text:
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 1

public domain source copy-and-paste
[moved to Don't_include_copies_of_primary_sources ]

lists

 * lists -> list

-

Is it fair to say that the collection of pages on the Simpsons, Star Wars, Atlas Shrugged and the like violate convention #7 (on encomia/fan pages). I appreciate that some people consider these books/shows very important, or like them very, very much, but I hardly think that an encyclopedia is the place for such pages. While I think the question of what knowledge is relevant and important enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia is a difficult one, I think these pages clearly don't deserve inclusion; if the authors wish to create detailed pages on the Star Wars universe, they are perfectly capable of creating such pages in hundreds of other places around the Web.

Has this been discusssed elsewhere? -Graft 08:21 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)

While I do believe that significant changes to this page should be discussed first... — Toby 11:09 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

On the mailing list, I said I whip up some boiler plate notices asking people to discuss major changes to the policy pages, and then unlock them all, and there were no objections. I'll do that within the next day or so. --Stephen Gilbert 12:00 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

All "List of..." pages annoy me. Like they do many here. However, Wikipedia has the potential of being larger in scope than any previous "encylopedic" (is that a word?) human endeavor. A "list of atheists" can fit here because nobody has to buy this journal, this book, this volume, this collection. Why not let it ride? Let "our" (man, how easily we perceive this as ours) readers read what they want. There is no limitation (someone must be buying the server space for this stuff [damn, that's spooky--will this all expire?]). Why complain? -Arthur 02:07 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I think "List of" pages are useful, not only as a way to create a link to new articles but to give people some thinking points to start off their own articles. -- Zoe

 * I agree with that. As an article to themselves, I don't like them. Wikipedia is not an almanac. On the other hand, I got some decent articles out of the list of people on American postage stamps, while Zoe did a great job of turning the Academy Award winners into articles. Danny 02:17 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time parsing item 2. In the first sentence, I don't think that the part starting with "that" adds anything useful, and it sure is hard to understand. Also, what does "as in the case of biographies" have to do with anything? --GG

Also, item 4 needs some bold. --GG

 * The page is now unprotected. Do whatever editing you think is needed making sure not to change the meaning. But don't worry too much about that - somebody will fix it if you do. --mav

Anyone notice how 67.122.115.150 has been busy plugging albums and videos in the various "Years in Music" and "Years in Movies" entries on here? I know that there's a statement on how Wikipedia is not meant to be a place for advertising, but methinks we may need to have a more direct and prominent statement, especially concerning things like this. While 67.122.115.150's actions don't exactly violate Wikipedia, they do toe the line and make me wonder if we won't be seeing an increase of subtle advertising tactics like this guy is embarking on. -- Modemac

 * Have you tried User talk:67.122.115.150? --Eloquence 16:45 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

 * He's gone now, and when he comes back he'll have a different IP address. -- Modemac

Wikipedia is not future history
Wikipedia is not a repository of predictions of what will happen in years to come. (the exception being if such predictions are well-known, such as Nostradamus, Asimov, Jules Verne etc; and even then these should not be intermingled with history articles since they are parts of works of fiction). Should we add a new entry or file under "9: Personal essays"? -- Tarquin 22:16 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

 * I think 9 is sufficient. We do not want to deter people from putting valid, properly attributed predictions into articles. --Eloquence 22:22 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

Indeed. And things like solar and lunar eclipses and "Turkey's entry into the EU due to be reviewed" -- things we're sure or fairly sure will happen. My point was things like "2005: Oil Wars", "2010: aliens land" etc. -- Tarquin 23:46 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC), Stephen Gilbert 23:32 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Future history is mostly opinion, so the "Personal essays ... personal opinions" already excludes them. Besides, there's an entire other wiki where they would be more appropriate: http://futures.wiki.taoriver.net/ DavidCary 22:09, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Opinions in Wikipedia pages
Moved from the Village pump:

 * Feel free to express opinions on talk pages and on your user page - there is no rule against that. But articles must be NPOV. ---mav

 * Thanks, the npov article was helpful...By talk pages I assume you mean the pages under "DiscussThisPage"?

 * Is there a place to navigate only the discussion pages?

 * No. Should there be?

 * So are user pages are totally unrestricted then as to content?

 * No. You should still consider wikipetiquette, make no personal attacks, and avoid breaching copyright or the law. But they are less restrictive.

advertisements on Wikipedia

 * Also, I was just wondering, can people post advertisements in the talk pages? (e.g., under the computer OS page, could Microsoft theoretically be allowed to point out under "DiscussThisPage" that they can purchase the newest Windows software at their website)

 * Personally, I would remove such adverts on sight.

Since Wikipedia is open to contributions from all comers, what is to prevent its being taken over by commercial interests wishing to promote their products?

 * Primarily, it's against the rules of contribution - Wikipedia is not a place for advertising, and most advertising is not neutral point of view. The various checks and balances against vandalism have always worked to date (see Our responses to our critics). If companies want to contribute to writing factual, balanced, informative articles, so much the better. Martin

Do we have a policy on users who merely spend their time adding weblinks to one company, presumably in an attempt at promotion? For example, user:203.35.82.3 has added lots of e-text external links to the same company - how to handle this? Martin

 * In this case, I think the links should be replaced with links to a non-commercial source (e.g. Gutenberg) ASAP, but they're OK for the time being. What would be a reason for banning is if he replaced links to non-commercial sources with commercial ones. --Eloquence 19:00 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

some sort of achievement

 * "Wikipedia is not a genealogical or biographical dictionary"

I'd just like to check. Is being killed by having an aeroplane crash into your office window an "achievement" within the context of wikipedia? Martin

 * It's a matter of opinion. Every wikipedia user will have their own opinion about what's worthy of an article. Provided they are based on solid facts that can be verified elsewhere, I see no problem with such articles (see discussion about Sir Mildred Pierce). ( 22:30 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

There is discussion about The Cunctator's recent change to this entry on WikiEN-L. I'll try to divert it here. -- Toby 19:46 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

 * I actually quite like the idea of requiring that there be at least a few published articles, documentaries, etc, ec, about someone before they are worthy of inclusion. Luke Rhinehart is an obscure author who's had several book reviews and a couple of documentaries. Brandon Teena is a dead person who inspired a film.

Meanwhile, Ben Hajioff's exposure is limited to liner notes on a compilation CD. That's not noteworthy. Mind you, I'd put the bar higher than requiring a single article - I'd like to see subjects of articles have a range of sources available, so that we can use all of them to guard against bias and achieve a rounded picture. Martin

It seems to me that even if something's on the summary edit, it should still be on the complete list. This is especially true when the complete list has more detailed explanations. -- Toby 23:53 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

 * Huh ? What "summary edit" are you talking about ? DavidCary 22:09, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be the United Nations
National and International(Empty, as of 19 April 2003) are Social and Political boundaries. Whereas, Wikipedia is a Community or Virtual Community. Morality unites Communities whilst Ethics unites Societies. I think that division of the World along the lines of British Political Economy is too Empirical(Empiricism). Am I wrong? afterall NPOV -- JW
 * These topics should be discussed (and have been discussed) on the WikiEN mailing list, I have recently (16 April 2003) presented somewhat similar lines of thought about the internationality of (english) wikipedia. I think you should post your proposition there. -- Rotem Dan 12:24 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

 * I'd be better able to agree or disagree with you if I understood what the heck you were saying, JW...

 * I also am confused by your proposal DavidCary 22:09, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

educational textbook
Why have we lost this item:

 * An educational textbook. Though Wikipedia attempts to explain many non-trivial scientific and philosophical topics, it should not be used merely as a mean of teaching the subject, this is what book references are for.

I should have moved it - sorry. To quote from my edit summary: "rm educational textbook. It's not clear to me what entries, if any, violate this rule". How would an article violate this rule? If an article happens to be a good means of teaching a subject, should we change it to be less useful?

In the case of the knowledge article, what exactly makes larry's text an "educational textbook"? Is it the use of friendly examples, such as the gas station attendent? Are we to remove friendly examples from wikipedia articles? That's only going to make them less inviting to lay readers, and accessibility is an important aim. Is it referring to the reader as "you"? Well, sure I'm happy to consider a policy on use of first and second person, but that's something for the manual of style, not here.

Sure, Wikipedia is not an educational textbook. It is also not a swimming pool. Not seeing any evidence that anyone is mistaking it for an educational textbook, I'd prefer to avoid adding unnecessary points to this page. Martin

 * Ah. ok. (I'm feeling pretty darn stupid in my swimming trunks now, I can tell you! ;-) -- Tarquin 22:52 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia an almanac?
I was just reading 1999 Rugby Union World Cup, which is a list of teams, playing times, and results from the 1999 Rugby Union World Cup, and I was thinking, "This doesn't seem even remotely like an encyclopedia article to me. This seems like an almanac entry."

