Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles

Policy.

Hey guys. I was just wondering, should this guideline be turned into an official policy here at simple? Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't? --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 23:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. "Many editors agree with the ideas on this page. It is a good idea to follow it, but it is not policy."--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea. Kansan (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problems with it. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It already is policy, that is, we all follow this and administrators' have enforced it in the past. Also, the licensing of our contribution specifically disallows ownership. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 21:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I have no objections to making it a policy. Feel free to make it one, though I already consider it as one and (I hope) follow it. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 00:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 2¢. :) -Avic enna sis @ 17:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal To Move To Wikipedia:Page Ownership

Is there anyone able to move the page?174.3.101.230 (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason for the change? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent discussion on en about it, but their page is staying where it is. I think "page" is a bit vague as this guideline is not intended for userspace pages. "Page ownership" as a whole has a bit too positive a tone for me as well; if we are going to move it, it should be to eliminate the word "ownership" not the word "articles". sonia^♫♪ 23:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is because this does not apply to only articles. Every single edit must be shared: cf. "If you do not want your writing to be changed and shared then do not submit it here. If you did not write this yourself, it must be available under terms consistent with the Terms of Use, and you agree to follow any relevant licensing requirements."174.3.101.230 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only place where it really matters is in the article space. As such, I don't see a reason to change it (especially since it makes it more vague). Griffinofwales (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it isn't. This is a policy, and people will say that this does not apply to templates, categories, etc. because of its scope. Being a policy, it should state what we practice; and with the limit in-scope, it gives people the argument that templates are not privy to this policy. Policy is about making it clear. And if this page is about ownership, then it is about about ALL pages concerned. Is it true that you can own templates? Well if not, then do we have a policy of when we can own templates? If not, they just make sections on this page that can SPELL out, figuratively speaking, the noright to own.199.126.224.156 (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've standardized the wording in the policy. It makes more sense to move the page, and no sense to leave the page at it's current name.199.126.224.156 (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'd recommend bringing it to Simple Talk and presenting your argument there. sonia^♫♪ 06:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Why not just make Wikipedia:Page Ownership a redirect to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and be done with it? Discussions on a separate WMF project does not mean we have to follow suit here. -Avic enna sis @ 08:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not saying that the decision on another wiki has judgment on what happens on another wiki, but I makes sense that the page is moved, per wp:pg states that pg pages should be consistent within it self, and state clearly what is allowed and unallowed.199.126.224.156 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow you. "...per wp:pg states that..." I can't find a WP:PG. Can you either use the full title or link to it, please? -Avic enna sis @ 22:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

en:WP:PG? πr² (talk • changes) 23:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, we don't have a page here on simple english wikipedia; should we make one? Or would that article (the mother) be sufficient. Note this policy is a significant copypasta of en:wp:own.199.126.224.156 (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no idea why this IP user is so interested in changing "article" to "page", I'm inclined to agree with him. This policy doesn't apply only to articles but also to templates, Wikipedia: namespace and userspace! (After all, you don't own your userspace, and there are rules about what you may and may not have there.) Whether we call it "Page ownership" or something else, I don't really care, but we use the word "page" here for articles and non-articles, and we ought to do that with this policy, too. EhJJ^TALK 00:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning Up Policy

