|
Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines.
However, they are not hidden from automobile engines, including the newer, more "environmentally-friendly" electric and hybrid engines. Also, please note that this subforum is meant to be used for discussion of the actual biographical articles themselves; more generalized discussions of BLP policy should be posted in the General Discussion or Bureaucracy forums.
|
|
Redirects and BLP |
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 30th April 2010, 6:27pm) QUOTE(Tarc @ Fri 30th April 2010, 2:23pm)
Isn't that kinda bad though? What we're saying really is that in one form it is disallowed, but in this other form it is ok, and the only reason it is ok for the latter is for user navigation.
We've carved a loophole in policy for the sake of readability, and I dunno, but I'm finding a problem with that.
NEO is meant to prevent articles on new words that haven't entered the common lexicon and wouldn't pass DICDEF. Has nothing to do with redirects. As long as redirects are in the article section I would think that redirects are articles too. Apply it and block anyone who disagrees (standard admin protocol). If anyone asks, say you were [[WP:BOLD]]ly applying standards against [[WP:Tendentious editing]] by people who were violating [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]] and they possibly made a few [[WP:NLT]] violations. But seriously, just delete the redirect and salt.
|
|
|
|
Tarc |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
|
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 30th April 2010, 2:27pm) QUOTE(Tarc @ Fri 30th April 2010, 2:23pm)
Isn't that kinda bad though? What we're saying really is that in one form it is disallowed, but in this other form it is ok, and the only reason it is ok for the latter is for user navigation.
We've carved a loophole in policy for the sake of readability, and I dunno, but I'm finding a problem with that.
NEO is meant to prevent articles on new words that haven't entered the common lexicon and wouldn't pass DICDEF. Has nothing to do with redirects. /sigh Can you not do any better than a wiki-semantics rationale?
|
|
|
|
Apathetic |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 594
Joined:
Member No.: 7,383
|
QUOTE(Tarc @ Fri 30th April 2010, 3:48pm)
/sigh
Can you not do any better than a wiki-semantics rationale?
/shrug It's true. See the topical example at Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality_of_redirectsThis post has been edited by Apathetic:
|
|
|
|
Apathetic |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 594
Joined:
Member No.: 7,383
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 30th April 2010, 3:56pm) QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 30th April 2010, 7:34pm)
It looks like more than a flash in the pan to me, and has hardly disappeared...
According to who? There is little mention of it at all in the US, and even the UK papers only made a big deal about it for a day then it trailed off quite quickly. There is far more mention of gaffs Bush or Obama made and I can point out how they lack pages. This is only being mentioned on Wikipedia because it is a game for political people to promote their agenda during election times. Ban them all. Well, there's still news on it being printed as we speak and some are saying it's "the" incident of the election.
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 30th April 2010, 2:30pm) Just curious, but why is this getting any prominence on Wikipedia? It was a non story and disappeared after a day. This is why I want to impose that rule that nothing can be written on until after a month has passed. That way, people who were so overly enthusiastic have moved to their new pet project and the encyclopedia stays encyclopedic. Whether or not it's a non-story, imposing some sort of "delayed gratification" rule would be extremely beneficial for WP in terms of quality improvement, which is why they're not going to do it. (That, and the fact that they'd find it a difficult rule to enforce.) Personally, I'd make it three months, though even a week would be better than nothing. The fact is, most people are actually very polite, and don't want to "mess with" someone else's work, much less fight over it - even if that work is a paragraph written in the midst of a confusing media circus, based on scant or even false information. The mess is created up front, and then someone always has to clean it up. But hey, as long as a few people register new accounts to get their digs in and (in the process) pump up those monthly recruitment numbers, it's all good, eh?
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 30th April 2010, 8:33pm) NPR is a niche news group that has a tiny audience. It is not representative of US media. QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 30th April 2010, 8:58pm) QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 30th April 2010, 4:26pm)
Then it could deserve a wonderful one line mention of it on the page about the election and be done with it.
But not a useful navigational redirect from the name the media has given to it (which has already generated over 36,500 ghits) ? Google hits get blogs and the rest. It is a bs term, as well as anything with "gate" behind it (besides Watergate, and then that kinda had to have it). It is a big "no one really cares". QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 30th April 2010, 9:29pm) Whether or not it's a non-story, imposing some sort of "delayed gratification" rule would be extremely beneficial for WP in terms of quality improvement, which is why they're not going to do it. (That, and the fact that they'd find it a difficult rule to enforce.)
Personally, I'd make it three months, though even a week would be better than nothing. The fact is, most people are actually very polite, and don't want to "mess with" someone else's work, much less fight over it - even if that work is a paragraph written in the midst of a confusing media circus, based on scant or even false information. The mess is created up front, and then someone always has to clean it up. But hey, as long as a few people register new accounts to get their digs in and (in the process) pump up those monthly recruitment numbers, it's all good, eh?
Hell, 48 hours would be enough to cool off some of the people who need to "post it now". It would definitely help when posting about people's deaths beyond stating the date. I think an easy way to fix one of Wiki's BLP problems is to deny notability unless something has been published by a legitimate critical publisher. Putting the minimum quite low (say, one publication by a legitimate critical publisher), that would destroy everything that is solely found in newspapers. Books are published quite quickly on political matters (I'd say, 6 month delay). Someone like Obama would have one book published early on which would allow the rest. But spin offs would be denied unless they had a book devoting something to it. But the word "notability" on Wiki has nothing to do with the dictionary definition, so I doubt that will ever happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |