text:
William Rowan Hamilton

Sir William Rowan Hamilton FRAS PRIA (3/4 August 1805 – 2 September 1865) was an Irish mathematician, astronomer, and physicist. He was Andrews Professor of Astronomy at Trinity College Dublin and Director of the Dunsink Observatory.

Hamilton was Dunsink's third director, having worked there from 1827 to 1865. His career included the study of geometrical optics, Fourier analysis, and quaternions, the last of which made him one of the founders of modern linear algebra. He has made major contributions in optics, classical mechanics, and abstract algebra. His work is fundamental to modern theoretical physics, particularly his reformulation of Newtonian mechanics. Hamiltonian mechanics including its Hamilitonian function are now central both to electromagnetism and quantum mechanics.

Early life
Hamilton was the fourth of nine children born to Sarah Hutton (1780–1817) and Archibald Hamilton (1778–1819), who lived in Dublin at 29 Dominick Street, later renumbered to 36. Hamilton's father, who was from Dublin, worked as a solicitor. By the age of three, Hamilton had been sent to live with his uncle James Hamilton, a graduate of Trinity College who ran a school in Talbots Castle in Trim, County Meath.

Hamilton is said to have shown talent at an early age. His uncle observed that Hamilton, from a young age, had displayed an uncanny ability to acquire languages — a claim which has been disputed by some historians, who claim he had only a basic understanding of them. At the age of seven, he had already made progress in Hebrew, and before he was 13, he had acquired, under the care of his uncle, a dozen languages: classical and modern European languages, Persian, Arabic, Hindustani, Sanskrit, Marathi and Malay. The emphasis of Hamilton's early education on languages is attributed to the wish of his father to see him employed by the British East India Company.

An expert mental calculator, the young Hamilton was capable of working out some calculations to many decimal places. In September 1813, the American calculating prodigy Zerah Colburn was being exhibited in Dublin. Colburn was 9, a year older than Hamilton. The two were pitted against each other in a mental arithmetic contest, with Colburn emerging as the clear victor.

In reaction to his defeat, Hamilton spent less time studying languages, and more on mathematics. At age ten, he stumbled across a Latin copy of Euclid; and at twelve he studied Newton's Arithmetica Universalis. By age 16, he had covered much of the Principia, as well as some more recent works on analytic geometry and differential calculus.

Student years
In mid-1822, Hamilton began a systematic study of Laplace's Mécanique Céleste. During this period, he encountered what he believed to be a logical error in Mécanique Céleste, an observation which led Hamilton to be introduced to John Brinkley, then Royal Astronomer of Ireland. In November and December of 1822, he completed his first three original mathematical papers. On his first visit to Dunsink Observatory, he showed two of them to Brinkley, who requested that the papers be developed further. Hamilton complied, and early in 1823, Brinkley approved the amended version. In July of 1823, Hamilton earned a place at Trinity College Dublin by examination, at age 17. His tutor there was Charles Boyton, a family friend, who brought to his attention the contemporary mathematics published by the group at the École Polytechnique in Paris. John Brinkley remarked of the precocious Hamilton, "This young man, I do not say will be, but is, the first mathematician of his age."

The college awarded Hamilton two optimes, or off-the-chart grades, in Greek and in physics. He was first in every subject and at every examination. He aimed to win a Trinity College fellowship by competitive examination, but this did not happen. Instead, after Brinkley in 1826 was made Bishop of Cloyne, Hamilton was appointed in 1827 to the vacant posts left by Brinkley's departure, Andrews Professor of Astronomy and Royal Astronomer of Ireland. Despite having his undergraduate career cut short in this way, he earned degrees in both classics and mathematics (BA in 1827, MA in 1837).

Personal life and poetry
In 1824, Hamilton was introduced at Edgeworthstown to the novelist Maria Edgeworth, by the Rev. Richard Butler, the vicar of Trim, County Meath to whom his uncle James Hamilton was curate. During the same period, his uncle introduced him to the Disney family at Summerhill House, County Meath. The Disney sons attended Trinity College, and Hamilton had friends among them. At Summerhill, he met Catherine Disney, their sister.

Hamilton was attracted to Catherine Disney, but her family did not approve and Catherine was required to marry the Rev. William Barlow, a brother of her elder sister's husband. The wedding took place in 1825. Hamilton wrote in 1826 about his feelings for her in an extended poem, "The Enthusiast". Over twenty years later, in 1847, he confided in John Herschel that during this period he might have become a poet.

In 1825, Hamilton met Arabella Lawrence, younger sister of Sarah Lawrence, a significant correspondent and frank critic of his poetry. It was a contact he made through Maria Edgeworth's circle.

At Dunsink
Hamilton, now Royal Astronomer of Ireland, took up residence at Dunsink Observatory where he spent the rest of his life. He was there from 1827 until his death in 1865. In his early years at Dunsink, Hamilton observed the heavens quite regularly; He left routine observation to his assistant Charles Thompson. Hamilton's sisters also supported the observatory's work.

The introductory lectures by Hamilton in astronomy were celebrated; in addition to his students, they attracted scholars, poets, and women. Felicia Hemans wrote her poem The Prayer of the Lonely Student after hearing one of his lectures.

Personal life, travel and poetic visits
Hamilton invited his four sisters to come and live at the observatory in 1827, and they ran the household until his marriage in 1833. They included Eliza Mary Hamilton (1807–1851), the poet. In 1827, Hamilton wrote to his sister Grace about "some of" the Lawrence sisters having met his sister Eliza in Dublin.

Newly appointed to the Observatory, Hamilton set off on a tour in Ireland and England with Alexander Nimmo, who was coaching him on latitude and longitude. One call was to Sarah Lawrence's school at Gateacre, near Liverpool, where Hamilton had a chance to assess the calculator Master Noakes. They visited William Wordsworth at Rydal Mount in September of that year, where Caesar Otway was also present. After the visit, Hamilton sent numerous poems to Wordsworth, becoming a "poetic disciple".

