its own section] Libcub (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What does (top) mean in a User contributions page? Lawrence Chard

That means it's the current revision of that page. ie, if you look at the page's history, that person's last edit will be on the top. --Brion 11:33, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Terms that need to be defined: Wanli, Google test, newb test

Got the second two; I have no idea what "wanli" is. -- Stephen Gilbert

---

I love this wikipedia glossary. It was necessary. I suggest include a link to it from main page.

---

DTD as in [DTD] needs to be defined please.

Your link to DTD is broken. -- Harvestman

Bureaucrats

As I understand it, Bureaucrats no longer exist because ordinary sysops can now make other sysops, right? ... This should either be explained here, or the term should be removed entirely. -- Timwi 15:05, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hm, I thought it was the other way around - after a brief experiment with any sysop/admin having sysop/admin-making powers, it was decided to only grant this to a subset of sysops/admins, provisionally labelled "bureaucrats". But I may be wrong. - IMSoP 16:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Only bureaucrats, stewards and developers can make sysops. Angela.

Neatness

Its very tough to read the page when everything is in bold. Proposition: Make just the defined words in bold, and the rest be in normal text (I don't want to do it without approval, since this is probably a commonly used page) siroxo 01:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a funny side effect of the software change. It certainly wasn't like that before. For some reason, the colons must have a space before them, or the whole page will be bold. Angela. 11:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sub Stub

Can't this also mean a stub which is only linked to by another stub? (And hence a subpage to a stub) -- siroxo 02:49, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard a stub being called a sub stub because of what it links to. I always thought a sub stub was just a sub-standard stub. Angela. 02:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Add a compact TOC?

Should we add a compact TOC to the Glossary? Its getting quite unwieldy for reading and editing. —siroχo 02:42, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I've added one now. Angela. 04:49, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Definition lists and sections

Angela, please try to edit in a constructive manner rather than undoing changes simply because they are different from the older style. It's silly to have an HTML glossary which uses "see the definition of xyz instead" without linking to the appropriate term. Also the links should be made as clearly readable as possible. --Eequor 16:28, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've changed all the ===s to ====s to decrease the heading size for each of the words, as that was the most objectionable thing in such a long wordlist. Without a TOC, I doubt very many people will even notice, and I think it looks cleaner with smaller headings. Also, I think the "see also"s should go after each definition, its very confusing when you're told to see something before actually reading the definition, and it goes against the Manual of Style. —siroχo 22:13, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

You don't need headings to be able to link to something. The page looked awful with a separate heading for every definition. Is there any reason for not keeping the far more readable definition format? Angela. 19:26, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with getting rid of the headings, but why have every term wrapped in a div? I don't see how the CSS handles (e.g. id=Broken_link) are useful, and the style="font-weight: bold" can easily be replaced with <b></b>. Am I missing something? --Diberri | Talk 19:48, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

It's so they can be linked to. Angela. 01:39, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

So clearly I was missing something :-) I didn't realize IDs could be used like this -- thanks for explaining! --Diberri | Talk 03:14, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Question about scope of Glossary

When I first came to Wikipedia, I found the existence of abundant written explanations to be valuable -- but they're so abundant that it's not always easy to find a relevant page. This Glossary could function as a de facto index to that accumulated advice for newcomers. To be a good index, though, it would need to include some terms that don't really belong in a Glossary. For example, I'm adding an entry for translation that doesn't define that term (in fact, it uses a variant of the defined term in the so-called definition). The justification is that it helps someone find the right page about translation. There are other such terms that aren't used in any specialized Wikipedia sense. For example, someone seeing a reference to the mailing list will probably know that it means there's a Wikipedia mailing list, but a "definition" here that linked to Wikipedia:Mailing lists could be helpful. Does inclusion of such terms seem useful, or an unnecessary and confusing expansion of the Glossary? JamesMLane 03:08, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Topical index is a better place to do that. The glossary should remain a list of commonly used jargon terms. It would be less useful if it was trying to be an index as well. Angela. 17:19, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Angela, I didn't even know about that page. For what I have in mind, Wikipedia:Alphabetical index is nearer the mark but still isn't a classical index. To stick with the example of translation, someone looking under the T's in the alpha index will find Wikipedia:Translation into English but not Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. (Yes, they could search the page for the key word, but I'd like the process to be as easy and as familiar as possible.) Furthermore, the alpha index doesn't include some informative pages now referenced in the Glossary, such as m:Wikibreak. The Glossary, in turn, includes some edit summary jargon, but omits some of the less common terms explained in Wikipedia:Edit summary legend (ft, hr, etc.). It seems that creating a complete index for one-stop shopping wouldn't be quite so simple as I'd thought. Well, do the doable -- I'll try to add some more jargon here. JamesMLane 08:28, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

