Talk:Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)/Archive 18
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
Xkcd discussion from WP:EAR 9 January 2011
I've already posted this one before, but we got nowhere it's getting to be ridiculous. See the discussion about the xkcd link on the talk page (clearly against policy, many people weighed-in and declared it inappropriate, only arguments "for" the link are "I like it, why don't you concentrate on REAL problems" ones from the fans). No editor has managed to establish consensus for the link's inclusion, but it is being kept in the article by a cabal of fans with the argument that "there is no consensus to remove it" (surely a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia or just not the real reason). Keeping at this point is just a concession to fans of something popular being able to get what they want; what an awful precedent this sets (xkcd fans certainly don't need more encouragement to spam their comic here). Any edit I make is responded to with disingenuous warning templates (sorry, but assuming good faith is beyond me when I get this content removal warning for this edit or this 3RR warning, after 2 reverts). I should point out that the link was removed from the article for quite some time before being added back in and then defended after every other editor had lost interest. Am I right in thinking that there is no argument on their side anymore and they need to be told to stop it? Surely it's important that people aren't allowed to just turn Wikipedia into their own playground and get away with issuing false warnings to edits that don't go their way? Wenttomowameadow (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- This warning (in concert with this revert) was meant as a friendly standard warning against removing something against consensus. No big deal - there certainly is no reason to assume bad faith from my part. DVdm (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- This consensus you speak of is mysteriously absent, and that's the wrong warning (you know this from the edit history and discussing the issue directly with me on the talk page) and you said (in a conversation linked above) that consensus was no longer relevant (after being told that there was clearly nothing approaching consensus at all). When your excuse for this sort of thing is consensus in a conversation you're involved in where several editors have explained to you that there is no consensus and you've practically acknowledged it yourself, I'm just not buying it. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, from the looks of your talk page, I had assumed that you were a brand new editor. I now just had a closer look at your talk page history and at your edit history. It looks like it was not the first time that you tried to do this. Had I known (and had I remembered that we already went through all this before), I probably would have used a third level warning {{uw-delete3}} on your page. DVdm (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- You realise that you've just linked to a conversation that is prime evidence for there being a total lack of consensus, don't you? It doesn't really help build the case for your warning there, bucko. Given that my apparent "blanking" edit explains itself and references the comic directly, I'm still not able to view your explanation as anything more than an excuse. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please have a look at what we understand with wp:consensus. Yes, there was a lack of consensus about your desire to remove something. In case of lack of consensus, the usual way to go is status-quo. Yet after a silence of a few weeks, i.m.o. you definitely should not have removed the link against the remaks of the other editors. This is not about building cases. This is about consensus and/or lack thereoff. I must also firmly warn you against assuming bad faith from my part. This is the 3rd time you do that today (once in an edit summary and twice here). Please stop doing that. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why mention status-quo if you apparently have consensus? Since when was status-quo policy? I don't know why you think that something should be kept when editors can't agree whether it is appropriate or not (your argument that it should be a de-facto keep because it's already there is ridiculous given that the link has remained out of the article for long periods of time before being added back in). You've clearly been around here long enough to know that's not the case at all. Why have you shown me WP:CONSENSUS and tried to pass it off as something that only applies to the opposite side of any debate you're involved in? Wenttomowameadow (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- May I just summarise what you appear to be saying? "No content should be removed when there are some editors who think it should be there because they like it. If something has been there for a while it shouldn't be removed. Arguing for removal of something by policy will be rendered invalid as long as there is a core group of people who will add it back in. It is valid to give people warnings for removing this content.". Wenttomowameadow (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I will summarise what I say, and partly repeat myself, again. If you lke to remove something from a page and a majority of contributors disagrees about that removal, then you do not remove the material. You go to the talk page. If that does not help, you go elsewhere (like, for instance here), and if that does not help, there are other venues - but you do not remove the content - doing so is generally seen as wp:edit warring. DVdm (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Fortunately anybody is able to actually read the talk page and see that you failed to establish consensus to keep the link. It's irrelevant that a hardcore of fans likes it and keeps adding it back in. If this was policy you'd soon find yourself looking at a Ben 10 fan site when you thought you were viewing Wikipedia. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I will summarise what I say, and partly repeat myself, again. If you lke to remove something from a page and a majority of contributors disagrees about that removal, then you do not remove the material. You go to the talk page. If that does not help, you go elsewhere (like, for instance here), and if that does not help, there are other venues - but you do not remove the content - doing so is generally seen as wp:edit warring. DVdm (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- May I just summarise what you appear to be saying? "No content should be removed when there are some editors who think it should be there because they like it. If something has been there for a while it shouldn't be removed. Arguing for removal of something by policy will be rendered invalid as long as there is a core group of people who will add it back in. It is valid to give people warnings for removing this content.". Wenttomowameadow (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why mention status-quo if you apparently have consensus? Since when was status-quo policy? I don't know why you think that something should be kept when editors can't agree whether it is appropriate or not (your argument that it should be a de-facto keep because it's already there is ridiculous given that the link has remained out of the article for long periods of time before being added back in). You've clearly been around here long enough to know that's not the case at all. Why have you shown me WP:CONSENSUS and tried to pass it off as something that only applies to the opposite side of any debate you're involved in? Wenttomowameadow (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please have a look at what we understand with wp:consensus. Yes, there was a lack of consensus about your desire to remove something. In case of lack of consensus, the usual way to go is status-quo. Yet after a silence of a few weeks, i.m.o. you definitely should not have removed the link against the remaks of the other editors. This is not about building cases. This is about consensus and/or lack thereoff. I must also firmly warn you against assuming bad faith from my part. This is the 3rd time you do that today (once in an edit summary and twice here). Please stop doing that. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- You realise that you've just linked to a conversation that is prime evidence for there being a total lack of consensus, don't you? It doesn't really help build the case for your warning there, bucko. Given that my apparent "blanking" edit explains itself and references the comic directly, I'm still not able to view your explanation as anything more than an excuse. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I support DVdm's position on this one. I'm usually more of a deletionist, but this cartoon is so obviously relevant and thought-provoking on the centrifugal force topic that it really ought to be linked. I don't understand the objections to it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, that has all been debated ad-nauseam on the talk page by you, me and others. The issue is whether it should be kept in when nobody established consensus for its inclusion when there are many voices who think it is not suitable and against external linking policy. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think you somehow seem to misunderstand the essence of wp:consensus. In Wikipedia saying that "nobody established consensus" is a bit like an oxymoron. wp:Consensus is something that establishes itself. If you start an argument about something, then having had the last word does not imply in any way that you were somehow right. It usually means that nobody bothered to reply anymore. DVdm (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Read "nobody established consensus" as "you failed to put forward an argument that caused a consensus to be reached" (I acknowledge my clumsy turn of phrase based on a colloquial usage of "nobody"). You knew what it meant though, you've been arguing against it for some time. I don't know why you are talking about Aboutlast words, nobody has mentioned anything of the sort. Nobody bothered to reply because the link was removed for some time and people moved on thinking that it was over. Unfortunately, most of the people who like the link are regular editors of the article and tend to put it back in (I don't see you issuing warnings about long-term edit-warring in those instances). I'd alert the anti-link voices in the conversation but I'd be accused of rallying support. You're still yet to quote the policy that says content should be kept if there are some people who like it and consensus for its removal has not been established. This is because it doesn't exist, due to being silly. No interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS is going to change this (I had to laugh at "de-facto consensus", you may as well call it "magic consensus"). The same spurious de-facto consensus should apply for the period when the link was absent, shouldn't it? You should have dropped it as soon as anybody mentioned WP:EL, really. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- There's no point in transferring the debate here, particularly not when it's just me against two of the loudest pro-link voices in the debate. Refer to the points made over several months in the original debate on the talk page as to why the link shouldn't exist and why no argument was put forward that helped established consensus for the link's inclusion. The issue here is acting on the result of that debate instead of just letting people do what they want. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- What I meant with that last word thing was this: on the thread Talk:Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)#Conclusion, after Rememberway's rather pertinent remarks, you had the last word with this edit on 15-Dec-2010. Clearly nothing was concluded there and nobody bothered replying anymore. Nothing happened since then, until 3 weeks later (today) you made this edit, contrary to a status-quo and apparently, de-facto, against lack of talk page consensus to remove. Perhaps technically this could be seen as an act of what I think sometimes is called slow edit warring. I would just advise you to just consider moving on. DVdm (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The last time everybody moved on the link was added back after six months in and you left it there (you were curiously silent about edit warring and you issued no warnings to the person putting it back in). Pointless, this got us nowhere. The link needs to be removed permanently because it doesn't belong there and you didn't put forward a convincing argument that it should be a special case. An HTML comment should be added warning against adding it back in, because one of the fans will eventually add it back in and nobody will be able to stop them with people like you around reverting it and issuing warnings. "Moving on" is just another way of saying "let us have our fun", which is a terrible precedent to enable. I will add that several editors unaware of the talk page debacle have removed the link without thought, because it obviously shouldn't be there. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I strongly advise you not to do that. If indeed both the article talk page, and this request for assistance got you nowhere, then either you should drop the stick, forget about it and move on, or you should try wp:dispute resolution elsewhere. DVdm (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're really the last person who should be giving advice to me about this, you're only here to echo what you said in that conversation and do whatever you can to push interest away so that nobody removes the link. I'm interested in improving Wikipedia and not allowing people to turn it into their own personal playground. If anything is to have any meaning on Wikipedia it has to be enforced; this includes not allowing content to be snuck back into articles and then swept under the carpet with claims that it's now a trivial matter that should be dropped because the article is returned to a state that suits you. If you really cared about not continuing arguments and avoiding long-term edit warring you would have reverted the changes to add the link back in and saved your snide warning templates for those editors. It is not acceptable to give the impression of cooperation by just going through the motions before ignoring bad edits that suit you and providing resistance to people's efforts to correct them. You issued no warnings and had no WP:DEADHORSE complaints regarding these edits adding the comic back in after one month and after six months, but jumped at the chance to undo and warn similar edits removing the comic. So yeah, excuse me if I don't seem particularly awed when you quote WPs that you think only apply to edits that don't suit you.
- I think we need to start looking at topic bans for Wenttomowameadow, he's clearly edit warring and acting against consensus, this is a fundamental principle of the wikipedia, and he clearly doesn't give a shit about it.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 19:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, or we could focus on the actual issue and reality. Note: You are posting this message in the middle of a conversation that demonstrates an utter lack of consensus. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- If anything, I see a consensus not to include the link currently. More importantly, though, I don't see a single reason provided in this thread why we should include the link. You have to have pretty damn good reasons to override a guideline. --Conti|✉ 19:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is precisely why I posted at WP:EAR. This is such a clear cut issue but some fans won't accept it and act rationally. What is to be done? I don't know how to deal with this, but that doesn't mean it should be tolerated. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think we need to start looking at topic bans for Wenttomowameadow, he's clearly edit warring and acting against consensus, this is a fundamental principle of the wikipedia, and he clearly doesn't give a shit about it.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 19:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're really the last person who should be giving advice to me about this, you're only here to echo what you said in that conversation and do whatever you can to push interest away so that nobody removes the link. I'm interested in improving Wikipedia and not allowing people to turn it into their own personal playground. If anything is to have any meaning on Wikipedia it has to be enforced; this includes not allowing content to be snuck back into articles and then swept under the carpet with claims that it's now a trivial matter that should be dropped because the article is returned to a state that suits you. If you really cared about not continuing arguments and avoiding long-term edit warring you would have reverted the changes to add the link back in and saved your snide warning templates for those editors. It is not acceptable to give the impression of cooperation by just going through the motions before ignoring bad edits that suit you and providing resistance to people's efforts to correct them. You issued no warnings and had no WP:DEADHORSE complaints regarding these edits adding the comic back in after one month and after six months, but jumped at the chance to undo and warn similar edits removing the comic. So yeah, excuse me if I don't seem particularly awed when you quote WPs that you think only apply to edits that don't suit you.
- I strongly advise you not to do that. If indeed both the article talk page, and this request for assistance got you nowhere, then either you should drop the stick, forget about it and move on, or you should try wp:dispute resolution elsewhere. DVdm (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The last time everybody moved on the link was added back after six months in and you left it there (you were curiously silent about edit warring and you issued no warnings to the person putting it back in). Pointless, this got us nowhere. The link needs to be removed permanently because it doesn't belong there and you didn't put forward a convincing argument that it should be a special case. An HTML comment should be added warning against adding it back in, because one of the fans will eventually add it back in and nobody will be able to stop them with people like you around reverting it and issuing warnings. "Moving on" is just another way of saying "let us have our fun", which is a terrible precedent to enable. I will add that several editors unaware of the talk page debacle have removed the link without thought, because it obviously shouldn't be there. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Read "nobody established consensus" as "you failed to put forward an argument that caused a consensus to be reached" (I acknowledge my clumsy turn of phrase based on a colloquial usage of "nobody"). You knew what it meant though, you've been arguing against it for some time. I don't know why you are talking about Aboutlast words, nobody has mentioned anything of the sort. Nobody bothered to reply because the link was removed for some time and people moved on thinking that it was over. Unfortunately, most of the people who like the link are regular editors of the article and tend to put it back in (I don't see you issuing warnings about long-term edit-warring in those instances). I'd alert the anti-link voices in the conversation but I'd be accused of rallying support. You're still yet to quote the policy that says content should be kept if there are some people who like it and consensus for its removal has not been established. This is because it doesn't exist, due to being silly. No interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS is going to change this (I had to laugh at "de-facto consensus", you may as well call it "magic consensus"). The same spurious de-facto consensus should apply for the period when the link was absent, shouldn't it? You should have dropped it as soon as anybody mentioned WP:EL, really. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think you somehow seem to misunderstand the essence of wp:consensus. In Wikipedia saying that "nobody established consensus" is a bit like an oxymoron. wp:Consensus is something that establishes itself. If you start an argument about something, then having had the last word does not imply in any way that you were somehow right. It usually means that nobody bothered to reply anymore. DVdm (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is just silly. I love xkcd as much as the next guy, but we don't link to funny webcomics in our articles, even if they're about that exact topic. --Conti|✉ 13:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's precisely it. Like the comic or not (I think it's an OK one), the link text "An XKCD comic strip with a joke about centrifugal force" should give everybody all the clues they need to see that this doesn't belong. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- This link is obviously inappropriate. It fails wp:ELNO#1 and wp:ELPOINTS#3 states quite clear that the number of external links should be minized. On a sidenote, h2g2 link is also inappropriate for the same reasons and I have strong doubts about the others. Yoenit (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the h2g2 link, a few dead links and a couple of others that fail WP:ELNO#1. I don't think anybody would have any objections to this but I'm registering my actions here in case anybody wants to discuss them. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- This link is obviously inappropriate. It fails wp:ELNO#1 and wp:ELPOINTS#3 states quite clear that the number of external links should be minized. On a sidenote, h2g2 link is also inappropriate for the same reasons and I have strong doubts about the others. Yoenit (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's precisely it. Like the comic or not (I think it's an OK one), the link text "An XKCD comic strip with a joke about centrifugal force" should give everybody all the clues they need to see that this doesn't belong. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it per WP:ELBURDEN and I noted WP:SOAP in my edit summary as well after skimming through this mess. I probably should have left it at ELBURDEN, or maybe added WP:SNOW instead. The amount of effort going into keeping this link is absurd, while the policy/guideline based arguments to keep it are almost nonexistant. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Would it be a good idea to add a HTML comment requesting that the link isn't added back in? I don't want to be appear antagonistic by adding it myself, but I think it would be a good way of avoiding the same pattern where it appears again half a year later. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this discussion would be far more productive if editors followed WP:DR, more closely, especially by focusing on content. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The comic link in question does actually create an excellent focus for discussion, but it shouldn't actually appear in the main article. It would be a reasonable compromise to leave it off the main page but to introduce it to the talk page as a discussion topic for the purpose of improving the article, in conjunction with card number 12 at this weblink [1]. This Batman cartoon offers yet another perspective in which the rotation origin is actually at the centre of the person (Robin), meaning that they will be forced outwards in all directions. Robin cannot therefore cite the line which James Bond cites in relation to attributing the destructive effect to centripetal force. David Tombe (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed the link again per wp:ELBURDEN