When Wordsworth visited Dublin in the summer of 1829, in a party with John Marshall and his family, he stayed at Dunsink with Hamilton. On a second tour in England with Nimmo in 1831, Hamilton parted from him at Birmingham, to visit the Lawrence sisters and family on his mother's side in the Liverpool area. They met up again in the Lake District, where they climbed Helvellyn and had tea with Wordsworth. Hamilton returned to Dublin, via Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Hamilton visited Samuel Taylor Coleridge at Highgate, in 1832, helped by an unexpected letter of introduction given to him by Sarah Lawrence on a visit to Liverpool in March of that year. He also paid a call, with Arabella, on the family of William Roscoe, who had died in 1831.

Family
While attending Trinity College, Hamilton proposed to his friend's sister, whose refusal drove the young Hamilton to depression and illness, even to the verge of suicide. He proposed again in 1831 to Ellen de Vere, a sister of the poet Aubrey De Vere (1814–1902), who declined as well. Hamilton eventually married Helen Marie Bayly in 1833, a country preacher's daughter, and had three children with her: William Edwin Hamilton (born 1834), Archibald Henry (born 1835), and Helen Elizabeth (born 1840). Hamilton's married life turned out to be difficult and unhappy as Bayly proved to be pious, shy, timid, and chronically ill.

Death
Hamilton retained his faculties unimpaired to the last, and continued the task of finishing the Elements of Quaternions which had occupied the last six years of his life. He died on 2 September 1865, following a severe attack of gout. He is buried in Mount Jerome Cemetery in Dublin.

Physics
Hamilton made outstanding contributions to classical mechanics and optics.

His first discovery was in an early paper that he communicated in 1823 to John Brinkley, who presented it under the title of Caustics in 1824 to the Royal Irish Academy. It was referred as usual to a committee, which recommended further development and simplification before publication. Between 1825 and 1828 the paper was expanded, and became a clearer exposition of a novel method. Over this period, Hamilton gained an appreciation for the nature and importance of optics.

In 1827, Hamilton presented a theory of a single function, now known as Hamilton's principal function, that brings together mechanics and optical theory. It helped to establish the foundations of the wave theory of light in mathematical physics. He proposed it when he first predicted its existence in the third supplement to his Systems of Rays, read in 1832.

The Royal Irish Academy paper was finally entitled Theory of Systems of Rays (23 April 1827), and the first part was printed in 1828 in the Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy. The more important contents of the second and third parts appeared in the three voluminous supplements (to the first part) which were published in the same Transactions, and in the two papers On a General Method in Dynamics, which appeared in the Philosophical Transactions in 1834 and 1835. In these papers, Hamilton developed his central principle of "Varying Action".

A result of this work is a prediction for transparent biaxial crystals (i.e. monoclinic, orthorhombic or triclinic crystals). A ray of light entering such a crystal at a certain angle would emerge as a hollow cone of rays. This discovery was known as conical refraction. Hamilton found it from the geometry of the wave surface introduced by Augustin-Jean Fresnel, which has singular point. There is a basic mathematical explanation of the phenomenon, namely that the wave surface is not the boundary of a convex body. A fuller understanding awaited the microlocal analysis of the middle of the 20th century,

The step from optics to dynamics in the application of the method of "Varying Action" was made in 1827, and communicated to the Royal Society, in whose Philosophical Transactions for 1834 and 1835 there are two papers on the subject.

Context and importance of the work
Hamiltonian mechanics was a powerful new technique for working with equations of motion. Hamilton's advances enlarged the class of mechanical problems that could be solved. His principle of "Varying Action" was based on the calculus of variations, in the general class of problems included under the principle of least action which had been studied earlier by Pierre Louis Maupertuis, Euler, Joseph Louis Lagrange and others. Hamilton's analysis uncovered a deeper mathematical structure than had been previously understood, in particular a symmetry between momentum and position. The credit for discovering what are now called the Lagrangian and Lagrange's equations also belongs to Hamilton.

Both the Lagrangian mechanics and Hamiltonian approaches have proven important in the study of continuous classical systems in physics, and quantum mechanical systems: the techniques find use in electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, relativity theory and quantum field theory. In the Dictionary of Irish Biography David Spearman writes:

"The formulation that he devised for classical mechanics proved to be equally suited to quantum theory, whose development it facilitated. The Hamiltonian formalism shows no signs of obsolescence; new ideas continue to find this the most natural medium for their description and development, and the function that is now universally known as the Hamiltonian, is the starting-point for calculation in almost any area of physics."

Many scientists, including Liouville, Jacobi, Darboux, Poincaré, Kolmogorov, Prigogine and Arnold, have extended Hamilton's work, in mechanics, differential equations and symplectic geometry.

Mathematics
Hamilton's mathematical studies seem to have been undertaken and carried to their full development without collaboration, and his writings do not belong to any particular school. He was intended by the university authorities who elected him to the Professorship of Astronomy to spend his time as he best could for the advancement of science, without restrictions.

Quaternions
Hamilton made his discovery of the algebra of quaternions in 1843. Among much prior related work, in 1840 Benjamin Olinde Rodrigues had reached a result that amounted to their discovery in all but name.

Hamilton was looking for ways of extending complex numbers (which can be viewed as points on a 2-dimensional Argand diagram) to higher spatial dimensions. In working with four dimensions, rather than three, he created quaternion algebra. According to Hamilton, on 16 October he was out walking along the Royal Canal in Dublin with his wife when the solution in the form of the equation

occurred to him; Hamilton then carved this equation using his penknife into the side of the nearby Broom Bridge (which Hamilton called Brougham Bridge).

The quaternions involved abandoning the commutative law, a radical step for the time. In the context of this prototype geometric algebra, Hamilton also introduced the cross and dot products of vector algebra, the quaternion product being the cross product minus the dot product as scalar. Hamilton also described a quaternion as an ordered four-element multiple of real numbers, and described the first element as the "scalar" part, and the remaining three as the "vector" part. He coined the neologisms "tensor" and "scalar", and was the first to use the word "vector" in the modern sense.