One minor suggestion

Any objections, regarding the definition of Troll, to have the word "Nazi" link to the Godwin's Law article considering the context of the sentence? --69.234.235.105 03:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. To avoid confusion, I didn't link just the word Nazi but the phrase calling someone a Nazi. Wipe 11:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Internal links

Since each term is set up so it can be linked to, there is no reason not to have cross-references hyperlinked to each other. I'll start doing this. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 14:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definition of "move"

The definition now includes this statement: "Involves either renaming the page or moving it and constructing a redirect to keep the original link intact." What this suggests to me is that you can move a page by using the "Move this page" function or by cutting and pasting. If it's intended to refer to a different pair of alternatives, the meaning needs to be spelled out more clearly. If it's intended to refer to that pair, then cutting and pasting should be mentioned only to warn people off it (except, for example, when one page is being split into two). Yes, the definition also includes a wikilink to Help:Renaming (moving) a page, which has more detail, but the definition here should stand on its own to the extent possible. Is there some meaning to the current definition that I'm missing? JamesMLane 06:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposal that this glossary should be linked from the navigation sidebar

This would greatly help new users, especially those beginning to involve themselves in discussions about edits and deletion requests. at the moment, it is not at all obvious that there is a glossary page for a new user, and it seems a bit inaccessible if you dont make an effort to find it Bwithh 20:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The use of acronyms is too wide for newbies. The search gives too many answers - could they return more than one line of text ? - , the disambiguation pages are not thorough for them.

A contributor has to think twice about what he writes ; then he has to get used with wiki editing ; then help is full of NPoVs and 'do not do it's. This is not a personal complaint, but ALsmBD (At least something must be done.) -- Harvestman 19:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Cabal

I suppose the project page is not the place for humor, so I will keep it to the talk page.

Cabal

A secretive organization which some Wikipedians claim is ultimately responsible for the development of Wikipedia. Supposedly the Cabal acts to stifle dissent and impose their private points of view while hypocritically extolling NPOV. Admins who take action against users for seemingly illogical or immature reasons are often claimed to be acting on behalf of the Cabal.<br\>The secretive organization ultimately responsible for the development of Wikipedia. The Cabal acts effectively to stifle dissent and impose ourr private points of view while hypocritically extolling NPOV. All of us Admins act on behalf of the Cabal. This includes our seeming disagreements, which are a sham to foster the illusion that dissent is allowed. When Wikipedians claim that the Cabal does not exist, this is a often, but not always a sign of membership in the Cabal. Or they may just be our dupes.

Just kidding, of course. | Or maybe not. 06:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Talking about that entry, I've added a link to the similar sf fandom term SMOF - feel free to remove it if you think it's inappropriate, but IMHO it's an interesting parallel. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

render

I have added a definition of render and am conscious that it is drifting away from the purpose of this page as a Wikipedia glossary. What I am actually looking for and which one sometimes needs in Wikipedia discussions is a word to describe: the operation performed on the Wikimedia servers of taking an article in wiki markup and converting it into HTML. Do we have such a word or phrase? -- RHaworth 13:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Accidental link

Accidental link definition could use an explanation for why it is called "accidental." --12.208.135.159 22:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Established Wikipedian

Wikipedia_talk:Established_Wikipedian could use a definition. Mathiastck 00:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

editor

I tried to enter a definition for "editor," but Wik or MSN or ? wouldn't let me. Could some-one please add this term. Kdammers 06:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

YHBT

Why is this entry here? It does not seem to be in the spirit of Wikipedia to respond in that manner. This is not a general internet acronym database right? Ansell 23:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Page is hideous!