For Reference

Changes from: "articles" to "pages","an article" to "a page" in Line 3
- consistentizing
Changing from "articles" to "layout"
- So other types of pages can be included
"Writing an article does not let anyone "own" the article" to "Writing an article does not let anyone "own" the page"
- consistentizing
"Since no one "owns" any part of any article, if you create or edit an article, you should not sign it. The contributions of all editors are seen with their names on the page history." to "Since no one "owns" any part of any page, if you create or edit an page, you should not sign it. The contributions of all editors are seen with their names on the page history."
- consistentizing
"However, when adding comments, questions, or votes to talk pages, please sign your comments. This lets other people know who said what. A talk page isn't part of an article, it is talking about the article." to "However, when adding comments, questions, or votes to talk pages, please sign your comments. This lets other people know who said what. A talk page isn't 'part' of an page, it is talking about the page."
"== Examples of Owning Articles==" to "== Examples of Owning Pages=="
- consistentizing
"*An editor may say that changes must be reviewed by him or her before they can be added to the article." to "*An editor may say that changes must be reviewed by him or her before they can be added to the page."
- consistentizing
"Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor to keep the article unchanged (this does not include removing vandalism)" to "*Page changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor to keep the page unchanged (this does not include removing vandalism)"
- consistentizing
"An editor leaves messages on other editors' talk pages to try and stop them from editing their articles. This can be done by:" to "*An editor leaves messages on other editors' talk pages to try and stop them from editing their page. This can be done by:"
- consistentizing
"These are examples of comments made by people who think they own articles." to "These are examples of comments made by people who think they own pages."
- consistentizing
"*"Do not make changes or comments to my articles until you have written your own."" to "*"Do not make changes or comments to my pages until you have written your own.""
- consistentizing
"*"I created this article."" to "*"I created this page.""
- consistentizing
"Often, editors accused of ownership may not know what they are doing. Some editors may think they are protecting the article from vandalism. Others may try to be share their own view, which is against the NPOV policy. So it is important to assume good faith." to "Often, editors accused of ownership may not know what they are doing. Some editors may think they are protecting the page from vandalism. Others may try to be share their own view, which is against the NPOV policy. So it is important to assume good faith."
- consistentizing
"People who wrote the article" to "People who wrote the page"
- consistentizing
"and think they own it should be talked to on the article talk page" to "and think they own it should be talked to on the talk page"
- consistentizing
"Deal with it in the same way as above: talk about it on the talk page of the article" to "Deal with it in the same way as above: talk about it on the talk page"
- Harmonizing as nonarticle pages are privy to this policy
"Show the users this guideline and others will help you." to "Show the users this policy and others will help you."
- This is not a policy
"You may want to ask someone you respect who has not edited the article for an neutral opinion." to "You may want to ask someone you respect who has not edited the page for an neutral opinion."
- consistentizing

There is one change in the nutshell message that I forgot to change.

"Other people may edit articles you create" to "Other people may edit pages you create"
- consistentizing

Objections?199.126.224.156 (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus must support the changes before implementation. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there even a page which states how to determine consensus, or is that just what you said?199.126.224.156 (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you another 5 days. If there is no discussion, then I cannot leave the current version as it is, as there is no support for this current version either. The current policy is selfcontradictory.199.126.224.156 (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No time limits unless you can get someone to say something. No discussion is not an acceptable result. If you can get supports in 5 days, then I'm ok with it. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole page and even its creation is based on undiscussed changes. There isn't a timelimit perse, but you have to use judgment to gauge consensus.199.126.224.156 (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. I haven't read through these with a fine toothed comb, but they seem generally acceptable. EhJJ^TALK 00:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care enough to argue about it, but I think the word article is simplier than page. And for most non-english speaking people they would take the word article to mean any page. So I think it should be left as is. -DJSasso (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then why do we have a link in the tool bar that says "Show any page", when, in fact, it will show a random article? (Rhetorical question). I think the consensus has been that "page" is more simple than "article" (after all, the former is on the BE850, no?) If that is the case, then we ought to change it for consistency throughout our policy pages. EhJJ^TALK 00:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be "Show any page" actually since it only shows article space. But that is a completely different issue -DJSasso (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually upon doing some research. It appears you are the banned en user en:User:100110100. Who has been banned on en for various reasons. Not the least of which is your WP:POINT editing of things about WP:OWN. I would highly suggest you leave this topic alone here. If you continue what got you banned there I will block you. -DJSasso (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is clearly a "SPA", but so far no harm. Still, no objection to a block if he keeps pushing despite consensus (or even if not). EhJJ^TALK 00:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page vs. Article

From the above discussion, some interesting mechanics have been brought up:

Show any page (we can argue about weather it should be "article" or "page") only shows up articles: Is this what we want? Templates should be excluded? If this is the case, then should we keep the name of this word?199.126.224.156 (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought. We use the word page because it is simpler. I do not think it is a problme, and I also do not think people really want to see templates/categories/user TP when they click on show any page. I think they expect the page to be an article. Regards, Yottie ^=talk= 22:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same does not apply to the "Editing too much" one, because if someone is editing it a lot to the point that there's an edit conflict on the article, then it is valid. Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors/My changes 01:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]