Other mathematical works
Hamilton looked into the solution of the quintic in the theory of equations, examining the results arrived at by Niels Henrik Abel, George Jerrard and others in their researches. There is Hamilton's paper on fluctuating functions in Fourier analysis, and the invention of the hodograph. Of his investigations into the solutions, especially by numerical approximation, of certain classes of physically-important differential equations, only parts were published, at intervals, in the Philosophical Magazine.

Hamilton also introduced the icosian game or Hamilton's puzzle. It is based on the concept of a Hamiltonian path in graph theory.

Publications

 * Hamilton, Sir W.R. (1853), Lectures on Quaternions Dublin: Hodges and Smith
 * Hamilton, Sir W.R., Hamilton, W.E. (ed) (1866), Elements of Quaternions London: Longmans, Green, & Co.
 * Hamilton, W.R. (1833), Introductory Lecture on Astronomy Dublin University Review and Quarterly Magazine Vol. I, Trinity College Dublin
 * For Hamilton's mathematical papers see David R. Wilkins, Sir William Rowan Hamilton (1805–1865): Mathematical Papers

Hamilton introduced, as a method of analysis, both quaternions and biquaternions, the extension to eight dimensions by the introduction of complex number coefficients. When his work was assembled in 1853, the book Lectures on Quaternions had "formed the subject of successive courses of lectures, delivered in 1848 and subsequent years, in the Halls of Trinity College, Dublin". Hamilton confidently declared that quaternions would be found to have a powerful influence as an instrument of research.

When he died, Hamilton was working on a definitive statement of quaternion science. His son William Edwin Hamilton brought the Elements of Quaternions, a hefty volume of 762 pages, to publication in 1866. As copies ran short, a second edition was prepared by Charles Jasper Joly, when the book was split into two volumes, the first appearing in 1899 and the second in 1901. The subject index and footnotes in this second edition improved the Elements accessibility.

Honours and awards
Hamilton was twice awarded the Cunningham Medal of the Royal Irish Academy. The first award, in 1834, was for his work on conical refraction, for which he also received the Royal Medal of the Royal Society the following year. He was to win it again in 1848.

In 1835, being secretary to the meeting of the British Association which was held that year in Dublin, Hamilton was knighted by the lord-lieutenant. Other honours rapidly succeeded, among which his election in 1837 to the president's chair in the Royal Irish Academy, and the rare distinction of being made a corresponding member of the Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences. Later, in 1864, the newly established United States National Academy of Sciences elected its first Foreign Associates, and decided to put Hamilton's name on top of their list.

Legacy
A plaque under the Broom Bridge, associated with the discovery of quaternions, was unveiled by Éamon de Valera on 13 November 1958. Since 1989, the National University of Ireland, Maynooth, has organised a pilgrimage called the Hamilton Walk, in which mathematicians take a walk from Dunsink Observatory to the bridge, where no trace of the carving remains, though a stone plaque does commemorate the discovery.

The Hamilton Institute is an applied mathematics research institute at Maynooth University and the Royal Irish Academy holds an annual public Hamilton lecture at which Murray Gell-Mann, Frank Wilczek, Andrew Wiles and Timothy Gowers have all spoken. 2005 was the 200th anniversary of Hamilton's birth and the Irish government designated that the Hamilton Year, celebrating Irish science. Trinity College Dublin marked the year by launching the Hamilton Mathematics Institute.

Two commemorative stamps were issued by Ireland in 1943 to mark the centenary of the announcement of quaternions. A 10-euro commemorative silver proof coin was issued by the Central Bank of Ireland in 2005 to commemorate 200 years since his birth.

Commemorations

 * Hamilton's equations are a formulation of classical mechanics.
 * Numerous other concepts and objects in mechanics, such as Hamilton's principle, Hamilton's principal function, the Hamilton–Jacobi equation, Cayley-Hamilton theorem are named after Hamilton.
 * The Hamiltonian is the name of both a function (classical) and an operator (quantum) in physics, and, in a different sense, a term from graph theory.
 * The algebra of quaternions is usually denoted by $H$, or in blackboard bold by $$\mathbb{H}$$, in honour of Hamilton.
 * The Hamilton Building at Trinity College Dublin is named after him.

In literature
It is believed by some modern mathematicians that Hamilton's work on quaternions was satirized by Charles Lutwidge Dodgson in Alice in Wonderland. In particular, the Mad Hatter's tea party was meant to represent the folly of quaternions and the need to revert to Euclidean geometry. In September 2022 evidence was presented to counter this suggestion, which appears to have been based on an incorrect understanding of both quaternions and their history.

Family
Hamilton married Helen Bayly, daughter of Rev Henry Bayly, Rector of Nenagh, County Tipperary, in 1833; she was a sister of neighbours to the observatory. They had three children: William Edwin Hamilton (born 1834), Archibald Henry (born 1835) and Helen Eliza Amelia (born 1840). Helen stayed with her widowed mother at Bayly Farm, Nenagh for extended periods, until her mother's death in 1837. She also was away from Dunsink, staying with sisters, for much of the time from 1840 to 1842. Hamilton's married life was reportedly difficult. In the troubled period of the early 1840s, his sister Sydney ran his household; when Helen returned, he was happier after some depression.

title: William Rowan Hamilton


text:
Wikipedia talk:Etiquette

 * Project page renamed from Wikiquette -St|eve 23:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Principles: Register an account... but if you don't, don't make a signature that looks as if you had
I've added that to this page for good reason. You'd be amazed that it needs writing, and it is specifically based on the actions of a single, and AFAICS unique user. There is an RFC which is actually about other aspects of his behaviour. Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219 - he represents himself as Talk The Invisible Anon. I started the RFC, but several users including admins have made forceful advice that his signature habit is an unhelpful one. Accordingly, I commend this specific mention in Etiquette, lest someone else think it is a precedent and good idea. Midgley 17:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that it shouldn't need to be said, but that such a thing shouldn't be done and if someone is doing it then it must be said. Signing one's name like that is misrepresentation, since whether someone is an IP address–user or not has important implications both technically and for the social structure of Wikipedia. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Eh? If some troll abuses it once, fine, ban the troll and that's the end of it. In the mean time, anonymous editing on wikipeda is one of the foundation principles, and it's one of out key features. Don't let a couple of trolls ruin things for the entire freaking rest of the planet!
 * Hmmm, that and you can't expect anons to know wikipedia etiquette. They typically read it later, after we've given them a warm welcome. :-)
 * Finally, many anons are great people who have much to contribute, so be nice to them!
 * Kim Bruning 21:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC) (former anon editor who joined after people were nice to me :-) )