Is it just me, or does this page not wrap at all? It goes waaaaay off to the side of the page. Could someone fix that? I don't want to screw anything up, and I'm awful at HTML/CSS/code in general, so I thought I'd ask. ♠PMC♠ 21:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's now fixed. The cause was a common mistake by vandals: if you put a space in the beginning of a paragraph, the MediaWiki software creates a "preserve formatting" block that is often very wide. Wipe 06:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Transclusion" is totally misdefined

Per Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits, transclusion creates a "live" link between the "template" page and the target page where it appears. When the template is edited, all the other pages change. But the glossary says exactly the opposite Thus, using transclusion, if the template content is modified at a later date, the article's content will not change.

If wasn't following WP:AGF, I'd think that someone deliberately reversed the explanation of what "subst" does versus what a template (transclusion) does. John Broughton | Talk 17:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay...

my issue is... what IS a sphagetti link? I can't find a coherent definition on the Web. ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 18:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Accidental link

Not seen this usage, neither has google. Rm'ing for now. Rich Farmbrough, 12:25 27 December 2006 (GMT).

New definition for consideration

Wikimartyr

A person whose wikiholism or fervent and time-consuming support of Wikipedia has led to the loss of a job or important relationship.

— DavidMack 17:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about Wikiola. Just added it to my user page; neologism (Wiki + crapola). Ref. (for me) all the really useful templates that I am certain I'll never be able to remember, and can never remember where to find them when I need them.... Esseh 17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

SEXISM ALERT!

I notice that "autofellatio" is a term used herein. Well, if so, why not "autocunnilingus", as well? Perhaps for something a bit more difficult to achieve, but well worth the effort? What's sauce for the gander.... (pun most definitely intended :) Esseh 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

o.0 +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

markup / css / js

Is there any place where commonly used expressions and abbreviations like "em" (as in [[Image:Pictureitook.jpg|14em]]) and markup like <tt> etc. are listed and explained? —AldeBaer 23:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikify

How is "wikifying" an adverb? Feedback ^☎ 02:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If I'm correct, its used when someone is in the process of adding wiki markup (internal links, formatting) Jason McHuff (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe jmchuff missed the point of the question, although I do not know why it was asked in the first place. "Wikifying" is not an adverb; it is a gerund and therefore is used as a noun, as in "Wikifying articles at 1 a.m. is a better sleeping pill than sex." Or, if you wish, it is a present participle, as in "The earnest young man, wikifying article after article through the long weekend, arrived late for work on Monday and was promptly fired." Or it could be part of a progressive verb, as it "He was wikifying the article on Bicuspidella when the black-shirted mercenaries burst through the door, read him his rights and hauled him off to a concentration camp." Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The answer to "why it was asked in the first place" is that the glossary entry for Wikify said adverb. I changed it to gerund per your first suggestion. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this word even used? I've never heard of it really. Feedback ^☎ 19:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A little too expansive?

Does anyone else think this article covers completely common words? I had to remove 'ad' for crying out loud. Ad! What about things like Admin, Anon, Archive, Article, Bad faith nomination, ban, banner, Block, Boilerplate text, bot, broken link, broken redirect? And that's just from A and B, the terms are either far more widespread than Wikipedia, and as such would be more suitable for a List of Internet Terms or something of the sort, or are completely self-explanatory. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. This page is most useful when it focuses on Wikipedia-specific (or maybe, more generally, Wiki-specific) terms. Libcub (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think an actual scope statement at the top would be useful.Libcub (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

add "Sort key"?

I suggest it would be useful to include something on the lines of:

Sort key

device to make an article file alphabetically (in a category or other list of articles) other than by the article title, eg "John Smith" under "Smith, John", or "The Who" under "Who, The". Can be assigned to a specific category, or as a {{DEFAULTSORT:}}. See Help:Category#Sort_key

PamD (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No comments, so I'll go ahead and add it. PamD (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

recent grammar/style changes

What style guidelines do we have for internal WP pages like this? I'd be happy to see informal language such as "don't" preserved, as it gives a friendlier feel to the text, but another editor has removed all informality. As the internal WP pages are aimed at those fluent enough in English to be confident to edit articles in English WikiPedia, I feel an informal tone is quite appropriate. While copy-editing is fine, I've reverted some changes which made the text less clear. PamD (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I note that the official "Welcome to WikiPedia" at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia starts off with "It's nice to have you aboard. We're glad you wish to help". I hope no-one will change that to "It is nice...". If you click on "Editing" from the home page, you get to Wikipedia:Tutorial which includes "where you can practice what you're learning". It appears to me that the WP standard is that informal, welcoming, language is the norm for internal WP pages, so perhaps many more of the edits recently made to the Glossary should be reverted - can't do them wholesale in one big "undo", as they were part of one mega-edit which included some useful copy-editing too. PamD (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference desk OP

What does OP on the reference desks stand for please? It refers to the person asking a question.