Is Wikipedia an almanac? Do articles that are merely lists of results and compendia of statistics belong in Wikipedia? I'm wondering. I haven't really seen anything that says otherwise, and the almanac/encyclopedia difference in dead-tree media seems mostly to be about updatability -- almanacs are updated frequently, encyclopedias are not.

Anyways, Just wondering. Not really that important, just a noodling idea.

-- ESP 21:01 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes - Wikipedia has a great deal of almanac-like and even gazetteer-like supporting information in it. We can do this because we are updated constantly and don't have the space concerns that the dead trees do. --mav

I'm not quite satisfied with that. We can do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we _should_ do them. If, say, word definitions and etymologies don't belong in Wikipedia, why would almanac-style lists of sports scores and weather reports belong here?

I'm not trying to be contrary; I'd just like more of an explanation.

-- ESP 21:42 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Honestly, I reckon that there's a lot of fuzzy edges around Wikipedia that haven't really been hammered down. And it's probably fair to say that longstanding contributors can get away with a bit more than relative newcomers. Almanac-like info can be a useful basis for a later encyclopedia article, so even folks who have a fairly narrow vision of what Wikipedia should be in the future are happy to tolerate the current entry on the 1999 world cup on a temporary basis.

 * If you're a rugby fan, than I strongly encourage you to fix the 1999 world cup entry - or just outright replace it with brilliant prose. That makes the difference, I think. Martin

 * See also: FAQ and What Wikipedia is not. Almanac and gazetteer info is complementary to what we want to do while textbooks, mere defintions or quotes are not. Thus we have separate projects for those. --mav

OK, so, I read What is an article, and it's right there in the first paragraph: "almanac-like". Sounds good enough to me! -- ESP 02:59 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia(the encyclopedia) is not wikipedia.org (the web site) -- or is it ?
So, I'm proposing this:

 * [Wikipedia is not] a Web site. Although our encyclopedia is produced and published on http://www.wikipedia.org, it is not equivalent to that Web site. The body of text, images, and other media files that make up Wikipedia can be copied to other Wikis or Web sites, pressed onto compact discs or DVDs, installed in kiosk displays, or put to thousands of other uses.

Why? Because it clarifies what we're doing. I think there's a mistaken assumption that Wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia is a monolithic object coterminous and identical with http://www.wikipedia.org/. I'm going to add this barring objections. -- ESP 21:32 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Hmm... but currently we (IE, wikipedia) haven't pressed any CDs. And Wikipedia content has been used on other sites, but those sites aren't Wikipedia! Perhaps something for later on? Martin

 * Wikipedia is a website. If it were put on a CD or on paper it wouldn't be a wiki any more. Most likely such a project would be under a different name. --Camembert

 * Like Nupedia. --mav

 * Is Wikipedia the wiki itself, or the body of work produced by that wiki? When I get a GFDL license to Wikipedia, assumably I'm not getting a license to the domain name, the server running the system, or the Wikipedia software.

 * AFAICT, wiki is a tool, Wikipedia is the result. -- ESP 03:26 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

relevant topics
copied from Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Archive 2:

While you can find something about everything on Google, Wikipedia should restrict itself to those topics that are actually relevant. And if something is *not even* to be found on Google, then it *certainly* has no place on Wikipedia. Can I add my cat? Is any local town councillor relevant? The local bakery? This is making a mockery out of an encyclopaedia.

 * If it was an article on a bakery and the only content was its location and a pricelist, that would be an ad, not an article. If it was an article written by someone praising the wonderful taste of the bakery's bread, that wouldn't be a valid article on the grounds that it would be violating NPOV. If, however, that bakery had an interesting history (e.g. the oldest bakery in the state of Virginia), or was world-famous (e.g. this is Prince Charle's favorite bakery or, this bakery claims it invented the pretzel), or was a landmark of some sort, or had some unique claim to fame (e.g. a topless bakery), then an article about that bakery would be a valid addition to an encyclopedia.

See also Talk:Daniel C. Boyer re: issue of auto-biography

Itself
Suggestion: Any time a link in the Wikipedia Main space is saying something about Wikipedia as a whole, actually talking about it as a process, project, product, phenomena, organization, that is, as an EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING, link to Itself where the policies for doing so are discussed. Any time you are just mentioning it incidentally, without making a claim about it being an example of something, link to Wikipedia. That will keep these quite different uses separate, and let us easily track what claims Wikipedia makes about itself.

slang and idiom guide
(moved to Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)

Primary research / original research
Item #10 on the list greatly annoys me. I have contributed material which was the product of my own research (most of the pinball article; most of the shichi narabe article; the rules to sugoroku; a proof of a special case of Fermat's Little Theorem; some info on adding machines; possibly other stuff which I've forgotten about), and I don't understand why I shouldn't. So... you're saying that I shouldn't write anything which wasn't cribbed from books, magazines, etc.? --User:Juuitchan

 * What? None of those articles that you have worked on contain original research; Pinball exists outside of your own head, and so do the other things. You did not make up a game and then try to popularize it here. That would have been a violation of the rule; what you did is not. --mav 04:12, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * That is, you shouldn't be writing about your own unpublished research. It's perfectly fine to do research for Wikipedia articles.

It's perfectly fine to do research for Wikipedia, but not original research. Wikipedians shouldn't do interviews, but rather should report on the interviews of others. Wikipedians shouldn't root through rubbish bins, but rather reporting on the privacy invasions performed by others. Or am I wrong? Martin 20:41, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Perhaps what anon meant by that is that it's ok to go and find things out for Wikipedia. ie - if you want to add a date of birth to an article, you would go and look it up. You wouldn't actually interview someone to find it out, but people define research in different ways. Angela 20:55, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

''That's right. This maxim was originally invented as a way to shut people up who were writing articles about their idiosyncratic pseudo-scientific theories. But several times recently I've seen people quoting it as a reason not to include perfectly reasonable and useful content. See the confusion about pinball above for one example. As long as verifiability is maintained, it doesn't matter how contributors find out the information they include. Matthew Woodcraft''

 * Eureka!
 * We don't mean original research, we mean primary research. Right? Martin

''Probably. Do you thing primary research will be more widely understood? Matthew Woodcraft''

 * Primary research is certainly clearer than original research. If people misunderstand, we can point them to the talk page (archives). Angela 22:00, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * In any case, we should have an article on primary research or primary source... bingo! :) Martin

delete "unimportant" film/book without discussion
In the german Wikipedia a discussion is under way, because some Admins would like to delete "unimportant" film/book articles without discussion. What is the opinion of the english Wikipedia, was it discussed here already?Fantasy 10:13, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Since no-one else has answered here, I'll have a go. It isn't common practice on the English Wikipedia to delete film or book articles because their subjects are "unimportant". I'm sure that doing so without discussion would be frowned on. You don't have to follow our example, of course. Matthew Woodcraft

 * We do delete stuff that's not verifiable or which fails the google test, but only after listing it on VfD for seven days. Martin 09:23, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * It shouldn't be deleted if it just fails the Google test if it can be verified in another way. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:07, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm still trying to get a more precise idea of what it means for a subject to perform well or poorly on the Google Test. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:49, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks a lot for your Answers. It seems that it is some kind of Stub problem in the german Wikipedia. They don't like Stubs and want to delete them without discussion (you know, the Germans like everthing in order ;-) I will see how this works out. Thanks for your help, :-) Fantasy 09:49, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a suitable place for *constructing* knowledge?
Though Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia, would it be appropriate for researchers in a set of overlapping fields to use it for collating fragmentary information - that is, for *constructing* knowledge rather than for *referencing* knowledge?

My example: I recently discussed setting up a collaborative Wiki for early modern historians to collate information about minor personages in Quattrocento Northern Italy. This kind of information is normally extremely fragmentary, strewn carelessly (by the winds of time) across multiple sources of varying reliability and accessibility - diaries, letters, footnotes, etc. Collaboration would help the community of early modern historians bring together these shards of knowledge into a more complete whole.

However, while this would satisfy some of Wikipedia's objectives and match its collaborative methodology, it would also implicitly contain a content mismatch (typically book references rather than URLs), while also relying on internal completeness to be useful (rather than on summaries plus links).

True, I could easily host it on one of my own (personal) mini-Wikis... but building it directly into Wikipedia would seem to be an inherently better approach. I'm really in two minds about this - what do you think?