 * I strongly disagree (but I'm admittedly biased). A signature is intended to uniquely identify a user, not as a "badge of status" or a "technical measure". Many users have signatures that are not equivalent to their account name; changes have been forced only where disruption and impersonation were involved. As far as I can tell, "The Invisible Anon" linked his signature to his correct user/talk page (which your example above does *not* correctly indicate). Finally, even if you think there is a real justification for this guideline, it should be included at WP:SIG, not here. –  7 4   00:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm surprised this went unchallenged for so long. It's totally wrong.  First of all, I have no reason to believe it's an "etiquette" issue.  Second, if it's wrong for anons, it's wrong for registered users too.  I've seen plenty of sigs that use names (or symbols, etc.) different from what the username is.  There's absolutely no reason to act prejudicially toward anons on this one, and offhand I don't see a reason to blanket disallow it for registered users either.--Father Goose (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Means of addressing violations of WP:EQ
WP:EQ states that a user should (1) keep biases in check and (2) act to improve wikipedia articles.

If these two guidelines are violated, what is the recourse? For instance, if an editor goes systematically through articles putting fact tags on pro-homosexual statements, or deletes them, but never contributes to articles, and appears to never make good-faith attempts to find sources to support and improve articles, that author is clearly failing to keep biases in check, and is motivated more by an agenda than an interest to improve articles. Some may argue that this strategy, in the end, improves articles. Maybe that's true, but it doesn't deny the fact that the WP:EQ principles are being violated.

In these cases, what is the proper recourse? Should individual edits, which are in themselves reasonable but on the whole clearly violations, be reverted? That seems likely to cause an edit war. Otherwise, what is the procedure? --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unhelpful edits by 71.155.232.61
On 1 January 2009 a string of 8 edits were made by an anonymous editor using IP address 71.155.232.61. The worst of these edits were false ("The system is based on the presumption that a popular position is a correct position") and the least bad were simply not on the topic of etiquette ("Write succinctly. Omit needless words.") Some of these edits have already been reverted, the rest I am reverting. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Unhelpful merger proposals
It is a nuisance that Wikipedia readers propose mergers of articles or lemmata, who definitively do not have the lingual capability of a native speaker in the repective language nor of any expertise in the topic. Who on Earth has set the idea that an encyclopedic database will grow on mergers? Could all those who like to find options for mergers think about the possibility that there are other views but one of two? Anyone who proposes mergers should be willing to contribute to additional stuff, but not just to save server capacity. Any objections that I might understand?Wireless friend (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a point of etiquette: "Avoid indirect criticism"
I propose adding a point of etiquette to this guideline as a subsection of "Wikipedia etiquette", probably at the bottom of that section. The text would look something like this:

I don't think this point of etiquette is formally stated elsewhere on WP but a review of project namespace and article talk mention of the term "scare quotes" appears to indicate that the above notion already has consensus behind it. Also IMO this principle is genuinely good etiquette advice and very much in the spirit of the Wikipedia community's ethos. But I wanted to propose this here before attempting to add it to the article, in case my impression of existing consensus is wrong or I'm wording it poorly or missing a significant aspect of it - so please let fly with comments and (explicit) criticisms!

To be clear, I specifically want to add this to the etiquette guideline because I really think it should merely be etiquette advice like the other things mentioned in this page: my intention is not to formally prohibit or proscribe this form of communication, rather to indicate that communicating in this way is not entirely polite or considerate and hence ought to be avoided in favor of explicit criticism or ought to be accompanied by explicit criticism. (I would also hope that when editors genuinely trying to follow WP:ETIQ stop to consider how to rephrase their indirect criticism into explicit criticism they might decide to just not be critical at all and achieve goals in other ways, in situations where that's appropriate - but I think that kind of behavior must simply be encouraged because it can't be enforced in any practical way.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Having heard no opposition here for a few days I'm going to be bold and add the section, but of course feel free to make rewrites or make any other changes to improve it. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove off-topic material
It is a fairly common mistake among people new to editing Wikipedia to use talk pages for general requests for information on the subject of an article or project page, rather than for discussing proposed changes to the article or project page. In the case of the Etiquette page at least the following sections are general requests for information (not always even on the subject of Etiquette): Also it is not entirely clear to me that the following sections are proposing edits to the project page: Furthermore, all but one of these sections has been dormant for over a year, most for several years. My own preference in such a case would be to delete the sections, as being out of place and unneeded, but I know that there are many Wikipedia editors who think that past discussions should not be completely deleted, no matter how inappropriate they may be, so I would settle for archiving them. Any opinions? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it a policy violation to make accusations of sockpuppetry on article talk pages?
 * Getting my wikiquette questions answered
 * Question about red links
 * Question
 * Unhelpful merger proposals
 * Why does this policy protect the extreme right? (And particularly smart trolls)
 * I think.