Just twigged, t means original poster Dmcq (talk)

Anonymous user

I think that this expression is misleading, because a registered (and logged in) user can be anonymous as well. The expression IP user is much clearer.--Ziko (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Added see also section

I also added: Wikipedia:No-no discussing the use (and abuse) of acronyms. travb (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It is proposed that the less organized Wikipedia:Alphabet soup should be merged into this article. It is almost the same, with the same purpose. 21:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support travb (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - seems helpful. PamD (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - pointless to have two similar pages. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support, as otherwise there is excessive double-keying.--A bit iffy (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - sounds good to me, and do many people actually search for these terms using "Alphabet soup"? Grutness...wha? 22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Against —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgecaj (talk • contribs) 02:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Against — (v. late, but as mentioned below the merge banners are still present) I think Wikipedia:Alphabet soup serves the purpose of enumerating every two letter WP: shortcut. Whether it should contain any others, I'm not so sure about. Mark Hurd (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, this proposal has been hanging around for nearly two months, with an ugly banner on the glossary page, and no one's objecting. So I think someone should simply be bold and do the merge. I'd do it myself right now if I had the time.--A bit iffy (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this merge. Alphabet soup appears to be humorous, although it could use some work. The glossary is more serious. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose on two fronts. There would be a technical issue with merging pages this large together for people who access WP with older computers - meaning it could cause older generation PCs to freeze. The second is due to the nature of the two pages. One is based on acronyms, the other on "words" or phrases. I'd strongly advise against this. — Ched :  ?  09:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The alphabet soup page is a list of specifically abbreviations/shortcuts, I like having this addendum to the main glossary, it's helpful and informative and there's no harm in it being its own separate page apart from the glossary. Plus it's been almost a year and still noone has performed this merge, probably because it would be a major pain in the ass to do. I'm removing the merge tags. -- œ^™ 04:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A follow-up on this discussion: I've suggested a name change to WP:alphabet soup to Wikipedia abbreviations. I'd love comments on that talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccrrccrr (talk • contribs) 02:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedophile

Excuse my naïveté, but I was not sure whether this was vandalism or a legitimate term in common usage. 72.65.222.153 (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted it, as it was clearly vandalism. 99.35.128.68 (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Short version, Wikipedia:Most common abbreviations

I made a shortened version with only the abbreviations that are commonly used, see Wikipedia:Most common abbreviations. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's similar to WP:Alphabet soup. hmwitht 05:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

See also: two sections above. hmwitht 05:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Err.. since we're discussing merging in the section above.. this is what should be merged.. Wikipedia:Most common abbreviations into WP:Alphabet soup. I'm removing the merge tag off the glossary page and moving it to the abbreviations page instead. -- œ^™ 04:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok I did the merge myself.. there were only 15 or so entries that weren't already on the alphabet soup list, so I added those and redirected Wikipedia:Most common abbreviations. -- œ^™ 05:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

ct?

What does the ct stand for next to lv in your academys? lord lost —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.103.198 (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Try asking at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. -- œ^™ 10:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

wl

Seen this in edit summaries, what does it mean? Thanks. —Half Price 19:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Wikilink". It's listed in the Edit summary legend but I've added it here as well. -- œ^™ 19:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. —Half Price 19:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Related sockpuppet investigation

The pattern of participation in the RfC above – combined with other related edits – led to a sock puppet investigation, which resulted in User:Snowsuit Wearer, User:Hum Hum, and User:Skogsvandraren – as well as a handful of other accounts that did not contribute to the RfC – all being blocked: see here. The comments of Hum Hum and Skogsvandraren have been struck as sock puppet comments, with the comments of Snowsuit Wearer left. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Good Olfactory: Is it possible that this discussion has also been polluted by sockpuppetry? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi @Marcocapelle: good point. It's possible I suppose given that Snowsuit Wearer was involved in that discussion, but none of the participants in the CFD were recently identified as definite or likely Snowsuit Wearer socks in the recent investigation, and I have no reason to suspect that any of them were or are. I note that one of the participants has since been blocked for other reasons. It might be a good CFD to re-run at this stage, though. To me, it still seems like the sort of categorization scheme which is (probably) inappropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion: add "watcher" to the glossary page

I couldn't find out what watchers are by searching help. I can guess/assume what they are but if they are important enough to be counted for each page, do they have any specific functions or purpose beyond the everyday-language sense of the word?```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summertime4 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, I've added it. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"DMCA takedown"

I'd like to add this term: "DMCA takedown request." It has a straightforward meaning that does not require legal detail, but is not always plain from the way fluent Wikimedians and WMF Legal sometimes use the term. If this is out of scope or too obscure or inappropriate for the glossary, please say so or I'll add it at some point. --econterms (talk)

Done. --econterms (talk)

Key articles and heraldic arms

Under "Key article", User:Snowsuit Wearer has twice now ([1] [2]) added the text that an example of a key article is "the heraldic arms of the subject". This has not been discussed anywhere, but the user suggests that "This does not need to be discussed, since it is just mentioning an existing practice".

Despite the claim, it is not a common practice to make the heraldic arms of a topic a key article in the category for that topic. Snowsuit Wearer has doggedly attempted to implement this approach with a handful of articles about coats of arms that he has been involved in editing, but it is by no means a widespread or common practice. I'm raising it here because the user appears to feel that it is unnecessary. But I can see no support for his position that this is a pre-existing practice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is. I have seen it in many instances, and the heraldic arms are of course the main symbol of the entity which it stands for, which can be seen in that we also always have it in the very top right corner of articles on countries and towns. The arms is a key topic for anything with has arms. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Having "seen it in many instances" is not terribly convincing. I did a pretty quick survey, I looked at about 400 coats of arms articles, and I found your preferred sorting to be place in about 1% of them, and all of them were sorted that way by you. Please get a consensus in favour of this approach before implementing your suggested change.

To the substantive issue in question here: The coat of arms of a city is not a "key" article to do with the topic of that city in the same way that an article about the city is, even if it is the "main symbol" of the entity. It's a specialty article at best. An example of what might be a key article along with the main article is how Index of articles related to the Ottoman Empire might be a key article for Category:Ottoman Empire, along with Ottoman Empire. Coat of arms of the Ottoman Empire is not, most obviously because it can be contained in several of the subcategories of Category:Ottoman Empire and does not even need to exist in the head category when subcategories exist. If we adopted your view, there are so many articles that could be accepted as a key article. If the heraldic arms, why not the article about the flag of an entity? Why not the article about the head of state of a country for a country topic?

I hope this explanation makes sense. But if you continue to simply revert my changes here and on these select few articles without any other attempt to demonstrate or develop a consensus for your view, my next step will have to be WP:RFC or WP:ANI, because we can't just revert back and forth. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't count, if you have erased these sortings before making your count.

You should consider what heraldic arms are. They are the main visual identification symbol of the entity they stand for. They are akin to the name. What the name is for the ear, the arms is for the eye. So, in what way are they not the very essence of every entity? There is nothing which can be more "key" to a subject, beside the subject itself. And arms are (should always be) in the main category if the entity they stand for. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 23:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't erase them, I kept them in the count, and they amounted to about 1% of the ones I looked at. Everything you have said about a coat of arms can apply equally to a flag. And to the head of state of an entity. And to a national anthem or song. And to a mascot, national bird, or national mammal. And to a patron saint. There's nothing special about a coat of arms that makes it any more special than any of these other symbols. Coats of arms are not usually in the main category, because there is often a subcategory, such as Category:National symbols of Turkey, which stuff like flags, coats of arms, and mascots are categorized. Q.E.D. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm very much on Good Ol’factory's side here. In most situations, the key article in a category is the one that has the same name as the category. We don't need to list all "important" articles about a topic at the top of the category. As far as the importance of coat of arms go, the general population of a place likely doesn't have much clue what the coat of arms of their city, state, country even looks like, so most certainly wouldn't consider it important. Official status doesn't matter; if the general consensus among people is that it's not important, we don't get to decide that it is. McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Snowsuit Wearer: You've mentioned that there are "many instances" where the coat-of-arms article is categorized as a key article. Can you point us to some of them, other than the ones that you've categorized? NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Look at any coat of arms article.

If you are against this, you do not understand the nature of heraldry and shouldn't have an opinion before you have read in to the subject. Good Ol’factory goes against what has been the practice and consensus for years. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 12:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The issue should not be whether coats of arms are or are not key articles, but whether they should be. It is my firm belief they should be. Countries, cities, towns, families, they all have coats of arms that are equally important to them as their names. When arriving to a new town in many countries, there is a road sign stating the name of the town and has a picture of the coat of arms of the town. The coat of arms is normally a part of the official letterhead of all of these entities. They are not always as important in every region of the world, but they appear frequently in every civilized part of the world. Dagrqv (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Presumably two issues are at stake here. The first is a discussion about whether or not it has been common practice so far. If it has, User:Snowsuit Wearer should come up with clear facts that go against the 1% count of User:Good Olfactory. The second, probably more important, issue is whether it should be done like Snowsuit Wearer proposes. Here I completely agree with Good Olfactory that coat of arms is just a single aspect of a town, probably less important than a town hall or a main street. A key article, if not the eponymous article itself, should be an article that is nearly as broad as the eponymous article and a coat of arms article is not that broad at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Why should I come up with proof for what Good Ol' Factory claims? I am not the one who claims there should be a change. The burden of proof lies on Good Ol' Factory. He claims "1%" but has not shown this. For the second question you raise, to make your argument logical, you also claims that the name of the town is less important than "a town hall or a main street". Because that is what arms is: the visual counterpart of the name. If I read about a town in a foreign country, I have no reason at all reading about its town hall or main street, I want to read about its name (including etymology), arms (its symbolism), historical importance and perhaps if it's the hometown of some major celebrity. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 19:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• The category, and the eponymous article, are not primarily about the name of the town but about the real-existing town with its buildings, its infrastructure, its government etc.. The name is just a single aspect and there is no reason why the visualization of the name should be singled out over other aspects. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• User:Snowsuit Wearer wrote: "I am not the one who claims there should be a change. The burden of proof lies on Good Ol' Factory [sic]." This is not true. It is User:Snowsuit Wearer who amended the Glossary definition of "key article" to include a mention of heraldic arms. That's exactly how this discussion was started – through an undiscussed and unilateral edit to the definition. For the user to now say that it is me that is the one seeking the change is, quite simply, false. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Your desinformation makes you seem desperate, Good Ol' factory. You know, as well as all of us, that my amendment was just a clarification of what is already the rule. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 10:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Snowsuit Wearer: Please speak for yourself and not for others, and certainly not for me. You are wrong about what you claim to be my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You clearly have a large interest in heraldry but few people do. I examined some of the disputed articles and the article about the place usually gets around 100 times as many page views as the coat of arms. For example [3] versus [4] for Coat of arms of the London Borough of Bromley, the latest article you set as key for a place category. The main reason for giving the special position at the start of a category is to make it easy for readers to find the key article about the subject of the category. A coat of arms is a niche topic for a place and for most people it does definitely not qualify as a key article about the place. This is a general encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia of heraldry. The key article for a category about a place is obviously the article about the place. There is rarely a second article which qualifies as key. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• The key article in a category is usually the single one whose topic corresponds to the category name. There are a lot of other articles which are about specific aspects of the topic, but which are not "Key articles". The history, demographics, politics, flag, anthem ... oh yes, and coat of arms ... all fit well within the general category for the place, rather than in any subcategory (usually), but they are not "Key articles". It looks as if Snowsuit Wearer is in a minority of two in this debate (his/her supporter being an editor who hasn't edited in over two years until joining this discussion). Coats of arms are important, especially to heraldry enthusiasts, but they just aren't the sort of thing to be considered a "Key article", being only one specialised topic related to the category topic. PamD 21:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Key articles are the one, two or maybe three which deals with the main subject for the category. The coat of arms of a town can therefor be seen as the coat of arms of the category of that town. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 10:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Which is an entirely circular argument. It does nothing to explain why coats of arms should be treated as key articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I've started a formal RfC in the section immediately below. Those who have participated here already – @Mclay1:, @NewYorkActuary:, @Dagrqv:, @Marcocapelle:, @PrimeHunter:, @PamD: – are welcome to comment in the RfC if they wish. I have a sense of where this discussion is going, but I think we need to do everything we can to formalize it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Why? Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 10:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Why what? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC on definition "key article"