Nick Pelling --Nickpelling 11:55, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Constructing existing knowledge, sure, Wikipedia is collaborative. Just as long as an article looks relatively presentable if someone was to come across it, it should be okay. But constructing new knowledge, probably not, you may want to check What Wikipedia is not. Thanks Dysprosia 12:00, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * My instant reaction is that you should use your personal mini-wiki to build the content, then pipe it through into Wikipedia in a controlled fashion. You could include links back to the originating mini-wiki for anyone who wanted to see the process, or contribute further. This would localise the traffic and relieve the main Wikipedia site of some pressure. YMMV. Phil 12:03, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)

 * An interesting question that lines right on the border between two of our current practices. We routinely sift through sources, often biased and/or inaccurate media sources to try to build an accurate and balanced article. In this sense we do gather primary sources together into a secondary source article. However Wikipedia is emphatically not a repositry for original research. I think the main driver for this is that many of the people who've tried to add original research have been of the crankish/crackpotty type that frequent many of the sci.* hierachy newsgroups. Your plan - to gather together very primary and fragmented sources into a coherent article is on a border line. My feeling is that other encyclopedias don't do this "close-to-the-knuckle" sourcing - they probably coallate secondary sources. However if you achieved your goals I am sure it would be very valuable addition to Wikipedia so would hope that the rules could be interpreted to accommodate you as you piece together Quattrocento Northern Italy. Interested in other opinions.... Pete 12:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * If a Wikipedia article can present a primary source then that is excellent providing that primary source has been subject to academic peer review and ideally other similiar studies have been done. The issue with a primary source is whether it can be considered reliable. I'm struggling with the Dolphin brain article because it is cutting edge stuff, which has a lot of controversy around it, and the lack of reliable primary sources to fill in all the sections. Looking on the internet there does not seeem to be an article that has carefully considered the existing evidence in the way we are now trying to do. Wikipedia can provide a real service by tackling such controversial issues in a sensible non-partizan way. : ChrisG 16:40, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Walk away; WALK A-WAY! :-) Seriously, Wikipedia can't be its own authority on anything; otherwise the crackpots will take over. If you're struggling with contradictory primary sources, that's a sign that your subject is not yet ready for a WP article; wait for the book or review article to come out, and work from that. You might have to wait a while, but WP isn't going anywhere, and it isn't a science news magazine anyway. There are thousands of topics for which the research is settled, and that WP needs in order to be a good encyclopedia; by the time those are done, current controversies will likely have have been resolved by the experts. Stan 17:17, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback - I held back from adding any pages for precisely the kinds of reason given. However, does anyone know of any existing larger-scale Wikis out there which try to act as a genuinely open and collaborative forum for (what one might call) the "social construction of new knowledge"? I take Phil Boswell's point that it might be a good thing to build in a cross-reference to related Wikipedia articles... though where one should begin and the other should end might be hard to judge in practice.

I suppose what I'm talking about is a kind of "Wikipository"... any suggestions? Nick Pelling --Nickpelling 19:16, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure its a 100% fit, but http://sources.wikipedia.org/ should be a good place to start such a project. --snoyes 19:22, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Project Sourceberg, eh? I suppose what I'm describing does amount to collaboratively constructing a primary source... unfortunately, while the French/German/Nihongo versions are all running OK, the English appears to be crashing ATM (perhaps because of a recent server move?) I'll keep trying though... thanks! --Nickpelling 23:12, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This query could be summarized to the FAQ page -- Tarquin 13:22, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the other sites mentioned on Don't_include_copies_of_primary_sources would be more appropriate.

Expand or remove
Can the following points be expanded or removed from the page :
 * 3. Lists of such definitions -- the point only explains why such lists are allowed and not why such lists are NOT allowed.
 * 12. Mere collections of external links -- only says within brackets why external links are allowed
 * 13. Mere collections of internal links -- same as above
 * 4. A usage guide -- almost same as above, the point is not explanatory, rather the exception is.
 * 11. List repository -- same as above

This page can be reformatted to separate out what is allowed in Wikipedia and what is not. I feel the bracket-ization is confusing things. Jay 17:49, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks The Cunctator for standardizing on the brackets ! Jay 21:42, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Are interviews research?
Primary sources aren't allowed. If a Wikipedian does an interview for another purpose, then could that particular Wikipedian use the interview's info in an article on a relevant topic? -- user:zanimum
 * The discussion above seems to indicate no, but I'm not sure. If I knew Snoop Dogg I wouldn't hesitate to ask him questions to fill in the article as needed or clear up ambiguities, and the same if I had previously interviewed him for another reason.  I think the distinction should be what kind of information is a result.  If a thousand websites give varying dates for Snoop Dogg's birth, for example, asking him to clarify would be appropriate, but trying to extensively interview him to create a new/better/correcter interpretation of early 90s West Coast hip hop would not be. Tuf-Kat 21:07, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

What is a "list" in wikipedia?
I have been told that the article "list of words in English which are nouns when accented on first syllable and verbs when accented on second syllable", or something like that, is not a list, or anyway not the kind of list to which item#11 here applies (wikipedia is not a list repository, not a repository of list of items vaguely related). So I don't understand what item#11 means; what kinds of lists does it apply to? Kyk 22:05, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * There are over 14000 Google hits on the phrase "list of" in Wikipedia so I'm not convinced #11 is really true. Angela.

 * The only thing I can come up with that it applies to is lists of quotes. We do have a List of people by name, so clearly #11 is not being followed.  Maybe it should be rephrased... Anthony DiPierro 00:25, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Primary Research wrt User created images

 * Wikipedia articles are not...
 * 10. Primary research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. But of course you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals.

How does this relate to images created by a user for an article, particularly artistic impressions of extinct animals with very little extant data (eg. talk:Paranthropus) or modem folk tale animals (eg. talk:Yeti)? - UtherSRG 19:46, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Bust size, height, and weight
(from the village pump)

After coming across Kasia Smutniak, I wondered, "is bust size encyclopedic?" That led me to further questiosn like whether or not weight, height, or eye color of model's should be included in wikipedia articles. Anyone have any feelings about this? Sennheiser! 15:57, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I would say they're not appropriate. Besides how would we verify such claims :) Dori | Talk 16:26, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * The same way we verify people's dates of birth or anything else - if it says it in two places on the internet then assume it's right unless someone contradicts you. Onebyone 16:36, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I can only think of one article where the bust size would be encyclopedic, and that'd be Lollo Ferrari, as the only thing she got famous was that she had her breasts enlarged sooo much. But apparently noone considered her worth an article yet. andy 16:38, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I would say someone's measurements are only relevant when that's what has made them famous, like andy said, though I can think of more than one situation where it might be relevant. Perhaps Twiggy, Kate Moss, Barbie if she were real.  Height might be a useful stat for certain basketball players.  But standard actress articles?  No.  moink 22:57, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I thimk the sizes are relevant for mpdels as they are their professional characteristics. It is, for instance, interesting to compare different models' sizes, especially during decades, as "the model sizes" are changing.

 * The details of appearance are relevant for anyone who works using her/his appearance, including actors.

 * Height or weight may play an important role in a person's life, see for instance Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. Or, if there are descriptions by contemporaries of the appearance of some Byzantian emperor, wouldn't you cite them?

 * And besides, I think that Wikipedia should not be afraid to include whatever facts if they are thought to be true by the contributors. If there is any doubt, just indicate the source. If the article becomes too long, you may create separate articles. Andres 06:51, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, in fields where appearance is significant. If it can be discovered, that's probably beause it matters for that individual or their career, so if we find it, I think we should not hesitate to include it. It seems most unlikely that Margaret Thatcher ever advertised her measurements in that way. Jolene Blalock, one the other hand, was selected for Star Trek with her physical appearance is a primary selection factor. Jamesday 08:21, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


text:
User:Alangford

16-year-old High School student, amateur photographer and web designer from the United States.

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

title: User:Alangford


text:
User:Vince~enwiki

Am a mature guy from New Zealand and been involved in issues like environment, social justice and non-partisan political issues a long time.

I believe we will get the World & society we deserve.

Hope this concept "takes off" - it has great potential.

title: User:Vince~enwiki


text:
User:Brian Kendig

Hacker, engineer, philosopher, secular humanist, small-l libertarian, occasional writer, alumnus of Princeton University and the Princeton Triangle Club and Quadrangle Club, formerly with Netscape Communications Corporation and Apple Computer, now with The Walt Disney Company. Currently living in Celebration, Florida right next to Walt Disney World Resort.

Help me help you
I am a Wikipedia administrator, which means that I have a mop and bucket with which to help keep Wikipedia sparkling clean. If I can help you out with anything, please let me know on my talk page. (An archive of my RfA page is at Requests for adminship/Brian Kendig.)

It's not personal
I edit boldly. If I make an edit you don't like, it's not because I don't like you. I will not waste time on pointless drama and I will not respond to personal attacks. I do my best to assume good faith. However, I am human, I screw up sometimes, so if you feel I've screwed up then please let me know and let's talk things over calmly.