 * I generally feel it's only necessary to delete posts that have no plausible connection to the subject (i.e., the guideline and/or the general subject of etiquette). Tell you what: I'll just archive everything from before 2009, except for the "Register an account" thread, since it is active.--Father Goose (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

 * ✅. Howzat?--Father Goose (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

 * OK. Personally I feel that leaving in posts that shouldn't really be there sets a wrong example to people new to Wikipedia, and my own preference would, as I said above, be to delete them. However, archiving them deals with that problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree that if they're totally off-topic, they can be nuked. But if there's any indication whatsoever that the poster is making a comment in response to something on the article page or project page, it's best to leave it in place.  IMO.--Father Goose (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

BLP
While meditating on the true difference of processing between WP:BLP and the others articles and why the others politics are applied more striclty in those cases. It became obvious for me that the true root of this was here in WP:ETIQ. While it's also obvious why this page is axed toward others wikipedians, there is no raisonnable reason why we should act disrespectfully toward anybody. I'm wondering if we could find a way to tell it on that page, just briefly. --Iluvalar (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

why are we using the cquote template for the motto?
Why do "civility, maturity, responsibility" appear in cquotes at the top of the page? The quotation marks make it sound like we're quoting something. But the words maturity and responsibility (or variations thereof) don't even appear anywhere else on the page. And it's not a quotation of anything.

Can't we render it ... like ... any other way? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 02:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I quite agree. The quotes seem to be just a way of emphasising the words, which is not a good use of quotes. There are various other ways that could be used for the purpose if there should be consensus in favour of doing so (e.g. a box, bigger font,...). However, I don't see any good reason of emphasising them; they are quite prominent enough at the top of the page anyway. In the meanwhile the quotes have now been removed. Actually I personally don't see the need for the motto at the top of the page at all. It was introduced in June 2008 without discussion by a user who has since left Wikipedia, and so can't be asked about his reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ok
I don't dare edit a guideline page so I'm posting here.... the link to Pages_needing_attention should probably not be linked to from WP:Etiquette considering the notice on top of Pages_needing_attention. Right? :)

Reliefappearance (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite true. ("The notice on top of Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention" is the statement that the page is now inactive, and retained only for historical reference.) I have now removed the link. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Any reason to do so?
Is there even any reason not to do so? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC) ""Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!), unless you have some excellent reasons not to do so"."

 * LOL, I think the statement is just to add humor to this page, why can't we have a not strictly encyclopaedic page for once eh? but I see your point. ;) Microsofkid (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
Shouldn't mention of Wikiquette alerts be up top for people who run into this page when having problems they might want to get advice on? THanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Link now added. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Everyone
If this is not appropriate, then you have permission to remove it! I can't post a thanks on everyone's user page, but thank you to anyone who contributed to the Wikipedia: articles! Microsofkid (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds pretty appropriate to me! Good to see a bit of Wikilove every now and again. :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduce WP:ANSWERQ or equivalent
I would say that I am a middling-experience editor with approaching a 1000 edits. For my first few years I worked on non-contentious articles where "gentlemanly conduct" was all that was needed to work on articles. Then I had the misfortune to get involved in a couple of controversial articles. This topic does not directly relate to these, but to a issue that I can across in my editing on them. The more experienced editors would often cite WP:RS, WP:V, etc. as a brief explanation to overwrite or undo an edit, and also resort to such shorthand in attempts to discuss the issues. So my response here was to read and understand all of the frequently cited policies and guidelines, so that I could respond using an informed and evidence based argument.

Now I have a different problem (I have seen dialogue where other editors experienced this also). My knowledge of policies and procedures is fresh whilst some the editors sometimes work on stale and wrong recollections. When I point out that their edit fails WP:V because the relevant section says X, or that  WP:MOS doesn't support their claimed position what it actually says is Y, they often dismiss the question, decline to respond or simply reiterate their first response. This sort of attitude makes it impossible to have a negotiated discussion towards consensus. Yet the very first section of WP:ETIQ includes the statements So could we add another shortcut WP:ANSWERQ or something similar so that we can easily remind editors that this conduct is a basic requirement of Wikipedia ettiquete. -- TerryE (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not ignore questions.
 * If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.
 * Concede a point when you have no response to it, ...

Signing and dating posts
Is that really wikiquette?  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 13:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think so. If you don't sign your posts you force other people (the ones who even realize your comment isn't part of someone else's) to go rummaging through the page history to figure out who said it.  But if someone didn't do it I can't think of any really good reason to try to make them do it (insofar as anyone can even be made to do anything on Wikipedia) so it seems like it's a matter of etiquette. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 15:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

ego massages
The following seems like a dubious responsibility to place on editors: talk pages are said to be "a good place to comfort or undo damage to egos." I'm inclined to say that "Wikipedia is not therapy". Talk pages may be a good place to offer encouragement and tips to newcomers whose still-shaky skills have been displayed in the article space, but the encyclopedia is surely better off if we leave our egos at the log-in door. Ego only gets in the way of WP:NPOV and examining the scholarship dispassionately. Seems odd to hallow damaged egos with a guideline saying they must be nurtured like fragile chicks. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 * It does not seem to me that this is a responsibility placed on editors, it's rather saying that if someone is being an obstinate idiot the talk page is the place to kiss their ass with etiquette and validation (if you want to deal with their obstinacy in that way.) Note that the next bullet point says "if your ego is easily damaged, then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you." --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 20:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice
Evidently, there is a proposed new process board for WP:Etiquette or WP:AGF issues, which I stumbled upon by following links at this guideline this morning. I don't see that this has been widely publicized and felt it might be of interest to those who monitor this guidelines. Please see Antiquette. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've marked it as failed, as there appears to be no chance of this being approved (no support, strong opposition, bemusement at the reason for this). Fences  &  Windows  19:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Highest airport in the world
San Rafael is still the highest airport in the world: How some one can remove it and replace it with an airport that is 60 meters lower in elevation is not reasonable. The standards are not the highest most commercial, most passenger, it is simply the highest airport in the world. San Rafael has been a certified public use airport since 1981 and is service each week by ATSA a Peruvian airline. Yes, a new airport when, finished will be higher, but presently San Rafael is the highest airport in the world and the Bangda airport is not. DlwargiDlwargi (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Um... Is this somehow relevant to the Etiquette page? Gekkey Mathews (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please Undelete page
Rajeshsng (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Please undelete page of Adya Prasad Pandey as he is one of senior Economists in India as i have seen many other Indian Economists page in the wikipedia which is not having much backed references but are there in site As Adya Prasad Pandey is Recently appointed As an Expert Member by University Grant Commission which is Premiere body for Higher Education in India working Under Governement of India As the page is might be deleted due to one of my friend as he may be done some mistakes so in the case undelete it so that i can handle the situation. I have read your page as also appreciate your work on wikipedia so thinking that you help in this case if you are having sugession you are most welcome Thank you Rajesh