The link keeps getting readded "per consensus". The fact that me, Ronz and Wenttomowameado all agree the link is utterly inappropriate shows that it is contentious and there is no consensus. Per wp:ELBURDEN it should be removed until consensus is reached to include it. Also, somebody made the argument "guidelines do not override consensus as it is one of the 5 pillars". That is completely wrong. In fact wp:CONSENSUS says:
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
Now can anybody please provide a policy/guideline based reason for the addition of this link? If not we can get on with stuff that actually matters. Yoenit (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think we did have a pretty good consensus for a while, but every now and then we get people coming around who don't see why this is such a great link. Dicklyon (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to explain it to me. I have been known to change my mind due to rational arguments Yoenit (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- In your removal edit summary, you said the cartoon contains much less information than the article; that's true, yet it serves as a valuable palpable illustration of an ongoing confusion and discussion about how a "fictitious" force can seem so real to a person in a rotating reference frame. It refers to the controversy and to the confusion itself, and provides a realistic way to help people think about it. It is so on-point that to not link it seems to me to be a sign of some kind of wiki-arrogance on the part of people who would rather stick to narrow rules than appreciate its value. I'm usually more of a deletionist; don't think I'm usually easy on ELs. Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Yoenit, The punchline of the link is in the second picture. Bond will have every bone in his body crushed when the centrifuge begins to rotate. Bond's adversary says that he will be crushed by centrifugal force. In the second picture, Bond replies to the extent that centrifugal force doesn't exist and that the crushing will be done by inward centripetal force. This point of view is the point of view held by most of those who support the inclusion of the link. However, Bond's adversary points out that this is a laughable claim perpetuated by over zealous science teachers and that when Newton's laws are constructed in a rotating system, centrifugal force will appear as plain as day. David Tombe (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I did not ask you to explain the comic to me. I don't see how this is a valid external link. We are building an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm of funny comics. Please provide a reason for the addition of this link? Yoenit (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- It was already established that this is not just a funny comic (as a comic it sucks, in my opinion), but a valuable addition to the article. As I said in my comment in the next section, a policy about wp:consensus takes precedence over a guideline of wp:external links. DVdm (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why is it a valuable addition to the article? Seriously, I don't get it. --Conti|✉ 20:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Check the talk page history. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's not a very helpful reply. There's a section above from last year, but pretty much all one side is saying is that the link "illustrates the concept nicely". That's not a very detailed or well thought out argument, to be honest. WP:EL still exists, though, you can't just ignore it whenever you feel like it. --Conti|✉ 21:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't override core policy.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 00:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's not a very helpful reply. There's a section above from last year, but pretty much all one side is saying is that the link "illustrates the concept nicely". That's not a very detailed or well thought out argument, to be honest. WP:EL still exists, though, you can't just ignore it whenever you feel like it. --Conti|✉ 21:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Check the talk page history. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) No it does not, try actually reading wp:CONSENSUS instead of just linking to it. I quoted it for you above: Local consensus does not override guidelines. Yoenit (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why is it a valuable addition to the article? Seriously, I don't get it. --Conti|✉ 20:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- It was already established that this is not just a funny comic (as a comic it sucks, in my opinion), but a valuable addition to the article. As I said in my comment in the next section, a policy about wp:consensus takes precedence over a guideline of wp:external links. DVdm (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.