If you have a problem with edits I've made to a particular article, I prefer to discuss that on the article's Talk page (rather than over IM or email) so that other Wikipedians can share in the discussion and offer suggestions.

External link

 * http://www.enchanter.net/ - Personal web site.

title: User:Brian Kendig


text:
Little Missouri River

Little Missouri River can refer to two rivers in the United States:

 * Little Missouri River (Arkansas) in Arkansas
 * Little Missouri River (North Dakota) in Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota and North Dakota

title: Little Missouri River


text: Template:Östergötland County

title: Template:Östergötland County


text:
Talk:United Arab Emirates

Two edit requests
1. This is the first time I have seen a page with no edit links and lots of "edit requests" in the Talk. I would suggest that near the top or bottom of the page some text be added explaining why it is locked and how to suggest changes.

2. To the section stating that there is no interference with religious activities other than Islam, it is worth adding something like "However, religious proselytizing is illegal in the UAE." Because, like it or not, proselytizing is part of the "religious activities" of more than one religion, and people unaware of this law have been prosecuted and/or deported. Suggested citation: https://www.osac.gov/Country/UnitedArabEmirates/Content/Detail/Report/77d2e6dc-68e6-4dcd-91ea-1828235e7695 though there are many other online sources for this fact. 伟思礼 (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this encyclopedic?
The UAE offers businesses a strong enabling environment: stable political and macroeconomic conditions, a future-oriented Government, good general infrastructure and ICT infrastructure. Moreover, the country has made continuous and convincing improvements to its regulatory environment and is generally a top country for doing business. Is this encyclopedic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.237.221 (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC) edited by SharabSalam (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC) to shorten it
 * It's certainly more panglossian language than we normally see in Wikipedia country articles - and the cited source seems to be a PR outfit. Can someone suggest better language? BushelCandle (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates is an Absolute Federal Monarchy.
My name is Emarat Deira, I am a Law Professor in the University of Dubai for 40+ years, please read what i type carefully: The Constitution of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), as per the Arabic text, defines it as an Federal Monarchy, where the King has absolute powers that are not limited by the constitution. Therefore, the UAE is not a constitutional monarchy like Spain or the UK, but it is an absolute monarchy like Oman or Brunei, please change it to an absolute monarchy, as it pains me to see my country being called an constitutional monarchy, as it is incorrect. Wikipedia also agrees with me, as the UAE is listed as absolute monarchy here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy. Please make this change as soon as possible. Thanks, Emarat Deira, --Emarat Deira (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC) 40+ years Law Professor at the University of Dubai, and expert on the constitution of the UAE.

 * , First of all I would like to welcome you in Wikipedia and I wish we benefit from your experience on improving the overall quality of articles. Now, as mentioned, here in Wikipedia it's all about verifiability and citing, where personal research is not allowed and such content can be challenged and removed, even if the editor is a known researcher or expert in the field. please post any links that can back your claim, because as per my understanding the UAE is a Federal Monarchy while each individual Emirate is Absolute Monarchy, as for what mentioned is the Wikipedia page of Absolute Monarchy, HH Sheikh Khalifa isn't an absolute monarch over the federation but on the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, adding him to list of absolute monarch is an error and should be removed. Regards  UA3 (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The UAE is a federal monarchy not absolute monarchy Zulu521 (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2019
The uae is a Absloute monarchy. You can check the other Wikipedia and non wikipedia websites. But it is showing that it is a constitutional monarchy in the uae page. This deeply effects uae government powers and desicions. As it makes chaos for the monarch who has been undermined. 2.49.24.19 (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See the above post, otherwise please point to reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Absolute Monarchy
Please add "Absolute Monarchy" to the forme of government of the UAE (in the article), because the Map of Formes of Government painted it as Purple: Absolute Monarchy. Bot please auto sign this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.219.180.69 (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not done.
 * However, I have removed some internal links to Constitutional monarchy. BushelCandle (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * how does an 'elective monarchy' end up with a 'president'?142.163.195.142 (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Read the article and follow the hyperlinks in blue to understand how. BushelCandle (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021
This is in regards to the section on Languages, where it is said "Since the area was occupied by the British until 1971, English is the primary lingua franca in the UAE. As such, a knowledge of the language is a requirement when applying for most local jobs."

"As such" should be changed to "Consequently," "As a result," or something similar. The current text is an incorrect and unprofessional (albeit common) misapplication of the construct "as such", which means "acting or behaving as (the previously described noun)." In this case, "knowledge of the language" is not acting or behaving "as such" where such means "the primary lingua franca in the UAE." In other words, what this text is saying can be reduced to "Knowledge, acting as English, is a requirement when applying for most local jobs." While I have no doubt that knowledge of English is required for most local jobs, it's not because knowledge is itself English.

It would also be correct to leave "As such" but change the sentence to:

"As such, it is required when applying for most local jobs." Bubbleking (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that knowledge itself is not English, or Anglophone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:C305:78DF:4175:E8FF:96B5:B280 (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

US Politicians
Can someone please explain why there are images of two US politicians (Pompeo, Trump) in an article that is supposed to be about UAE? Surely one will do. B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the foreign relations section. There's a Putin in there too. Surely not doing anyone any harm, are they? I added in Joe Biden just to make it a bit more Democratic... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha - anything to reduce bias and simultaneously put more stars and stripes flags on other country articles B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021
The statement endorsing in Wikipedia's voice of Mr Richard A. Clarke as an independently-reliable expert from US perspective on the US's war on so-called terror (WTW) across the wider WANA region in the "Foreign relations" subsection of "Government and politics" section: Ought to mention that almost immediately after the end of tenure for the 2-term Executive Administration he worked for, he went on to work for the "federal" Emirati regime for their military and surveillance development by setting up shop over there and in 2012, deepened his direct-ties with them which according to cited-statements in his 'Wikigraphy', strengthened even more and continues till date. —103.163.124.72 (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I posit to add that Wikipedia's voice also acknowledge that he went on to work for the Emirati ruling clan afterwards and the briefly-mentioned progress of their relationship till date. Nothing more, nothing less. And IntelligenceOnline appears like a pretty good independently-reliable source, at least when it comes to the favorability for Uncle Sam. If the paywall for their scoops is a trouble, as far as I know: Wikipedia doesn't discourage the citation of or instruct editors to measure reliability of a citation by its access-level. Hopefully, I've managed to clarify every reasonable query as concisely as I could. —103.163.124.72 (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: That's not really providing the actual "X to Y" prose. Per the edit request template, "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I want the addition after the prose which reads: "The United Arab Emirates and the United States enjoy very close strategic ties. The UAE has been described as the United States' best counter-terrorism ally in the Gulf by Richard A. Clarke, the US national security advisor and counter-terrorism expert." and immediately before the sentence which comes up after the single inline-citation of aforementioned-sentence reading: "The US maintains three military bases in the UAE." There! Hope that helps with every reasonable-doubt for anybody with goodwill towards the change perceivably not laudatory towards Mr Clarke. Now, if you happen to further state that I must precisely rewrite the whole prose exactly as I see fit with all of punctuation, spacing and syntax in tip-top shape, even though as a reviewer: You are supposed to edit it in a far better given your supposed experience, then I must better be exceptionally-accorded the privileges to edit this article myself, don't you think? Because the suspected "current process" sounds less like "collaborative" and how shall I put it? Let's just say, far more off-putting. —103.163.124.72 (talk)
 * It is not the reviewers responsibility to copyedit your proposed changes. Reviewers are basically only responsible for implementing changes that meet Wikipedia policy and guidelines and improve articles.
 * It's still unclear what exact text you want added to the article. Can you please type out your contribution verbatim and specify exactly which words from the article are to be replaced with your contribution? For example "Where the article says 'X', it should instead say 'Y'." Otherwise we will not be able to evaluate and review your edit request. –– FormalDude''' ( talk ) 22:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ohhhh.. So is that how it's gonna go? Must add, while I've found nothing in an "edit request" guideline anywhere that a senior-editor can't be courteous enough to copyedit the aptly-verifiable addition proposed by a junior-editor but if that's how it's gonna be, here's my one-and-done effort I could possibly afford. Place this addition in the very same place as prescribed in my preceding-reply:
 * "Immediately after the second term of President George W. Bush ended, he went on to establish the subsidiary of his private firm Good Harbor Consulting in Abu Dhabi. Within next 3 years, he strengthened his relationship with the Emirates which continues to this day."
 * Hopefully, now everything is clear to the most-reasonable extent as anything else would require me to leave all of my life behind and go in an essay-length lesson from scratch. —103.163.124.72 (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the sentence. The exact quote from that ref in p.138 is that the UAE was "both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem." We shouldn't cherrypick which part of that sentence we want in the article. Furthermore, that sentence isn't attributed to Clarke at all.
 * As for IP: you need to be very precise with what you want to change. It's not about the exact syntax and grammar of the change; we can fix it if we put it in). Put simply: we can't read your mind, and you haven't been clear enough up until your latest reply. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: section on science and technology
Hi, just a small suggestion, many country articles have a section on science and technology, please could one be created for UAE?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Unfortunately this article is written like a Human Rights Watch country profile, where human rights and laws closely followed by foreign policy make the bulk of the article (with exact dates) while the rest is completely ignored. Some areas need to be trimmed while others such as science and technology need to be expanded/created. Gorebath (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Authoritarianism in the lead
Should the lead include text along the lines of "The UAE has been widely described as an authoritarian state" and "According to human rights organizations, there are systematic human rights violations in the UAE"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