Poorly written
I take pride in violating this guideline by calling some of it not only poorly written, but outright nonsense. Giving "poorly written" as example of verboten phrase is wholly unproductive for direct communication. Do you want editors to use euphemisms instead? Just have a shower of real-world incivility at ANI, which still goes completely unsanctioned, and especially stop copying stuff from here to WP:NPA. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact this whole guideline is a giant collection of "recipes" without any discernible logic in their organization. I guess it's just one more outlet for the civility legislators that Wikipedia seems to have too many of. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is pretty bad. Starting looking for "floss your teeth." Shall we take a crack at trimming it down into something that moves away from WP:TLDR.Gerardw (talk)
 * Or maybe "avoid TLDR" as last entry in the list would be epic justice? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

 * The following to start with could be trimmed, made clearer, its rather wordy, it is fine to have as a reminder. Might it be simpler to just say "Remember some comments may contain irony"? or at least something a bit shorter than this:
 * "Keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony is not always obvious when written—Remember that text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. Be careful choosing the words you write: what you mean might not be what others understand. Likewise, be careful how you interpret what you read: what you understand might not be what others mean."DMSBel (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I completely disagree with the original poster – I strongly believe that using the word "poor" to describe another Wikipedian's writing is a great example of very bad etiquette. Now, I'm all in favour of another editor altering something that I've written, or offering ways in which it could be improved – that is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia, after all. And I'm not proposing using "euphemisms", but there are dozens of suggestions that could be made that are away from the "This sucks" end of the criticism spectrum. "This needs improvement" or "I found this part confusing" or "This conflicts with the manual of style" or "Some of the spelling is incorrect" or "More sources are needed" or "The grammar in this section needs changing" are some of the many, many things that could be used that are considerably less likely to make another editor defensive, or even decide to leave Wikipedia altogether. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is cussing in discussion on ANI regarded as civil behavior?
Please clarify in the text of the page. While discussing an issue if I use profanity will it be, should it be considered as a civil behavior? If not, what should be the remedy? There is an ANI thread and there one editor is repeatedly using the vitriolic f-bomb. I personally don't find it entertaining. One admin blocked him in good faith to cool him down, others came in and disapproved of that block. What is the solution to such behavior? Should we go to user conduct notice board every-time a user uses profanity (as a sign of deep disrespect) while talking to an admin? Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What to do if it IS personal

 * "Argue facts, not personalities."

I get that. The purpose of Wikipedia is generating good content for readers, not social activity. The focus should be on the content, not each other.

But what do you do if a previous disagreement follows you on to other edits you make? I think it's called Wikihounding? All I know is that I'm an IP now because with my previous username, a fellow editor basically tracked my contributions and challenged every one of them. Sorry for not being specific and naming names but this happened over a year ago and I'd just like to put the ordeal to rest (not dredge it up again).

Why I mention it here is that sometimes the facts or content are not the point, they are just a hammer being used to hit another user over the head. What if, for some people, it has become personal? All of the noticeboards I've seen are about resolutions of disputes over content, not harassment. Where should I have gone to resolve this situation when it happened? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is called Wikihounding, and no, it is not acceptable to harass users. There's info here on dealing with it, and WP:ANI is probably where you should've gone. —  Reatlas  (talk)  05:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Future of WP:EQ
Etiquette was originally a policy, but was recast as a guideline in 2005. The explanation for that decision appears to have been lost, but the guideline's status was confirmed in 2006, as shown below.

2005 change
I just changed the notice from "policy" to "guideline". For my rational, see Category talk:Wikipedia official policy. Isomorphic 05:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Policy?
I notice that User:ComSpex changed this page from a guideline to official policy ; where is the discussion about this (very significant) change? It may have stemmed from a question to the help desk but that doesn't seem like consensus to me. Z iggurat 02:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ComSpex is new as of March 2006 and I don't see any evidence that this page went through any discussion or policy-proposal procedures. So I figure they were just being bold, and I've changed it back. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is universal etiquette. I will show this to my kin WikiHeat96 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Future (threaded discussion)
WP:EQ seems redundant, and might be better suited as an essay in its current form. Due to the heated etiquette-related discussion happening at the RFC on word choice and cross-cultural sensitivity, I'd rather not debate demotion at the present time, but I was wondering if anyone had suggestions for shortening WP:EQ. It mainly discusses WP:CIVILITY, the WP:NPOV, WP:TALK pages, and not biting the WP:NEWBIES and might function well as a collection of nutshell summaries of the relevant policies and guidelines. The current miss-mash of bullet points and prose is lengthy and not particularly well formatted. G. C. Hood (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have plans to shorten the tons of bulletpoints.Forbidden User (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Proposal:

Forbidden User (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Demotion (threaded discussion)
With the aforementioned RfC at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines having ended, I am now proposing that WP:ETIQ be demoted to a WP:WPESSAY. As I mentioned before, WP:ETIQ mainly discusses WP:CIVILITY, the WP:NPOV, WP:TALK pages, and not biting the WP:NEWBIES. It seems redundant to mark WP:ETIQ as a guideline. G. C. Hood (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Guidelines tell people how to put policies into action. This page does that.  For that reason, I see nothing good coming from demoting it.  It serves the exact purpose of a guideline.  -- Jayron  32  15:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRIENDLY
I've posted a new essay, Maintaining a friendly space, which is based off of the WMF IdeaLab's friendly space policy. I would consider it a supplement to this guideline. I would in time like to see Wikipedia adopt a friendly space policy resembling this, but for now we have the essay. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Harej (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

m:Universal Code of Conduct
The WMF is on its way to impose a Universal Code of Conduct on all projects, obviously done by R&S, the people that managed FRAMBAN so gloriously. Looks for me like some kind of retroactive justification process for their botching of that and Superprotect and such. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverting somebody else's talk page
Is it ever acceptable behavior online to revert a message left by a Wikipedian on a third Wikipedian's talk page? I was certain it was in Emily Post, but I can't seem to locate the page. If it is acceptable, what extreme and emergent circumstances would require such rude behavior? Bearian (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I say it's acceptable when done to remove abuse or vandalism. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologize vs. Apologise
Are we using American English or British English? I see both cases being used.