There is a unanimous consensus that the glossary definition of "key article" states that the heraldic arms of a subject is a "key article" for a category about the subject after the sockpuppet comments (see SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snowsuit Wearer) and 2A00:801:210:754E:7B:63E:5CE2:FC7F's comments are discounted. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Glossary definition of "key article" state that the heraldic arms of a subject is a "key article" for a category about the subject? The answer will determine how such articles about coats of arms are categorized per point #8 under WP:SORTKEY. (See the discussion in the section immediately above for the full background.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• No, the definition of "key article" should not mention coats of arms. The key article for a category is the single (almost always) article on the whole topic corresponding to the scope of the category. Coats of arms, history, political structures etc must be listed as ordinary members of the category. PamD 06:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• No, per discussion above. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• No, per discussion above, as summarized by PamD. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• No, per discussion above. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, of course. No reason to change this. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 10:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Whether there was a pre-existing practice to treat heraldic arms as key articles is in dispute. You are the editor who edited the glossary to state that they were, which is the very question being queried. For purposes of an RfC, it's probably best not to assume that either situation pre-existed and to instead focus energy what we should do moving forward and why. In other words, not just assume that doing one or the other would be in conformity with what was assumed to be the case previously. The purpose here is to establish the current consensus, not to argue about the existence of a (possible) previous one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, definitely. I am not convinced by those who want to change this. Skogsvandraren (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, per discussion above. Hum Hum (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Which part of the above discussion are you referencing? McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Hum Hum has been blocked as a sock puppet so let's ignore him. Herostratus (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• No. Snowsuit Wearer (nor anyone else in favour) has not provided any clear reason why this policy should be changed. He keeps falling back on his claim that it is already common practice, when clearly it isn't. Even if it is, he still needs to provide a reason why it should be like this. He tried to shift the burden of proof in the wrong direction. The burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists – in this case, the existence of the practice of counting coats of arms as key articles. (He obviously cannot count his own edits.) McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I have seen it in some circumstances, even if I have made no real check on the matter now. Given the nature of heraldric arms as I understand it, I think this is most reasonable to have the coat of arm of the epynomuos entity of a category as a key article. Hum Hum (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• No, answering my own question. No one has provided a convincing reason for making a coat of arms article a key article. The key article is almost always a single article that has the same name as the category. There are occasional exceptions, but there is no reason to single out coats of arms as key articles over articles about national anthems, flags, national animals, mascots, patron saints, etc. All of these are articles that can be placed in subcategories for national symbols, where appropriate, or simply contained in the category as a regular article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• No of course not. All we've seen, in place of any actual arguments, is bad faith: false claims of a pre-existing state and sock puppetry. Cut it out. Herostratus (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Yes of course. We've seen nothing of the sort Herostratus says. This is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:801:210:754E:7B:63E:5CE2:FC7F (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC) — 2A00:801:210:754E:7B:63E:5CE2:FC7F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• No, for the same reasons as stated by the other No-folks. Also, previous IP user, we have seen the things Herostratus mentions. Just saying "This is ridiculous," won't make them go away. — Geekdiva (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Related sockpuppet investigation

The pattern of participation in the RfC above – combined with other related edits – led to a sock puppet investigation, which resulted in User:Snowsuit Wearer, User:Hum Hum, and User:Skogsvandraren – as well as a handful of other accounts that did not contribute to the RfC – all being blocked: see here. The comments of Hum Hum and Skogsvandraren have been struck as sock puppet comments, with the comments of Snowsuit Wearer left. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Good Olfactory: Is it possible that this discussion has also been polluted by sockpuppetry? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi @Marcocapelle: good point. It's possible I suppose given that Snowsuit Wearer was involved in that discussion, but none of the participants in the CFD were recently identified as definite or likely Snowsuit Wearer socks in the recent investigation, and I have no reason to suspect that any of them were or are. I note that one of the participants has since been blocked for other reasons. It might be a good CFD to re-run at this stage, though. To me, it still seems like the sort of categorization scheme which is (probably) inappropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not upgraded definition of "Auto-confirmed users"

Now they can "create articles, move pages, edit semi-protected pages". عليّ سعيد (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This is covered by WP:Glossary#Autoconfirm with "these restrictions end". Batternut (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)