 * “The government follows a policy of tolerance toward other religions and rarely interferes in the religious activities of non-Muslims,” it says. The sections on human rights suggest otherwise. 伟思礼 (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes. There is no disagreement in reliable sources, in particular academic publications, that the UAE has an authoritarian regime type. It's basic and uncontested information about the UAE's political system. In their coverage of the UAE across issue areas, RS and academic analyses overwhelmingly cover the authoritarian nature of the political system, as it defines and shapes the political, economic and social life in the UAE. It would be a strange omission if Wikipedia were not to remark on the country's political system. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not omitted when the nature of the UAE's political system is described in the body of the article alongside its proper attributable description. Gorebath (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 * No. Most countries outside the western hemisphere world are authoritarian and are not-democratic. It would be absurd to characterize every single country's lead paragraph as "this country is authoritarian" or "not democratic" or "dictatorship", which is basically the case for most countries outside of the western world. The added statement is vague that it can be basically added to every middle eastern, african, and most asian countries. It is not specific to this country's page. Governments, including in the western hemisphere world, have systematic human rights violations as per rights organizations as well as the United Nations. Unless a particular country is reprimanded daily or highly associated with human right abuses and crimes against humanity on a daily basis, I don't see the need for including such vague statement in the lead . Gorebath (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. It seems like a neutral and necessary description, supported by numerous reliable sources. FWIW, ·I've spent a great deal of time in UAE, mostly Abu Dhabi and Sharjah - I always enjoyed my time there, I have no animus against the country or its people, but it is undoubtedly authoritarian and we should not shy away from describing it as such. Girth Summit  (blether)  00:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes The lead should reflect the available sources. Dimadick (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Conditional No unless someone provides statistics showing that characterization of countries as authoritarian in the lede section is common. There are slightly more than 200 countries in the world, of which at least half are authoritarian.  Do we characterize between 50 and 100 of them as authoritarian?  If that isn't the rule, then we should only make that statement in the article body.  That is, be consistent with other country articles.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - European democracies are not in the western hemisphere and are not authoritarian. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No due to the phrasing, any item which needs to be attributed or caveated with its author or weasel words is probably undue in the lead. I am not opposed to touching upon the topics, if they are weaved into other text instead of standing along and needing to be attributed. CMD (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you support adding "UAE is an authoritarian state" in Wikipedia's voice? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems somewhat inelegant, would prefer a broader sentence about the governing system which mentions the absolute control. CMD (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could incorporate the first sentence from Politics of the United Arab Emirates and parts of the third paragraph? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the current lead, politics and governance takes up most of the second paragraph already. Given this, I would suggest a modification describing governance, perhaps around "Each emirate is governed by", would be the best way to include information without adding much more length. CMD (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

"Eritrea is a unitary one-party presidential republic in which national legislative and presidential elections have never been held.[25][7] Isaias Afwerki has served as president since its official independence in 1993. According to Human Rights Watch, the Eritrean government's human rights record is among the worst in the world.[26] The Eritrean government has dismissed these allegations as politically motivated.[27] Freedom of the press in Eritrea is extremely limited, the Press Freedom Index consistently ranks it as one of the least free countries. As of 2021 Reporters Without Borders considers the country to have the overall worst press freedom in the world as all media publications and access are heavily controlled by the government." Ip says (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * YES And regarding other countries lead, the style from Eritrea would work fittingly here.
 * False equivalence fallacy. Eritrea is ranked the lowest in Press Freedom Index which is why its included in its lead, and despite being authoritarian that fact is not directly stated. For the sake of comparison, the United Arab Emirates ranks higher than India, Mexico, Singapore and Eritrea in the same index. It would be illogical to add the same statement to the lead paragraph of all these countries articles using the same style you're suggesting. Gorebath (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Comments: The UK is a federal constitutional monarchy. It seems misleading to portray the UAE simply as having the same form of government when clearly there are fundamental differences. I am not sure why such exemptions would be offered such as if a country is "reprimanded daily or highly associated with human right abuses and crimes against humanity on a daily basis". The UAE does seem to have a fairly long history of alleged human rights violations so why try to water it down? I am not so concerned with how the government is listed (or omitted) in the lead in other articles but think it a consideration to look at other B-class or better articles with the same form of government. The question would be: Is the UAE actually an authoritarian state according to reliable sources? If so I would wonder why it was not included in the lead. --  Otr500 (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting to "water it down" and I dont think anyone suggested that the UK and UAE have the same form of government. The question is not whether UAE is authoritarian in reliable sources or not. The added statement is not unique enough to the country its in the lead paragraph of. The sentence added can be copy pasted to every other middle eastern country and still be true. Hundreds of other countries are authoritarian and there's no precedent to add to the lead page of hundreds of articles that they're "authoritarian" in the lead. The proper description "authoritarian" is added adequately in the politics section and explained thoroughly in that section. Unless UAE has unique suppressive attributes that is equivocal to North Korea or Eritrea style in reliable sources adding this vague sentence in the lead adds nothing of value. With your similar reasoning, the UK also has a long history of human rights violations, none of which are added to the United Kingdom article lead paragraph. Gorebath (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Comments: Where are the sources? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The rullers of Dubai and Abu Dhabi have "effective veto power" over the presidential election so it is not any form of democracy elective in the lowest form. --  Otr500 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 * No. It is not important enough to be in the lead of the article. There is already a paragraph talking about this in detail under section Government and Politics. More important topics like the history of the country is missing from the lead.Maplecreek1 (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have a pony in this race and ended up here from a feedback request. Adding The United Arab Emirates is an elective monarchy, standing alone, seems misleading. Is it not correct that the President has come from the same ruling family, as does the Prime Minister, since the founding of the UAE? Regardless of the reason to show it as an "elective" monarchy in the lead, it seems misleading as the positions are (have been) hereditary since the founding and any vote to the contrary could be vetoed. "IF" "authoritarian" does not find favor then maybe "hereditary autocracy" as it does show up in sources. I do think that a label of an authoritarian state "According to human rights organizations" alone would not be acceptable as more mainstream sources would need to be included and why I have only commented thus far. Anyway, I am loading my pony into the trailer so have a great day. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your point is kind of off-topic, but I'll attempt to clarify it. It is not uncommon that elective monarchies become hereditary. Per the constitution, in a pure law form it is a closed election where the supreme federal council elects one of them to be the leader of the union, much like the pope. By word of convention, it has always been the rulers of Abu Dhabi. The position is not automatically passed down to the eldest son of Abu Dhabi's sheikh as would be expected in a hereditary monarchy. All members of the supreme federal council are hereditary absolute monarchs of their own emirates, so the royal families stay the same. For example, the expected next president for example is not the current President Sheikh Khalifa's son. His half brother is expected to be voted into the position.As for prime minister, the ruler of Dubai did not assume that position until 7 years after independence. Gorebath (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Yes per Girth Summit. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Many, many governments are authoritarian and even more are regularly criticized by human rights groups. I sometimes feel like there's an effort to awkwardly wedge whatever negative political content we can think of into country article leads. Just give a basic description of the country in the lead, we can go into the details of what human rights organizations say in the body. By the way, I agree with User:Chipmunkdavis that anything that can't be stated directly in wikivoice probably doesn't belong in the lead of an article about a country. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Yes. By necessity, in describing any state or polity, you have to mention what it is. Those familiar with Arabic would know from it's very title, that it is some sort of hereditary monarchy. But most English speakers won't be aware that "Emirate" is the equivalent of "Kingdom" or perhaps "Principality".

The current version has an awful lot of words, but they don't tell the everyday leader much of anything. "The United Arab Emirates is an elective monarchy formed from a federation of seven emirates [sic]... Each emirate [sic] is governed by a Sheikh and, together, they form the Federal Supreme Council; one of them serves as President of the United Arab Emirates."

Ok, sounds cool. John Q. Citizen's response? "So, they have a president, and it's an 'elected monarchy', a bunch of 'Sheeeks' decide who'll be president..... right?"

