User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Template:Fix bunching  

Userfied versions of deleted articles

For how long may userfied versions of deleted articles remain in userspace? I ask as a number of these pages are showing up at WP:MFD and I am unable to find a relevant policy which give an explicit length.Smallman12q (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I could offer you nothing more than a personal opinion. Perhaps someone else reading this can direct you to relevant policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There is, to the best of my recollection, no hard and fast rule. But "about a year" is the generally accepted standard. Once a page is userfied there is a tacit agreement that it will be worked on at *some point reasonably soon*. For articles with BLP considerations that tacit agreement is a little stronger. Ultimately userspace drafts create potentially risky clutter (especially as people do keep forgetting to remove them from the categories!) so they get cleared out now and again. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

They should stay, forever, unless/until there is a reason to delete them. Deletion does not save any disk space. I disagree with the 'clutter' comment; if they're in cats, the cats should be commented out or prefixed with colons.

If something contains BLP violations, it should be deleted immediately, of course. Same for copyright violations. The normal deletion policies and guidelines all apply. However, we're not working to any deadline; you can't find a relevant policy, because there isn't one. Unless there is some reason for deleting it, it shouldn't be deleted.  Chzz  ►  00:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

My first question is why in the world is this being discussed here? Policy discussions belong at the village pump or at the very least in the Wikipedia namespace. Wikipedia talk:User pages already has a thread on a somewhat related topic and it's on the watchlist of people who care about this issue. That being said, I strongly disagree with the idea that pages deleted by consensus should be allowed to be archived indefinitely in userspace. The point of userfication is to give an editor the opportunity to improve the article so that it meets the community's requirements. In the case of BLPs deleted on grounds of notability, I think this is even more important. Non-notable people should be left alone and not only in the article space. Thinly sourced BLPs should be deleted and not just from the article space. Note also that to most readers, there's little difference between a mainspace article and a userspace page that looks just like an article. So while we should of course tolerate userfication for purposes of editing, userfication for purposes of archival should be discouraged. Pichpich (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The most relevant policies would be WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- œ^™ 07:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Userfied_versions_of_deleted_articles. All opinions are welcome=PSmallman12q (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Any of the pages can be deleted; I'm not arguing about that. I'm just saying that there is no specified time limit - nor should there be. The existing deletion policies cover this just fine; if you think a page needs deleting, nominate it for deletion. No problems.  Chzz  ►  16:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not true though IMO, there is a lower bar to userspace drafts - they often consist of stuff deleted at AFD and userfied for improvement. So many are below par in the first place - we should allow a reasonable time for them to be improved, and then MFD them. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Which part is not true? Of course the requirements are lower. The criteria in CSD is different for user namespace, and MFD has clear guidance. There is, however, no deadline. Chzz  ►  18:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Chzz is absolutely right, the only reason for deleting something is a reason. "Because it is there" is not a reason. "Because it is old" is not either. "Because it breaks the law, BLP, would tend to undermine the project" are good reasons. Disk space is not a good reason, saving database dump size is not either, since we have dumps that exclude user space (and could be a little more fine grained if needed). Namespace pollution may be a good reason in parts of template space (primarily short names) but not in user-space. And so forth. Rich Farmbrough, 10:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

The most important reason to remove crud is that to let it accumulate (even in userspace) will promote an outlook that crud has some acceptability, and that userspace can be used as a webhost. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

One man's trash is another man's treasure. Every deletion process alienates the editors who worked on that content. Thus, deletion should be nominally restricted to the things by people whom we want to show the door: BLP violators, serial copyright violators, spammers, vandals, kids who violate WP:NFT, and other such folks. Userified content should never have been allowed if it fell into one of these types of content in the first place.

On the other hand "notwebhost" means something very specific, which is not comprehended in the above comment: it's not your personal hosting service, for things that only you or your family will care about (e.g., pictures of the grandkids, holiday letters, and other sorts of stuff better left on Facebook). Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I've got OVER 9000!!! drafts, some of which I haven't touched for ages.  Chzz  ►  04:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Note, the archive bot was a little over-keen and archived this after just 14 hours [1], so I'm reinstating it.  Chzz  ►  18:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a ghost-town over at RfA; I remember a month back, you said you were "seeking feedback via email for some ideas of an alternative process" etc, in Archive 73#RfA is a horrible and broken process. Has anything come of that? Cheers,  Chzz  ►  09:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC) At the time of posting that comment, there were no RfA candidates. There is one now.  Chzz  ►  01:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the bot archived the comment after about 1 day and 6 hours, as directed. Graham87 09:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it didn't, it probably just didn't recognise the timestamp from Chzz's second statement, which was in "small" tags, and based itself solely on the first, "normal" timestamp. Fram (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops! That's bizarre. Graham87 10:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You were just waiting to hit that "Move" button, were you?

I saw this :) –MuZemike 23:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And look at this, completely shameless ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it reassuring that there are bigger geeks than me I.Thelmadatter (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I plead guilty. I had my finger on the mouse button ready to do the move. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC) {{ygm}}  Chzz  ►  08:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't be guilty - congrats on being up so early for such a lovely event. The move I mean, lol. I must admit I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was you that moved it, seems like the other 200 editors working on the page were still bickering about what name they were going to use even though there were statements already stating what it was going to be.

PS - nice to see you became part of the big event lol 11.43am: My colleague Laura Oliver reports that Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has taken it upon himself to edit Kate Middleton's page on the site. Chaosdruid (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a slight leg up because most of my "ordinary" editing centers around the UK peerage, and so I already knew how our naming conventions have worked for the royals, so while other people were puzzling it out, I just wrote it in the box and waited for the words "I pronounce that they be man and wife together..." Fun stuff. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which - if Wedding dress of Kate Middleton does make it to DYK, what do you think the rollover text be on the piccie of the two of 'em on the balcony? I thought, probably, "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" would be OK - or is "HRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" valid? without getting too unwieldy, I mean. "Will&Kate" or "Mr & Mrs Louis" would be fun, but I know there's no chance of that!  Chzz  ►  11:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Your wish has been granted Jimbo. Check out Wedding dress of Lady Diana Spencer, Wedding dress of Princess Elizabeth, Wedding dress of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Coronation gown of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon , Coronation gown of Elizabeth II! Sometimes it takes a lousy AFD to make things happen. Its not an obvious topic one would think of but given the sources in books seems to meet requirements... I'll aim to get all these beyond stub status and DYK them on the front page, that should do the trick.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, on the subject of UK Peerages, I'd like to see your comments (if any) on this: [2]. I thought about being bold and removing the entirely non-notable younger sons of Dukes from the list, per WP:N, WP:CRYSTALBALL (in case anyone argues that they might become Dukes), and WP:THISISTHE21STCENTURYWHYSHOULDWECARE but since you seem to find the subject of interest, perhaps you have a different view? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Even 1863 has sources and pictures!!.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hiya Jimbo

Jimbo Wales has been inducted into the Order of the Mop, for their commitment and dedication and is entitled to display this award for being a fantastic admin, Kind regards, thanks and happy editing, —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

For a userbox version go here.
You are member number: 42

It is only fitting the co-founder (:P) of Wikipedia be awarded this. Thanks for all the work you've done for the 'pedia over the years. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:30pm • 10:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Intl Filipino Moels

I am wondering why when i do a search on Filipino International Famous Models. No real Famous Models that made it Internationally. There is a page with a bunch of guys that are locally Famous. But none have really been Top Intl Models. I wish us Male and Female supermodels that made a name in the Intl scene like myself, Mimelanie Marquez, Rose Ranola, And Anna Bayle...etc etc could be given acknowledgement on your site. Thanks Robby Tarroza Stewart..http://www.facebook.com/pages/Robby-Tarroza/127066307332916?ref=ts