″Do not intentionally make misrepresentations. Apologise if you inadvertently do so.″ ″Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we had not. Say so.″

--Techmite (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph about labeling misleading?
A paragraph under How to avoid abuse of talk pages says: "Do not label or personally attack people or their edits.
 * Labeling editors or their edits with terms like "racist" or "sexist" make people defensive. [...]"

While I agree in principle, I find the phrasing misleading. Misleading in sofar, because the refered to No personal attacks lists under What is considered to be a personal attack?: "*Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, [...]"

So I would propose, in order to reflect what No personal attacks says, to rephrase the paragraph in question.

E.g.:"While its valid to criticize text as for example racist or sexist, such labeling though can make people defensive. ..." Nsae Comp (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Rough tone (e.g. use of "ego") & Wikipedia inclusiveness
The article uses ego as a concept to explain the issue at hand.

While I understand what it tries to highlight I think the tone is scaring editors off, particularly editors who allready face outside-world discrimination or are not established editors.

E.g.:"If you are not prepared to have your work thoroughly scrutinized, analyzed, and criticized, or if your ego is easily damaged, then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you."

The tone in such examples sounds like:"If you dont have the balls to be scrutinized, then Wikipedia will not want you."

The tone should in my opinion be more like: "Wikipedia lives from being scrutinized, that said being scrutinized, or rather ones edits, is a tough thing to get into. Wikipedia tries to invite users to edit as much as scrutinize. So in order to accomodate both things, not wanting to scare editors off, but also enable quality scrutinizing, editors should take care of those two basic needs and create a conduct between each other that accomodates the needs of editors as humans, and particularly underrepresented voices, as well as the crucial and at times heavily critical scrutinizing."

PS: Thank you all for working on Wikipedia as a communal project. Nsae Comp (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Indirect criticism example please
I read Etiquette in its entirety and could not for the life of me think of a single situation or encounter or conversation to which it would apply. Could we have at least one example of what is meant by "indirect criticism" to clarify what exactly is being disapproved there? – Athaenara ✉  19:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Nominate for Protected Status?
Hi! This article seems like a good candidate for protection. Many Wikipedians treat this article as a semi-official social policy, and it's one of the first places where brand-new Wikipedians learn about our culture, and how to act in our community. I believe that it should remain fluid, in order to reflect how our community's etiquette may change over time, but I believe that some measure should be taken to preserve it as well. ^-^ Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia talk:Etiquette


text:
Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

Storage of deleted articles
Currently, the section includes a sentence stating that deleted articles remain in the database (at least temporarily) - my emphasis. WikiBlame tells me that this was inserted in 2008 with Special:Diff/241376527.

The qualifier at least temporarily can be read to imply that deleted articles will be permanently erased after a retention period, which is contrary to my understanding that deleted pages/revisions are kept in the database indefinitely. I’m therefore proposing to remove that qualifier (my reason for starting this discussion rather than making the edit boldly is because I wanted to make sure that my understanding is correct/that there wouldn’t be any other problems with making this edit).

All the best, user: A smart kitten meow  12:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that the WMF do not guarantee that deleted revisions will remain available in perpetuity. The likelihood of deleted revisions ever being permanently deleted is massively lower in 2023 than it was in 2008, but at least theoretically still possible. The original version of Oversight (pre 2009) also permanently deleted the relevant revisions, although it's unlikely that was what was being referred to. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Since it would be an extraordinary event, maybe we should still remove that part. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Meh. It's still accurate, and I see no reason to increase the level of expected retention. We know it's probably sticking around... but do we want to promise that? Don't think that's our place as a community: we don't own the infrastructure. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should just replace it with footnote [c] from Viewing and restoring deleted pages Aaron Liu (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to copy that footnote here and add it to the end of the text quoted above, giving it context, rather than replace it. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Possibly also it might be worth speaking to the devs to confirm that statement is still accurate nearly 17 years later. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve emailed with the query and a link to this discussion, so hopefully someone from the WMF will be able to provide the latest information. Best, user:  A smart kitten meow  09:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) 19 January 2007
 * Emphasis and ALLCAPS as per the original.
 * - SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is what we are discussing directly above. A smart kitten has emailed to see if this 17-year-old statement is still accurate. It would seem foolish to do anything before we get an answer. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is a reference to edit histories being quite unreliable in the very early days of the encyclopedia (I believe before around 2003) see WP:UuU. It may be technically correct but unnecessary in practice. --Trialpears (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember there was a policy decision to never flush deleted revisions due to the CC-by-SA attribution requirement. But that could just be leaky neurons conflating different discussions. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You find all sorts of weird crap if you look through the primordial database. For example, WP:VPT that I found yesterday.  What's really weird is that revision_ids aren't (weren't?) assigned in monotonically increasing order.  Step through the earliest history of the WP:UuU in chronological order.  The revision ids go:
 * 291430
 * 385544927
 * 302608
 * 13692247
 * 15927838
 * My brain hurts. RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Heh, turns out this is documented "Note that while rev_id almost always increases monotonically for successive revisions of a page, this is not strictly guaranteed as importing from another wiki can cause revisions to be created out of order." RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly what happened. —Cryptic 01:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've had an email response from the WMF as follows:
 * All the best, — a smart kitten [  meow ] 08:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See also T343933 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * All the best, — a smart kitten [  meow ] 08:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See also T343933 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