What's does the word "Sheikh" mean in this context? What does the the term "elective monarchy" mean in this context? Are these free "elections"? Secret ballot?

We could simply state what it says on the Wiki page dedicated to its politics and leave out the all the trivia (for most people that's what it amounts to) and the context about the intricacies of how the Emirate operates as an Emirate..... But just simply stating "it's an authoritarian state ruled by tribal autocrats who allow no democracy" for brevity's sake, because it's the lede, would also be doing a disservice to the reader. I think there's a middle way. A few extra words make make it appear less clean, but they will go along way towards giving the casual reader an understanding of what kind of polity it is.

I've gotta run, but a quick suggestion:

"The United Arab Emirates is a federation of seven pre-existing Emirates (roughly equivalent to a Principality in the Western tradition), each ruled by a Sheikh (a tribal elder, who acts as Governor). As has been customary in Arabian culture, their political leaders are not necessarily chosen on a purely hereditary basis - the firstborn son does not automatically end up as the heir apparent - but through consultation between Sheikh and his advisors. Due to the relative wealth and prestige Abu Dhabi and Dubai have compared to the other Emirates, it is customary that the Sheikh of the former be appointed President, and the latter, Prime Minister. The UAE is classed as an authoritarian state, and as a "tribal autocracy". There are no democratically elected officials or institutions."

I deliberately use the term "ruled by" as that is how it appears in the Arabic, and that is also their official title in addition to Sheikh, "Ruler (حُكم, "Hakim") of Dubai, Abu Dhabi, etc. Although, we could potentially just drop Sheikh altogether (it does have very antiquated connotations nowadays) and just say Ruler... - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While your attempt is a good one, it unfortunately wedges a lot of misconceptions. Abu Dhabi and Dubai retaining the Presidency and Prime minister-ship is not written in law but obeyed by convention and is due to the fact that Abu Dhabi and Dubai formed a 2 state union agreement first called the Dubai agreement and then the other emirates joined, and pay more than the others for the federal budget rather than purely secondary to "prestige" as explained in Abdulla Oman Taryam's The Establishment of the United Arab Emirates 1950-85 book. I don't see why the encyclopedia should cater to western audience and represent American or European perspective on native English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries to explained that an emirate is, what is called a principality and that there's no democracy as democracy is not the stated normal in most of the world. This is unfortunately an example of WP:BIAS. The lead is not the place where the intricate details of the country's politics should be explained. Gorebath (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes and also the selected pose ought to be mentioned: "In 2020, United Arab Emirates (UAE) authorities continued to invest in a “soft power” strategy aimed at painting the country as a progressive, tolerant, and rights-respecting nation, yet its fierce intolerance of criticism was on full display..." https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/united-arab-emirates However, this does not preclude inclusion of statistical and/or documented facts that may, at a glance (@Snooganssnoogans), not appear to support the statement.JAnnora2 (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 * The article should mention that the UAE gets its revenue from taxing oil pumped by western companies, rather than owning the oil itself. The UAE has avoided nationalizing the oil to keep good relations with the western powers. Just in case their larger neighbors decide to grab them and their oil, both. This is a basic fact, and should be mentioned somewhere. 2A00:23C7:E287:E001:C81E:55B5:B932:6C8 (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Criminal punishments in lead
Should "Sharia courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a wide range of laws; amputation and stoning are considered legal punishments, with apostasy from Islam and homosexuality punishable by death." be removed from the lead after law changes. Vyvagaba (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Survey for lead sentence RfC

 * Yes. The UAE rewrote it's Penal Code in between 2020, November of 2021. The were effective at the start of 2022, that was announce. Although never applied, the new penal code does not incorporate any punishments based on "Hudud". Although the death penalty for blasphemy was never applied, it is legally not punishble by death since 2015. The list of punishments handed down by courts was updated in 2015, and does not include amputation or stoning. The death penalty was never applied on homosexuality, and all consentual extra-marital relations are legal since 2022,

"The law also punishes with imprisonment for a period of no less than six months, consensual extra-marital intercourse with a person aged over 18 years, noting that a criminal case for this crime is only instituted on the basis of a complaint from the husband or guardian. In all cases, the husband or guardian has the right to waive the complaint, and the waiver entails the expiration of the criminal case or the suspension of the execution of the penalty, as the case may be.

The new law effectively decriminalizes consensual relationships out of wedlock."The law also punishes with imprisonment for a period of no less than six months, consensual extra-marital intercourse with a person aged over 18 years, noting that a criminal case for this crime is only instituted on the basis of a complaint from the husband or guardian. In all cases, the husband or guardian has the right to waive the complaint, and the waiver entails the expiration of the criminal case or the suspension of the execution of the penalty, as the case may be. The new law effectively decriminalizes consensual relationships out of wedlock,

This quote is published on the state news agency press release. The law in Arabic, the official language in the country, is a lot more specific, the direct translation is along the lines of: No criminal case is made for consentual sexual relations between a person, and another person, a male or female, except when a complaint is filed by a marrige partner or gaurdian. The case is dropped if the parent or gaurdian withdraws their complaint."

I think the removal is appropriate and these changes should be made on other Category:United Arab Emirates pages. I understand that bad press is usually what triggers floods of edits, but I think that these changes should be acknowledged.

Vyvagaba (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 * This is all your own interpretation of primary source documents and the UAE government's own press releases. What do reliable sources say? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to this, the sentence in question covers a number of topics, and the explanation here only touches on one item actually in the sentence (amputation and stoning). I'm confused as to why the explanation focuses almost entirely on sex outside of marriage, which is not mentioned in the sentence in question. CMD (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't be punished on something that's not a crime. So homesexuality is clearly does not hold a death sentence, the law covering religions mentions apostasy and the charge sentence for that is not the death penalty. Stoning and amputation are no longer legal punishments. You will find all these details of these in the new penal code, meaning that nothing in the sentence is valid anymore. All the details of these can be found in the sources above, and it would be worth mentioning if there are reports come in mentioning that these changes are not applied in practice. Vyvagaba (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentence in the lead is no longer accurate if it says:
 * "Sharia courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a wide range of laws;"
 * "amputation and stoning are considered legal punishments, with apostasy from Islam and homosexuality punishable by death."
 * I think that a change in legal penal code that addresses all of these is topics is enough to nullify the sentence. It would be a different conversation if these changes are not being applied in practice, but so far there are no reports of such.
 * I have removed the sentence from the lead, all the other notes from HRW and Amnesty about human rights are still there to keep the essence of the paragraph.  Vyvagaba (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Question - Has anyone been executed in the UAE in the past few decades for homosexuality? If not, the way the lede is phrased seems a little WP:POINTy. NickCT (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, at least nothing by reliable sources. It's a common knowledge that homosexuality, depsite seen as a taboo to cultural norms, is widely tolerated. There are literally guides on where to find gay bars. It does seem a bit taken way too pointy to illustrate an non-existant point where homosexuals are allegedly killed. Gorebath (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Islamic state?
I added that it is an Islamic state because their constitution states that Sharia is a primary basis for their laws; it seems some editors disagree. I welcome comments from other editors about where that line is drawn. Is it only an Islamic state if their courts function only by Sharia, without elements of common or civil law? ― Tartan357  Talk 23:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an Islamic state if a consensus of RSs say it is. What we think doesn't come into it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Palacio Presidencial de los Emiratos, sede del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional..jpg

Percentages add up to more than 100%
In the section Government And Politics, paragraph Administrative Divisions, there is a table which provides the population number of al the emarites. In this table the percentage of the population in each emarite adds up to 105.5%. Something is wrong here. 87.212.40.233 (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your math is slightly off however you are correct that it does not add up to 100%. Instead it adds up to 107.1% so some of the numbers are incorrect here. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The old ref seems to have been removed in 2018 in, so you may wish to ask Badass Flare whether he has a new source. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. And the religions in the infobox add up to 250%. Some shaky maths going on. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Drug Crimes in UAE
Would Like To add to the discussion and explain the legal situation of drug abuse in United Arab Emirates according to UAE CRIMINAL LAW MohamedHilalz (talk) 10:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Not sure about the reliability of that source, but please consider editing subarticles instead. CMD (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * United Arab Emirates Product Exports (2019).svg

Map currently incorrect
The map erroneously highlights Yemen instead of the UAE at this time. 72.89.218.21 (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 * That was vandalism, it has been corrected. CMD (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Food
Traditional dishes include Maq'louba, Margooga, Harees, Machbous, Frsee'ah, Fireed, Jisheid, and Mishwy. Breakfast in the UAE usually features breads like raqaq, khameer, and chebab, served with cheese, date syrup, or eggs.Along the coasts, fish was found in abundance. The Emiratis learnt to store fish by drying it and made it accessible to those living in the deserts and oases. In the deserts and mountainous regions, Emiratis largely relied on camel milk and meat. Meat of sheep and goat were also staple.The Bedouins of the Arabian Peninsula, Middle East and North Africa rely on a diet of dates, dried fruit, nuts, wheat, barley, rice, and meat. The meat comes from large animals such as cows, sheep, and lambs. They also eat dairy products: milk, cheese, yoghurt, and buttermilk (labneh). Ritha34 (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2023
Someone vandalised the article. 5.90.181.94 (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 * I don’t want the article to be vandalised again. 5.90.181.94 (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Ebraali444 (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We don’t want any of our articles vandalized ever. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Free Internet
— Assignment last updated by ReadyMadeAl (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

article got vandalized again
someone vandalized the article (on arabic name of country and motto). does anyone mind to semi-protect the article? 88.201.84.140 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 * ✅ Protection requested at WP:RPP. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 17:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Page reads like an advert for UAE
Reading the article in the context of all we know from reputable news sources (e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67508331) this article seems to only hold favourable commentary about the UAE. Although there are a few mentions of the dubious human rights practices and violations there is no specific section on this (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-66394063). 82.20.134.200 (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV language in Economy section
The language used in the Economy section of this article appears to me to lean quite favourably towards the UAE. Positively charged words such as "boasting," "impressive," "prudent," "resolute" and others are used which add an interpretation to the description of the UAE's economic development. I think that significant portions of this section need to be rewritten to bring the article into line with WP:IMPARTIAL. To that end, I have added a NPOV language notice. TheTimMan (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Cycling?
Why is cycling not mentioned under sports? This seems like huge oversight. The UCI WorldTeam UAE Team Emirates cycling teams is one of the top teams in the pro peloton. Superstar Slovenian cyclist Tadej Pogacar won the Tour de France (often considered the largest sporting event on the planet) in 2020 and 2021 as a member of team UAE Emirates cycling, and continues to dominate. The diverse team roster is loaded with international stars and includes a "Gen Z" development team. The Tour of Dubai is a massive event. Toccare (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC) List of United Arab Emirates-related topics the original — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahtisham45 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2024
This is regarding the final paragraph in the "History" section:

The entire paragraph should be deleted. Setting aside the need for extensive copyediting, this content does not warrant inclusion in this section of the article — the completion of this skyscraper complex is not an event on the level of national historic significance. The building in question does not currently have its own article (it was deleted), but it is already listed accordingly in. For comparison, the far more notable Burj Khalifa is also not included in this section, but is instead mentioned under the "Tourism" header, and appears in photographs for sections about "Economy" and migrant labor issues. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:70E8:8972:3D56:93CD (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 * ✅ TheNuggeteer (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:United Arab Emirates


text:
Governor of Tasmania

The governor of Tasmania is the representative in the Australian state of Tasmania of the monarch, currently King Charles III. The incumbent governor is Barbara Baker, who was appointed in June 2021. The official residence of the governor is Government House located at the Queens Domain in Hobart. The governor's primary task is to perform the sovereign's constitutional duties on their behalf.

As with the other state governors, the governor performs similar constitutional and ceremonial functions at the state level as the governor-general of Australia does at the national level. The position has its origins in the positions of commandant and lieutenant-governor in the colonial administration of Van Diemen's Land. The territory was separated from the Colony of New South Wales in 1825 and the title "governor" was used from 1855, the same year in which it adopted its current name. In accordance with the conventions of the Westminster system of parliamentary government, the governor now acts solely on the advice of the head of the elected government, the premier of Tasmania.

Tasmania retained British-born governors longer than most other states. The first Australian-born governor was Sir Stanley Burbury (appointed 1973) and the first Tasmanian-born governor was Sir Guy Green (appointed 1995). Since Burbury, all Tasmanian governors have been Australian-born, except for Peter Underwood who was born in Britain but emigrated to Australia when a teenager.

Titles
Since December 2014, the incumbent and all future Tasmanian governors have been entitled to be styled as The Honourable for life.

Governor's personal flag
The personal flag of the governor of Tasmania is the same design as the British blue ensign with the Union Flag at the upper left quarter. On the right side, the state badge of Tasmania, consisting of a white disk with a red lion passant, is surmounted by St. Edward's Crown. The flag was adopted in 1977. If the standard is flying at Government House, on a vehicle or vessel, or at an event, this indicates that the governor is present.
 * Past and present flags of the governor

Divided in two
Between 1804 and 1813, Van Diemen's Land was divided along the 42nd parallel, and the two sections governed as separate lieutenant-governorships under the governor of New South Wales. Collins was the only officially appointed lieutenant-governor—upon his death in 1810, the government in Hobart Town was administered, by the Commandants at Hobart Town (Lord, Murray and Geils). The northern settlement at Port Dalrymple (now George Town) was administered by four commandants until the settlements were merged to form the single colony under the governorship of Thomas Davey in 1813.

Lieutenant-governors
The colony was called Van Diemen's Land until 1856.

title: Governor of Tasmania


text:
Little Missouri River (North Dakota)

The Little Missouri River is a tributary of the Missouri River, 560 mi long, in the northern Great Plains of the United States. Rising in northeastern Wyoming, in western Crook County about 15 mi west of Devils Tower, it flows northeastward, across a corner of southeastern Montana, and into South Dakota. In South Dakota, it flows northward through the Badlands into North Dakota, crossing the Little Missouri National Grassland and all three units of Theodore Roosevelt National Park. In the north unit of the park, it turns eastward and flows into the Missouri in Dunn County at Lake Sakakawea, where it forms an arm of the reservoir 30 mi long called Little Missouri Bay and joins the main channel of the Missouri about 25 mi northeast of Killdeer.

The highly seasonal runoff from badlands and other treeless landscapes along the Little Missouri carries heavy loads of eroded sediment downstream. The sedimentary layers, which extend from the headwaters in Wyoming all the way to the mouth in North Dakota, vary in age, but most of the beds along the river belong to the Bullion Creek and Sentinel Butte formations, both deposited during the Paleocene (about 66 to 56 million years ago). The deposits include siltstone, claystone, sandstone, and lignite coal laid down in a coastal plain during the Laramide orogeny.

title: Little Missouri River (North Dakota)


text:
List of rivers of North Dakota

This is a list of rivers in the state of North Dakota in the United States.

Alphabetically

 * Bois de Sioux River
 * Cannonball River
 * Cedar Creek
 * Cut Bank Creek
 * Deep River
 * Des Lacs River
 * Elm River (North Dakota), tributary of Red River of the North
 * Elm River (South Dakota), tributary of James River
 * Forest River
 * Goose River
 * Green River
 * Heart River
 * James River
 * Knife River
 * Little Goose River
 * Little Heart River
 * Little Knife River, tributary of Knife River
 * Little Knife River, tributary of Missouri River
 * Little Missouri River
 * Little Muddy Creek
 * Little Muddy River
 * Long Creek
 * Maple River (North Dakota), tributary of Sheyenne River
 * Maple River (South Dakota), tributary of Elm River of South Dakota
 * Missouri River
 * North Fork Grand River
 * Park River
 * Pembina River
 * Pipestem River
 * Red River of the North
 * Rush River
 * Sheyenne River
 * Souris River
 * Spring Creek
 * Tobacco Garden Creek
 * Tongue River
 * Turtle River
 * White Earth River
 * Wild Rice River
 * Wintering River
 * Yellowstone River

Missouri River

 * Little Muddy Creek (mouth in Montana)
 * Yellowstone River
 * Little Muddy River
 * Tobacco Garden Creek
 * White Earth River
 * Little Knife River
 * Little Missouri River
 * Knife River
 * Little Knife River
 * Spring Creek
 * Heart River
 * Green River
 * Little Heart River
 * Cannonball River
 * Cedar Creek
 * North Fork Grand River
 * James River
 * New Rockford Canal
 * Pipestem Creek
 * Elm River
 * Maple River

Red River of the North

 * Bois de Sioux River
 * Wild Rice River
 * Sheyenne River
 * Maple River
 * Rush River
 * New Rockford Canal
 * Elm River
 * Goose River
 * Little Goose River
 * Turtle River
 * Forest River
 * Park River
 * Pembina River
 * Tongue River

Souris River

 * Antler Creek
 * Des Lacs River
 * Wintering River
 * Deep River
 * Cut Bank Creek
 * Long Creek

title: List of rivers of North Dakota


text:
Md5sum

md5sum is a computer program that calculates and verifies 128-bit MD5 hashes, as described in RFC 1321. The MD5 hash functions as a compact digital fingerprint of a file. As with all such hashing algorithms, there is theoretically an unlimited number of files that will have any given MD5 hash. However, it is very unlikely that any two non-identical files in the real world will have the same MD5 hash, unless they have been specifically created to do so.

The underlying MD5 algorithm is no longer deemed secure. Thus, while md5sum is well-suited for identifying known files in situations that are not security related, it should not be relied on if there is a chance that files have been purposely and maliciously tampered. In the latter case, the use of a newer hashing tool such as sha256sum is recommended.

md5sum is used to verify the integrity of files, as virtually any change to a file will cause its MD5 hash to change. Most commonly, md5sum is used to verify that a file has not changed as a result of a faulty file transfer, a disk error or non-malicious meddling. The md5sum program is included in most Unix-like operating systems or compatibility layers such as Cygwin.

The original C code was written by Ulrich Drepper and extracted from a 2001 release of glibc.

Examples
All of the following files are assumed to be in the current directory.

File produced
File contains hash and filename pairs:

Please note:
 * After the md5sum value there must be a space followed by either a second space (for text mode) or an asterisk (for binary mode); otherwise, the following error will result: . Many programs don't distinguish between the two modes, but some utils do.
 * The file must also be UNIX line ending formatted, otherwise this will be seen: . dos2unix will convert it quickly if it is DOS/Windows formatted.

On non-GNU UNIX-like systems
md5sum is specific to systems that use GNU coreutils or a clone such as BusyBox. On FreeBSD and OpenBSD the utilities are called md5, sha1, sha256, and sha512. These versions offer slightly different options and features. Additionally, FreeBSD offers the "SKEIN" family of message digests.

title: Md5sum


text:
User:Jwrosenzweig/Projects

Weird Links

 *
 *
 * http://www.burgon.org.uk/society/fellows.html

Things someone ought to write
This Perfect Life (band), The Scarlet Ibis, omnibus edition

title: User:Jwrosenzweig/Projects


text:
Talk:List of Solar System objects

Natural satellite size limit criteria.
What are the criteria for whether a moon gets listed on this page? natural satellite has a fairly complete list of all the moons in the solar system. While it is clear that there are too many to list on this page, there doesn't seem to be criteria as to what should be listed - size seems to be a fairly obvious criterion (i.e. only list moons >100 km in diameter or something), but that is definitely not being followed now. As well, there are some moons which are arguably more "important" than others, but are smaller (i.e. Mars' moons Deimos and Phobos are smaller that many of Jupiter's lesser moons, but are better known). Anyone have any ideas?

-lommer 04:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) P.S. I think it may ultimately be easier to stick with the ad-hoc system thats in use now...

 * The page started out as having moons >1000km (as it says on the line starting with Planets). You just put in Mars' moons, which is the first violation of that criterion. So, in the long-term, we either need to remove Mars' moons or change the criterion. I'll temporarily remove Mars' moons until we settle on the criterion. -- hike395 05:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sedna
It seems that Sedna is a trans-Kuiper object, but not a member of Oort cloud.--Nixer 20:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Until astronomers understand how it got the orbit that it has, its Oort cloud status is very doubtful. I've changed its heading to "Possibly inner Oort Cloud" Deuar 13:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Further to this point, I've tweaked it slightly by placing the description "possibly inner Oort Cloud" following "Sedna". A small change, but I think it makes the theory clearer. (Sedna is thus presented as an SDO that is possibly part of the inner Oort Cloud; with the previous version, there's no connection to the Scattered Disc.) Thoughts? --Ckatz chat spy  21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Better. Deuar 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't the Oort Cloud a hypothetical mass? Thus Sedna is not be a member of the Oort Cloud, since the Oort Cloud is only a proposed mass. Am I missing something, or is that a correct statement? --Iamunknown 14:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose it could be a member of this hypothetical mass (although I doubt it). Deuar 15:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Zones.
A quick Google search only gave me which has "ZONE III (OUTER)  	a = 2.825 to 3.279 AU", some non astronomy articles, and mirrors of this Wikipedia article. Nixer please cite your sources before reverting a zoneless version of the article. — Jeandré, 2005-09-25t11:39z

Templates vs. static duplicated text.
Wouldn't it be better to use the templates since they're usually more complete, more up to date, and will reduce inconsistencies and unnecessary denormalizations? -- Jeandré, 2006-07-15t19:26z

 * I don't know. I entertained that thought. On my third edit of the list, however, I deleted the template (see the diff). I thought that the template was unnecessary because the list had the exact same content. Granted, the list is not as complete as the template, but the list does provides links to other articles/lists by which a user may find every other link exclusively on the template.
 * In his recent edit, however, Tompw added the template back in (see the diff). I think that since both he and I have been bold in removing and then adding the template, that it should now seriously be discussed here.
 * --Iamunknown 15:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I just noticed that the article exclusively has some links, while the template exclusively has others. Both should include at least a link to another list, if not directly to other articles, for all astronomical objects and regions.

 * I think the templates should then be updated to include the missing links, and the templates transcluded into this article. -- Jeandré, 2006-09-16t07:30z

 * Do you propose that the template should be the exclusive content displayed in the article? Or should it be transcluded before or after the existing list? Please elaborate.
 * I identified two additional issues with the template: (1) the article is currently identified as, and organized by, orbit, while the template is not; and (2) it does not currently display a conspicuous nav line to the lists of objects by mass and by radius.
 * I am still unconvinced of the option to exlusively include the template and of the option to include both the template and the current list. (1) While the three lists are not entirely consistent because of the nature of their data, they are all three in their basic forms lists, with information descending vertically down the page. The template, however, is not in its basic form a list. It is organized as a template. To promote the current consistency, I argue that the list should be either exclusively or not exclusively used. (2) To include both the list and the template is merely confusing. The list is by orbit, as the nav line currently identifies this article as, whereas the template is not. To include a list by orbit, and a table not by orbit, is confusing and nonsensical. (3) Furthermore, the list is well-behaved if the viewer has an increased text size, whereas the template does not. The template expands beyond the screen size, which could possibly decrease readability and usability (irreparably or not) on certain mediums. The list, however, expands within the allowed screen size.
 * In review, I argue that the list should be used exclusively in order to reduce confusion, promote consistency, and to ensure both readability and usability.
 * --Iamunknown 07:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The lists are doing a good job, and in this case are more complete than the templates. I think we should keep them the way they are. Furthermore, there are several places in this list where the brief several-word explanations are very useful. Template boxes are not suited for this. Deuar 14:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sortable Wikitable
Shouldn't we merge all the sub-articles (by orbit/mass/radius) into one with a sortable wikitable; like the one in List of countries by population density article. This would look more organized. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 18:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Seems like a nice idea on the face of it, but I don't know... It would be technically messy - As an example, grouping by orbit is best done as a two-tier hierarchy - first by semi-major axis from the Sun, then a separate sort for satellites of each planet. As a technical aside, the sorting of List of countries by population density is badly broken - it sorts by the leading digit, which is useless (for example, placing 9.9 as higher than 85). Is this fixable or a "feature"? Deuar 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

 * There are still some bugs, but if all the cells are filled and it uses only numbers and decimal points (.) (no commas ), it's useful. See List of countries by murder rate. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-19t20:27z

 * Commas are also allowed, provided that leading "&nbsp;" codes are used, and no numbers are negative, see South_America.--Patrick 11:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with the suggestion of the wikitable. Other interesting values for a table would be aphelion, perihelion, eccentricity and temperature, I think. I am starting to draft it here Any idea? --Cyclopia (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Isn't there also some sort of numbering system for solar system bodies? Kortoso (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Include distance from Sun
... for each item. Good idea? Ha! (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Wikitable. Aldenrw (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I realize it's more than two years I don't work on that. Huge shame on me. But I'd be happier to complete it if you know of some database containing such data that I can query automatically, so to build the list with a script (since, if we're going to include asteroids and satellites, it will be a huge list). Any hint? -- Cycl o pia talk  17:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Including distance from the Sun is a great idea. Does anyone have a link to this information?--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Types of Solar System Bodies
The new Venn diagram of solar system bodies is nice, but I think it's wrong: dwarf planets, including trans-Neptunian ones, are also minor planets. That's why they have minor planet numbers. Also, many comets are not trans-Neptunian. Tbayboy (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I'll fix it. tahc chat 03:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Rename suggestion
I think this article should be named List of Solar System objects by orbit.--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Theia
Where is Planet Theia's hypothesis? instead the object ever entered the solar system? what is this current (registered) solar system object. Rhodok Sergeant (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of Solar System objects


text:
Straight man (disambiguation)

A straight man is a member of a comedy act who plays a stooge, feed, or foil.

Straight man may also refer to:

 * A heterosexual man
 * Straight Man, a 1997 novel by Richard Russo

title: Straight man (disambiguation)