- The argument was made that the material was actually wanted in the article, rather than linked to from the article, but that the license is (currently) incompatible. Therefore it is a valid external link, according to WP:EL itself. That being the case it is not so that WP:EL excludes it, and the poll held on this talk page agreed. And it's not that there's any guideline that excludes it, there are simply people trying to use this as a pretext for removing humour/xkcd from wikipedia, even at the expense of removing material where it explains the topic very well (better than wikipedia's contributors have managed to).- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 01:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- And the point is, that the only times this has question been a widely examined here (which you would think would be the appropriate place to raise the question of whether a link was appropriate), there was a majority for its retention. At which point a minority from WP:EL tried to argue that that didn't count, because WP:ELBURDEN (a really very minor guideline) had been modified to override WP:CONSENSUS so that a majority wasn't enough!!!! In other words, I don't think it's inaccurate to state that deletionists were claiming the right to delete any link any time, even when they'd been outvoted! But wp:consensus really does say you can't do that.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 01:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing a relevant policy/guideline.
- Consensus is not a WP:VOTE.
- There's no consensus that it is "material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject."
- WP:ELBURDEN simply states that the link should be left out until there's clear consensus to add it. There's obviously no clear consensus to add it.
- WP:ELNO#1, #11 and #13, and WP:ELPOINTS#3 have been brought up as rationale for keeping the link out.
- While it might not have a strong effect on consensus-building, I was surprised by the comment at (14:19, 26 January 2010).
- The arguments for inclusion don't appear to go far beyond WP:ILIKEIT. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- You don't get to decide what does and doesn't meet any particular policy and then label anyone that disagrees with you as WP:ILIKEIT. That's offensive, insulting and innaccurate. This was discussed, and it was decided to be kept.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 00:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yoenit, I misunderstood your question. I agree with you that the link should not appear in the main article. It is however a very good comic and a very useful link for talk page discussion. David Tombe (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sure go ahead and start a discussion here, just don't forget this is not a wp:FORUM
There's not that much to discuss beyond the obvious, which is that the two opposing points of view, as highlighted in the comic strip, can be written directly into the article. I wouldn't expect to find a comic strip used in an Encyclopaedia Britannica article, never mind for the purpose of making a point which hadn't otherwise been made in the main body of the text. David Tombe (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- We're not Encyclopedia Britannica. Whether they do or do not do something may guide us, but is not binding on us. The Wikipedia's policies are, and there's no policy at all against this.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 01:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
External link noticeboard
One of the warring parties opened a discussion at Wikipedia:ELN#Long_term_edit_war_over_xkcd_link_in_Centrifugal_force_.28rotating_reference_frame.29 and failed to mention it here. That might be a good place to get a more civil discussion, or it just might recruit more outsiders to join the war, as it seems so far. Dicklyon (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Meanwhile it appears that Wenttomowameadow removed the link again. After it was restored again, apparently another editor ignored all current diuscussions and removed it. A policy about wp:consensus takes precedence over a guideline of wp:external links.
So I have restored it yet again. There is no consensus to removal, so we do not remove. DVdm (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)- Actually, several editors removed it, and as per usual it was added back in with reasoning that has no basis in Wikipedia policy. This should offend you more than the link's removal. Surely you can't be defending this on a the basis of non-existent consensus still? Wenttomowameadow (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. This was beyond tiresome a year ago. Would that I'd never gotten involved in this idiotic argument so that I'd be able to fully protect the page until such point as discussion here moves onto some more productive subject (such as the actual improvement of our coverage of the subject matter) with a clean conscience.
- For what it's worth, this is still an asbolute no-brainer: indeed, it's gotten even more so as another year has passed and still nobody seems interested in arguing to keep it based on honest reading of policy. We should link to external resources sparingly, according to WP:EL, and that quite obviously means that the default position where there's no clear consensus either way should be omission. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Judging from the edit history, if all the editors who have reverted one way or the other would comment on this talk page too, there would probably have been a clear consensus once and for all. I would suggest that the participants of this talk page, who feel strongly enough about the issue(s) being discussed, could leave a neutrally worded invitation to all (not just the ones that favour 'your' opinion otherwise you could be accused of canvssing), those editors to comment here. Bearing in mind of course, that any consensus that is not in the interst of the article and which clearly contradicts Wikipedia guidelines and policies, would be escalated.Kudpung (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Every warring party has been very vocal on this talk page. There is not a single person who has added or removed the link without adding to this discussion. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and you're still actually in the minority. Clearly we need to do another poll to point this out again. This link will not stay out of the article, because you're in the wrong here.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 04:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Let's entertain the idea that WP:ELBURDEN means nothing, and that this link's should be included based on counting votes (this is ridiculous and has no precedent on Wikipedia, but as it's your only argument it's worth visiting). I've just counted: there are 12 people here who want to keep the link, and 14 people who think it should be removed (this is without including the IPs, who are all for removing the link anyway). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and you're still actually in the minority. Clearly we need to do another poll to point this out again. This link will not stay out of the article, because you're in the wrong here.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 04:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Every warring party has been very vocal on this talk page. There is not a single person who has added or removed the link without adding to this discussion. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Judging from the edit history, if all the editors who have reverted one way or the other would comment on this talk page too, there would probably have been a clear consensus once and for all. I would suggest that the participants of this talk page, who feel strongly enough about the issue(s) being discussed, could leave a neutrally worded invitation to all (not just the ones that favour 'your' opinion otherwise you could be accused of canvssing), those editors to comment here. Bearing in mind of course, that any consensus that is not in the interst of the article and which clearly contradicts Wikipedia guidelines and policies, would be escalated.Kudpung (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, this is the kind of 'logic' that you employ. You've advertised it on a 'noticeboard' where people go around patting themselves on the back every time they delete an external link, and then you've sat here and tried to edit war it away, and then you point to what is, even then, a very narrow majority on a stacked position. When there actually was a vote, you failed to get even majority; you lost the vote.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 19:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- If your argument is now based on the number of keep vs remove comments in the RfC above then you're being ridiculous, particularly because there are more removes than keeps. Even if you find a way of counting more yays than nays your argument will get you nowhere. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah right. Only if you include the disposable accounts and so forth. Funny how that happened isn't it, that deletionists would try to rig a vote?- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 00:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- If your argument is now based on the number of keep vs remove comments in the RfC above then you're being ridiculous, particularly because there are more removes than keeps. Even if you find a way of counting more yays than nays your argument will get you nowhere. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus means people generally agree. Just how stupid do you think people are? People do not generally agree with your position, and more people agree with its opposite. You are in the minority.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 19:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." See WP:CON. It's not a vote, really. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Incompetence, the consensus is needed to keep the link. You must see that there is no way of interpreting the result of this talk page as a "general agreement" that the link should say. This has been explained to you several times, it makes sense, and it's not something that is going to go away. You've also been told that voting isn't how it works (and you're even saying this after talking about consensus, which is just desperate) and that more people have voiced opinions against the link than for it. I think you're getting into troublemaker territory now, and that you should drop it. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus is needed to make any change to any article, under the core policy.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 00:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Incompetence, the consensus is needed to keep the link. You must see that there is no way of interpreting the result of this talk page as a "general agreement" that the link should say. This has been explained to you several times, it makes sense, and it's not something that is going to go away. You've also been told that voting isn't how it works (and you're even saying this after talking about consensus, which is just desperate) and that more people have voiced opinions against the link than for it. I think you're getting into troublemaker territory now, and that you should drop it. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." See WP:CON. It's not a vote, really. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus means people generally agree. Just how stupid do you think people are? People do not generally agree with your position, and more people agree with its opposite. You are in the minority.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 19:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The contents of that comic strip are not recorded in the article, and I fail to understand why a certain group are so keen to put in the comic strip itself, yet so reluctant to incorporate the actual arguments that are in the comic strip directly into the main article. The comic strip reveals two distinct and opposing points of view on the subject. Those two points of view can very easily be treated in the article without having to use a comic strip. David Tombe (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
A note regarding consensus
- If it's consensus you are after you won't find it by vote counting. Wikipedia policy is decided by consensus, therefore anything on wikipedia that does not adhere to wikipedia policy goes against consensus. The external link that some users are so keen to include in this article fails WP:EL (amoung other policies such as WP:RS, although I understand that sometimes links that fail WP:RS can be included, though not in this case). As such it goes against consensus. Therefore any further attempt to push the inclusion of this link by edit warring in article mainspace should have only one consequence and that is removal of those users editing privaledges.Polyamorph (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)