What about if the page title is extremely long?
What about if the page title is extremely long? Abhiramakella (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason to delete a page. Primefac (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you'd ask a WP:MOVE. If "extremely long" means "the software breaks", you head to WP:VPT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It can be reason to delete a redirect. See, for example, Categorisation of long-term insurance business for corporation tax purposes in the United Kingdom (RFD), or Vladislaus IV of Poland, Sweden, Gothenland and Vandalia, Grand Duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, Livonia and Moscow (RFD), or Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and St. Kitts and Nevis (RFD) - the last of which, impressively, manages to break the formatting both at the redlink itself and without action=edit.  But yes, if there were content there, it wouldn't be reason to delete that, just the awkward title. —Cryptic 08:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * However, some very long titles can make good redirects, for example When the pawn hits the conflicts he thinks like a king what he knows throws the blows when he goes to the fight And he'll win the whole thing 'fore he enters the ring There's no body to batter when your mind is your might and Adelgundes de Jesus Maria Francisca de Assis e de Paula Adelaide Eulália Leopoldina Carlota Micaela Rafaela Gabriela Gonzaga Inês Isabel Avelina Ana Estanislau Sofia Bernardina. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The second-longest title in mainspace (by byte count; tied for third by number of characters), Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960, at an Elevation of about 1450 Meters on Cerro Quemazón, 15 Miles South of Bahía de Los Angeles, Baja California, México, Apparently for a Southeastward Range Extension of Some 140 Miles, isn't even a redirect, and is an amusing read. —Cryptic 18:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit request
In the "Speedy deletion" section, please add the work ....so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia such that they have no.... 102.40.79.94 (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Reason: Some people may be confused of the statement, including myself.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: adding "such" there would be grammatically incorrect and confusing, the current "Speedy deletion is meant to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion." is fine Cannolis (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Striking blocked users at AfD?
Isn't it customary to strike blocked users, such as sockpuppets, within AfD discussions? I understand that the AfD discussion can continue even if they are the nominator, but we generally strike their comments regardless. @Beccaynr @Another Believer Cielquiparle (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I feel like I see comments by blocked editors crossed out often, but maybe that's something I should leave to admins. I didn't mean to overstep, and I gave permission for Beccaynr to remove the strike. Makes no difference to me. I also asked at User_talk:MER-C, since I saw MER-C comment on the block in other AfD discussions. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * According to what appears to be the relevant part of the Talk page guidelines, that I linked to in that discussion, Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban. Comments made by a sock with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. If comments are part of an active discussion, they should be struck instead of removed, along with a short explanation following the stricken text or at the bottom of the thread. Previously, when I have attempted to clean up after sock-related !votes, I recall having strikes unstruck because I did not follow this precisely. Beccaynr (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Beccaynr That's what AB did – strike the comment instead of removing it, with a short explanation following. Can you please restore the strike? Cielquiparle (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no indication that I can find that the comment was made by [a] blocked [sock puppet] of [a] [user] editing in violation of a block or ban. Perhaps can offer some guidance here; based on my past experience with having strikes unstruck when I thought the TPO provision applied to editors socking generally (and there being no indication socking is involved here), I would prefer to rely on my understanding of the guideline and experience, and wait for additional guidance. Beccaynr (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's customary to strike people who are using more than one account in the discussion, so they don't get counted twice, and users who are sockpuppets of blocked/banned users, since they are not allowed to edit. A common mistake in this context is to strike users who are subsequently blocked for a reason other than having a prior account. It is a common mistake, but it's still a mistake. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification @Zzuuzz. Perhaps it's enough then to just add a comment after their comment making it clear that they were subsequently blocked? Cielquiparle (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That is also customary, perhaps (optionally) explaining why they were blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Commenting on this case - I think this user is a UPE spammer, that's why I blocked them. The problem I described here still exists and probably has become worse. I don't particularly mind whether their comments are struck, but UPE spamming elsewhere does have a negative impact on whether the vote/comment is in good faith. UPE spammers are more likely to be socks too. MER-C 17:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 * If thje user's blocked as a LTA or a sock or a UPE then yes; if they're just a normal user who got blocked for a totally unrelated thing I would say no. jp×g🗯 02:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

If the sockpuppet has started an AfD and there are no other delete comments it can be speedily closed as per WP:Speedy keep Applicability criteria 4, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § Process for requesting revision undeletion
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § Process for requesting revision undeletion. — a smart kitten <sub style="color:#595959">[  meow ] 12:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Comuni
I propose the deletion of most of the Italian comuni. One thing I have never understood about this encyclopaedia is this: what's the point of creating so many pages (over 8,000 pages of Italian comuni) and then leaving them to their own devices? This isn't the way to treat pages. I do my best to improve them, but not even in forty years would I manage to improve 8,000 pages of comuni. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Sadly, the problem is not specific to Italy. Many other countries have numerous articles about places with a handful of residents (probably one or two ordinary houses) which are apparently notable. Certes (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Be ruthless and bold. There was a set of village articles I looked at about a year or so ago, and after checking all of them I realised that a) they were mass-created, and b) didn't have anything other than a name and location (and maybe a population count). Redirected them all to the district they were found, and (as far as I know) they haven't been rewritten. I'm all for improvement but for some things it just doesn't make sense to waste time doing the research for such a little improvement. Primefac (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I can't spend my whole life on Wikipedia. I'm already "ruthless and bold" about Italian cuisine. In September 2023, I started to improve the pages on Italian cuisine and now, after a long time, I'm very satisfied with the great, enormous results; and I'm not finished yet. I'm sorry, but I'm one, not thousands. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. I suppose that 8k pages is a bit much to go through, even with something like AWB. Batch nominations for deletion would be possible as well, but again, even if only 10% of pages fall into the AFDable category, that's still 800 pages... Maybe the best option would be to start an RFC at WP:ITALY to see if there's a general consensus to just redirect them all (at which point a bot could take care of the actual editing). Primefac (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * self-correction: 7,904 comuni in 2021, but nothing changes. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy