text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikidemia

Old talk
I don't think I have the time to help with this, but I'll be very interested in whatever you find out. Maurreen 06:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that I'm not an academic. I just have general and other semi-professional interest (as a journalist). Maurreen 08:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see that you are calling this a WikiProject, but I don't see any indication of a way to sign up as a member. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:27, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'm somewhat intrigued, but still not sure I understand what this project is supposed to be about. How does this square with the "no original research" policy? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:21, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * Let me try to explain and reply. The first two comments below might be enough.
 * This project can organize the discussion of hypotheses about Wikipedia and methods for testing them. Then the "final products" of the project on this site, as I imagine it, will be analogous to existing pages describing summarized facts about Wikipedia. For example, the results of some studies may resemble our prominently-displayed Wikipedia statistics. (Am I right to assume there's no concern about those pages violating the "no original research" policy?)
 * In addition, I expect the project will lead to some research papers that could be submitted to peer-reviewed journals. It would be natural to link to those external articles, like we link to other peer-reviewed articles about Wikipedia, but I agree that the original content probably won't belong here.
 * Third, it seems that the "no original research" policy is primarily intended to discourage theorizing (though I do see that hypothesis testing is also explicitly excluded). If data collection and (relatively theory-free) empirical work results from aspects of this project, it seems natural to make it accessible to everyone.
 * Fourth, and sufficiently controversially I probably don't believe it myself, I could imagine someone arguing that original research projects undertaken from start to finish in full view of the Wikipedia community ought to be provisionally exempt from the "no original research" policy. If everyone had an opportunity to contribute to the design, implementation, and analysis from the start, the results should be mutually agreeable.
 * Lastly, and also perhaps controversially though this I really believe, Wikipedia has a compelling interest in understanding itself. Tobacman 08:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds intriguing, and I will definitely keep an eye on it, but for now I think I will not actually sign on as a participant. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:01, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

1) Perhaps this should be on Meta? 2) Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a project to study Wikipedia itself as an object of research? I think this is a good idea. 3) I think the intro sentence is confusing: "This project, Wikidemia, is intended to organize linkages between Wikipedia and academia... — Matt 10:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I considered putting it on Meta, and perhaps that would still be a better home. In the end I decided to put it on the English Wikipedia instead because it didn't seem to fit cleanly among the roles described on the About page; and I thought it would be easiest (less coordinating) and most interesting (biggest numbers) to focus initially on research about the English version. It would also be very nice to have a project on Meta (a parent to this one) that would link to research projects on each language's site and organize research on meta-issues like interlanguage cooperation.
 * Yes, this is a project on research about Wikipedia... and thanks!
 * Great, I'll revise... Tobacman 18:20, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Original research
Re: the comments above: So, maybe i misuderstand what this is about, but i dont think that it would be publishing anything in the main article space, and so is completely exempt from the "no original research" rule. Best of luck, i think its a great idea. The bellman 09:52, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

I've just stumbled across this project and realise that it's exactly what I'm doing for my Master's degree. You can see more info on my user page or see what another wikipedian has posted onto meta with my pilot questionnaire and some suggestions for research here. However, I am also wary of this no original research caveat, and in no way want to violate this, though I think that this should be a part of wikipedia (ie. the community) and accessible to it throughout. One suggestion I got was to have this as a Wikisource project - any opinions on this? I should make it known that I am still relatively new to Wikipedia (though not as new as my user details suggest) and am not yet fully aware of the intricacies of the Wikimedia structure. Cormaggio 15 Dec 2004

Agree that the English language encyclopedia restriction on publication of original research as articles is inapplicable. That's about getting citable sources and not personal essays or junk science and unsupported UFO stories, not about research about Wikipedia itself. Jamesday 14:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Something I'd love to see studied
I'd love to see a study of anonymous contributions to Wikipedia. What percentage are vandalism, what percentage are corrections, what percentage in correct English. Does this vary on new vs. existing articles? How does the percentage of new anonymous article VfD'd or speedy-deleted compare to logged-in users, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:18, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Even though the post is extremely old, i still think that answering it might bring even more ideas for table. I am currently conducting a research that will try to see if critical/unique ideas are brought to the table depending on the anonymous state of the user(real name, pseudonym, completely anonymous). Generally the research tests whether an individual will conform with crowd that has a different opinion to his, or he will propose the alternative solution that he has in mind. The differences between the anonymity states are compared. Currently the project is pending approval for subject recruitment by the Rcom so if you have any ideas or comments that could help the research move forward feel free to visit the meta:Research:Anonymity_and_conformity_over_the_net page. --Tsikerdekis (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My background is in psychology, so I'm very interested in any research into those aspects of Wikipedia. I don't think the No original research policy is an issue at all since this is research into Wikipedia which would presumably be published elsewhere, or placed in the Wikipedia namespace, on Meta, or in publications such as Quarto, rather than being about adding articles to the main namespace of the encyclopedia. The research could have implications for the wider project, not just the English Wikipedia, even if it is only the English Wikipedia that is studied at first, so Meta might seem a more appropriate venue, although will potentially draw less traffic than the page would here. It would be good to have the research projects known by the wider community so similar studies can be done on the other languages and sister projects. However, perhaps that can be achieved by having an introduction at Meta with the actual project being placed on each different wiki and linked to from there. Angela. 09:18, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

A self-documenting research population?
While being involved in the dispute over the inclusion in the Charles Darwin article of a bit of trivia about Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin having the same date of birth, I realized that social scientists might find the Wikipedia interesting source material for their research. Before sociologists and others start digging through page histories, etc. and begin to analyze the interactions of various individuals and groups involved in the Wikipedia, I think that it might be appropriate to develop some guidlines and policies that would cover such research. gK ¿? 19:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I've been dabbling in computational sociology and UML interaction diagrams for a while now mostly on semi-professional IRC networks, but I've never see anything like #wikipedia on freenode. I've started a topic below to develop some research methods on the live network. I have noticed some patterns of behavior that are quite astounding and worthy of documentation, at least. I really don't know if there is any science to it, but it sure is fun. Quinobi 15:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it's inevitable that people will start using the page histories and talk pages to do sociological research, but I also think it's a practice most users engage in anyway. I've always found it useful (long before deciding to research Wikipedia) to find details out about editors, and the thing that interests me is that you can only extrapolate from what a user allows you to know about them. I found that when I first started using the site, I made a lot of assumptions about people based on fitting them into categories that I'd already determined, and I'm of the opinion that this is very dangerous, and also quite tempting for lazy researchers.

 * Hopefully researchers will perceive the potential in the Wikipedia for a different type of group interaction. I mean that there is always the danger that a project such as Wikipedia will fragment into subcultures, interest groups and political lobbies/parties - each with their own specialised, and perhaps incompatible, epistemologies. Conversely, the strength of the project might lie in contributors who feel released from the obligation to constantly work towards one point of view. I think it would be best if researchers don't attempt to slot the Wikipedia users into the same pre-existing social categories which already promote disputes on certain topics. illWill 7 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)

Outcome variables
Variables worth watching, as measures of the effects of one or another study or change (randomized or not). Variance could be observed by week, across the discontinuity of a new popular article, a new software upgrade, a new Main Page template, etc; across groups of users or the lifecycle of a particular user (cross-referenced with some distinct measure of lifecycle or group affiliation).

Overall averages

 * % of contribs by anons, by top-1000 users; for FAs, for stubs...
 * % of articles at FA status

Article detail

 * Article quality : depth, accuracy, breadth of 2dary/1ary resources | both abslolute and compared to other reference works
 * Article use : # of reads, # of reads by distinct IPs
 * Article edits : # of distinct contributors, # of edits (on diefferent days?), length, persistence of content over time (use h-flow diffs?)
 * Per-article authorship : % of article contributed by top (1, 2, 3) contrib(s) [via h-flow], % contirbuted in past week/month

Users

 * per-author authorship: h-flow % authorship for current v. of an article, max % over history, time since significant contribution
 * Amt of time spent on the site (# of distinct hours with views, with edits)
 * Amt of content contributed (by namespace, by day/week/month)
 * Amt of content still in use (above, piped through h-flow)
 * # of posts to user's talk page | by user to others' talk pages
 * # of articles on user's watchlist | # of articles primarily edited by user
 * data on these pages ; # of edits to those pages, to their talk pages
 * # of intrawiki links *to* these articles | from them to other articles
 * distribution of user's edits over previously-edited articles, prmary articles, new articles, creating new aricles

Citable papers?
If people working on this are aware of citable papers about Wikipedia, especially with reference to the demographics of the contributors, could you drop a note on Talk:Wikipedia about what is out there? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

To Secure Accreditation
Academia strives to maintain an accredited status, so academia requires resources of knowledge that can fit that goal. We can provide articles that acheieve the standards required under an accreditation process.

Most of this wikidemia project includes statistics, so far. To secure accreditation, we could study methodology that improves quality of articles, also. Perhaps, a certification that an article meets a certain standard can be given.

 * What elements do accreditation boards look at when they consider the resources of knowlegde that a particular college uses?
 * What are the different kinds of certifications an article can acheieve to meet a required standard on a resource?
 * Does the certification process help or hinder an open contribution environment like wikipedia?
 * What is needed, like a statistic enumeration of certified articles over uncertifiable, to justify wikipedia, or a subset or it, as a viable resource in accreditation standards?

It seems very unlikely that any wiki can qualify under some types of accreditation. How do you accredit an article about god which can be changed to contain only the text "42" at any time? The bad side of academic standards was seen in the project which preceded Wikipedia and failed after a very large investment, with less than one hundred articles. Jamesday 14:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In a two step suggestion, allow the history to show what versions are certified, and allow users an option to only display the most recently certified version (instead of the most recent) on normal article view. Have a dialog or icon display on article view if the article was ever certified and note if it is the most recent version, like a grayed icon versus a vivid icon. I wouldn't suggest a strict policy to make every article conform. Perhaps, some articles could be voted on to allow certificates. Mr. Ballard 00:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Writing an MA dissertation (Media & Cultural Studies) on Wikipedia
I'm really glad I discovered this page, as I'm writing my MA dissertation on the Wikipedia, and am very concerned that my research should reflect the spirit of the wiki itself. For this reason, I've provided a short summary of my research on my user page, and hope to get into contact with like-minded people (both academics and otherwise) to discuss the ideas that I have about the Wikipedia.

I won't write much about my ideas here (as they are outlined on my user page illWill) but will say that I am addressing the Wikipedia as a democratic structure. I don't mean in the sense of a parliamentary democracy, but rather in terms of a collaborative project which encourages people to work together for a common good.

I aim to show that teh strength of the Wikipedia lies in an attribute most commonly cited as a weakness: its unreliability. I want to show that the constantly-changing nature of the Wikipedia should demonstrate that knowledge is seldom fixed, and also to demonstrate how the discussion pages, history and user talk pages demonsrate the path of any item of knowledge into the Wikipedia, and the state of the debates surrounding any issue. I'm sorry if this is a bit vague and maybe a little pretencious at the moment, I'm just starting on my research, and decided that it would be in the spirit of the wiki to start posting it as soon as I could, even if my ideas were a bit half-baked.

Please get in touch at my talk page illWill 22:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Right...
I joined ages ago, and here's my contribution.

A solution to edit wars would be to allow users to edit a page a maximum of two times a month. This would stop edit wars. Personal pages and talk pages should be excluded. (User:Computerjoe 28 May 2005)

 * Terrible idea, in my view, on several counts:
 * Totally screws people with a slow connection who can only edit a section at a time.
 * Makes in-place translation work almost impossible: almost no one does a translation at one shot, they do it piece-by-piece over the course of days.
 * Means that if someone notices they typo'd during an edit, they are discouraged from fixing it.
 * Means that someone actively researching a topic essentially has to do their writing elsewhere, then only upload the article when it is completed. Especially so for those who have only minutes a day to work on this.
 * Makes it almost impossible to protect an article from vandalism
 * Discourages the desirable practice of separating copy editing, content changes, and restructuring into separate edits.

I could go on at more than triple this length, but I think this is enough. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:29, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Edit wars, or discussion about the contents of Wiki articles, are not a problem for the Wiki - they are what is is all about; the very reason that the Wiki is interesting at all is that it provides a framework in which we are forced to find common ground in our beliefs. Computerjoe's idea would simply kill the Wikipedia, overnight. Banno 06:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes!
This is what I like! I want as much in-depth comprehensive information about the how and the why and who and the what behind wikipedia. I'm not an academic. My only background is in surfing the internet, sleeping, and eating, and I am well versed in these practices. Jaberwocky6669 June 28, 2005 08:25 (UTC)

Spiral reasoning
The Article Wikidemia is (will be) about Academic use of Wiki-styled web technologies. It goes back to Ward Cunningham and forward. Wikipedia is mentioned as "a popular wiki encyclopedia" I put a draft of it /Wikidemia here to keep it out of deletionist hands till it's done enough for the main namespace. Quinobi 8 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)

managing WikiProjects quazi-centrist style
from User_talk:Radiant!, User_talk:Tobacman and other places.
 * Can we get some clarity here? I'm overwhelmed. Quinobi 23:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

WikipediaIRC
I personally think it's ridiculous to have such a large channel. It can be fun, comical and interesting as a social gathering place, but from what I can tell, there is not much productive administration going on there - usually just mass confusion. Quinobi 04:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * That's a fair comment, but what is its exact relevance to the Wikidemia project? Are you suggesting another channel? For what? I think you'll find, if you're looking for "productive administration" on IRC, you won't find much support there; instead comments like: "IRC_is_not_Wikipedia". I think people find it nice to be able to just shoot the breeze without the constraints of Wikipedia's policies - excepting reasonable civility, of course. Cormaggio 10:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm - maybe I didn't understand what you were driving at - and I hadn't seen the mention of IRC on the main project page - but I'd still welcome any thoughts or clarifications you had on this point. Cormaggio 14:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

New member -- possible project
I've known about this page for a long time but decided not to sign up until I had something to contribute. I have recently endeavered to undertake a massive project. Other Wikipedians and I are going through every third month of the RfA candidacies and taking note of certain phrases and reasonings behind successful and unsuccessful adminships. We are doing this in order to gain an understanding of WP's adminship ideaology as it stands now and how it has changed over time. This information may have myriad uses as well such as influencing policy. If you would like to contribute in anyway whatsoever and that includes gathering information or deciding what kind of information should be gathered then you may do so here: RfA Idealogy Analysis. Soon I would like to move this into the wikipedia namespace and out of my userspace. Thank you and have a good day (or night). Jaberwocky6669 | ☎  03:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Does "idealogy" mean something distinct from "ideology"? It's not in my dictionary, so I'm guessing that it is a misspelling; I don't see how that word "ideology" is appropriate to this context. Am I missing something here? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It was a misspelling. I mean to use it by the definition that yourdictionary.com gives: "A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system." I know it's a little over the top but let's have some fun here too ya know? Jaberwocky6669 | ☎  01:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Impact
This projects has a lots of potential, but it also needs major help. For over a month now I have been gathering information on 'Wikipedia as a research tool' and 'Wikipedia as a teaching tool', and I just stumbled now on this project by accident (redirect from Research). It is not linked from almost any important pages, most places that link here are user pages, talk pages or other projects. Especially such important page as Researching with Wikipedia did not even mention this project (and vice versa)! The bottom line is that majority of academics/researchers/scientists have no idea how to correctly use Wiki, and even researchers familiar with it (and registered as Wikipedians) are very unlikely to find it. My solution: I would like to make a more user friendly portal, linking pages from Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers and then link it from various important pages (preferably via nice template on all related category pages). I even think that this would be worthy of including in MediaWiki software as a possible link from a toolbox. We have a decent help system, but our tools for serious, academic researchers are hard to find - and I do think that one of our goals should be to promote Wiki to the academic community. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Research and Wikimedia Research Network
Greets all. I've been looping through all research related pages for quite some time this afternoon and feel the need to distinguish this group from activities on meta. It seems that research ideas and collaboration is best placed on Research. However, this group can certainly accomplish much as a local instance of that movement? There is an irc meeting this Sunday for Wikimedia Research Network, make it if you can. ∴ here…♠ 23:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

General User Survey
I stumbled upon this recently, it seems to be dead (no activity for almost a year), but the survey is mostly completed. I think this survey is an excellent idea, and it needs only a little extra effort to be finished. I hope some of you will be interested in carrying this out, I most certainly volunteer to help with this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Bot for researchers
For those interested in some statistical analysis of users behaviour, I have suggested a possible new bot at Bot_requests, feel free to add your comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Contacting WP editors.
Please see Wikipedia talk:Spam -- Jeandré, 2006-12-17t10:32z

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia in amateur studies
I have compiled a list of studies published in Wikipedia space, as well as useful tools published here: see Researching Wikipedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Special priviliges to those w/ doctorate degrees?
A lot of criticisms towards Wikipedia revolve around the criticism that many of the contributions are from non-experts. Would it be possible, (or even desirable), to design a policy that gives special priviliges of some kind to those with degrees such as: PhD, EdD, DEng, EngD, DBA, DD, JCD, SSD, JUD, DSc, DLitt, DA, DMH, MD, DMA, DMus, DCL, ThD, DrPH, DPT, DPhil, PsyD, DSW, LLD, LHD, JSD, SJD, JuDr, STD, DMin? When I say "priviliges", I mean some kind of policy that may help quell some of the criticisms of those with this level of education, and perhaps even attract more people with these sorts of degrees? EPM 19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I think the admin system needs to be expanded a little to create more than a two step hierarchy. This could be something like 'New editor', 'Experienced editor', 'Expert in X field' etc. Having some official title for non-admins leading certain projects, or experts in certain fields, would give them some authority in their area. As an example, there may be an expert in palaeontology who is given authority over related categories etc, allowing them to, say, ban a crank editor pushing pseudo-scientific claims and generally being a pest. Experts should probably be given higher authority than admins, but only within their field. Richard001 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

new article about WP
What open access research can do for Wikipedia by John Willinsky http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_3/willinsky/ too long for a summary right now--I've only just seen it. Basically a discussion of how we could do better sourcing with available Open access sources; some of his specific examples seem a little besides the point, but i have the highest respect for his work in general. (First Monday is an online librarianship journal) DGG 08:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Statistics department and Wikidemia
I propose the Statistics Department and this project merge into one - neither is particularly active and they basically cover similar areas. It would be nice to see some active research, and merging them into one project would at least create a comprehensive project as a starting point. Richard001 02:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Classroom coordination
A new project coordinates with professional educators who assign students to edit Wikipedia articles. It links here as a related project. Durova Charge! 19:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Study on welcoming new users
Howdy, I have to start with an apology. I only discovered this project a few minutes ago, so I may be duplicating someone else's effort and/or stepping on some research toes here. Inspired by the recently completed vandalism study, I ran a short randomized experiment on the effect welcoming new users had on their editing behavior. The write up is at User:TeaDrinker/Welcome study (just posted). The primary outcome was that (non-vandalizing) editors who were welcomed were more likely to edit (p=0.059) than those who did not.

I am happy to move the page into a project space if there is a common space, if this is common practice and/or a good idea. I am more than happy to share the data as well, although I am a bit worried about the privacy of the users, since they did not consent (and were probably not even aware) they were in a study (although a bit of sluthing as to who I welcomed could uncover the identities.

If anyone has any feedback I would welcome it, and if anyone sees a way to extend the analysis, that would be fantastic. Criticsm on the writing (which is not my best), or anything else would be very welcome as well. Thanks, and again, my apologies if someone else was looking at this question too. --TeaDrinker 20:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Great idea for a study, and interesting results. The sample size is pretty large and there was random sampling, so it does seem to lend support to the benefits of welcoming new users. A simpler question reading the study raises for me is what fraction of new users are actually welcomed, and after how long, on average? Richard001 08:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I think yours is a good idea for a study. (Thanks also for correcting some typos in the study!)  In terms of doing your study, I am not sure the best way to get a random selection of users, but several options occur to me
 * Condition on recieving a welcome. Put a category for say, one day (or less) in all welcome templates, and see what the distribution of number of edits, time since registration, etc. for those who are welcomed.
 * Condition on editing. Select a number of individuals who have edited, via recent changes (or other methods), and determine whether or not they have been welcomed, and if so how long ago.
 * Look at old newuser logs and select a random/systematic sample from them.
 * Stratify. Find the joint distribution of metrics like number of edits, time since registration, etc. and sample from a variety of locations to ensure there is a representative sample of the community.  From this sample, measure the variables related to welcoming which we're interested in.
 * The first option is somewhat invasive (enough that I think it would require community approval), and it will be a little tricky to back calculate the percent of users welcomed, since we won't see the ones not welcomed. Since community approval would require some level of publicity, I also don't know how well the results could be representative of past behavior.
 * A variant of number 1 would be to watch RC for welcomes being given. It would be slow to generate data, and probably also be tricky to interpret.
 * Number 2 is perhaps my favorite. It disproportionately catches those who have made more edits, so some careful thought would have to go into the probability model used to examine it.  For instance, if a user makes lots of small edits, they are more likely to show up on RC, but I don't know that they are more likely to be welcomed than a user who makes one subatantive edit.  We would also certainly miss all the users who were welcomed and don't edit.
 * Number 3 would be great, except I don't think the newuser log is accessible for more than a day or two. If there is a technical means of getting around this problem, I think this would be useful.
 * Number 4 is fairly labor intensive to do background work (although that would be interesting for other studies).
 * An easier question to answer, who is making current edits? A selection of RC could be analyzed, including with whether the user was welcomed.  This is not quite the same question, but would perhaps be interesting.  With some additional work, it could also be used to estimate percent of edits by type (minor change, vandalism, major content addition, etc.) and user (IP, new user, established user).
 * There is probably some other methods I am not thinking of here, but I think it is a great idea to do! Cheers, --TeaDrinker 22:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of...
...Ben Franklin's various scientific associations, especially the intentioned studies list! 68.39.174.238 15:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Research using wikipedia as a corpus
Hey guys, I'm a NLP researcher and I plan to use wikipedia as corpus to do statistical machine learning. As a biproduct of this I intend to produce a plain-text snapshot of wikipedia, suitable for use by other NLPists. Wikipedia is a great body of contemporary English text on a wide variety of subjects and I think it should be used for corpus work more often that it has been. Does anyone know of similar work? Should I add myself to this project? Cmouse 17:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

 * As a long term goal we are preparing corpus statistics based on Wikipedia snapshots at the University of Leipzig accessible via the web in a way similiar to http://corpora.uni-leipzig.de/. Some time ago I implemented a proof of concept with the German February 2005 snapshot at http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/WP/ . (User:Meep in de.wikipedia) 139.18.2.70 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Cmouse, please see this. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A new study
I've done a quick survey of reference use, available at the subpage WikiProject Wikidemia/Use of referencing and assessment. The main finding was that 70% of articles cite no references. It isn't intended to be a very serious study in itself, but provides some basic information on reference use and assessment, and provides suggestions for future studies. Richard001 04:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion and school projects
I see I posted this at the wrong wikiproject Deletion of teacher assigned projects Kopachuk Middle School...there has been a reply to whit that the student in order to meet his teacher's pre-requisite had to use user space rather than article space. Why invite teachers and students to learn and write articles on wikipedia if they are deleted? It seems moot. SriMesh | talk  16:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is another school project where the teacher has asked the kids to write about local Edmonton bands which got speedy deleted, and the kids are giving up and asking why bother with the teacher's assignment if they won't stay on wikipedia. band article deletion The articles created at this Unannounced class project for the most part survived AFD, and they received help from various wikipedians about manual of style to help them through the AFD nominations. SriMesh | talk  23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject membership - Admins - coordinators
Can this Wikipedia talk:School and university projects page have membership and admins -perhaps through wikiproject Education  or its child projects, WikiProject Education in Australia, WikiProject Education in Canada, WikiProject Universities, WikiProject Schools, WikiProject School Years, WikiProject Alternative education, WikiProject Homeschooling... to help find articles which come onto wikipedia as is above and get deleted before it is discovered they are part of a class project, so that the teacher/students can be contacted about templates etc. This message also posted at the other wikiprojects as well. Kind Regards SriMesh |  talk  23:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * found it Classroom coordination with coordinators, and instructions for students with contacts. Tis already made.  SriMesh |  talk  23:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing books for the Wikipedia Signpost
The Signpost is seeking more reviewers for a range of upcoming and recent books related to Wikipedia. Sign up at the review desk.--ragesoss (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WIkipedia research review
Hey, I am re-posting here because I thought people might be interested in a proposal I recently submitted to Village_pump_(proposals). The gestalt of the proposal is that Wikipedia needs a review system to both protect itself from questionable research activities and to allow good research to take place within the system. Currently research involving anything other than the database snapshots is difficult because there is no formal policy related to research within Wikipedia. --EpochFail (talk|contribs) 18:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That does sound interesting. Could you phrase it in terms of empowering researchers to do more effective work, rather than a 'review system' which sounds like a filtering and approval process? [if a filter/approval process: for what?  do we publish a journal of the best papers?  give only approved works access to special tools?] +sj +  15:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Fundraising discussion and research
See Fundraising_2010/Committee -- a change from earlier instances of fundraising committees, and open to general participation! –SJ + 20:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Status
The project is categorized inactive. Has it been [unofficially] merged with one of the other Research pages? --Rhododendrites (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikidemia


text:
Amsterdam, Saskatchewan

Amsterdam is a hamlet within the Rural Municipality of Buchanan No. 304, Saskatchewan, Canada. Listed as a designated place by Statistics Canada, the hamlet had a population of 25 in the Canada 2016 Census. The hamlet is located 63.9 km north of the city of Yorkton and 1.5 km west of Highway 9. The community was founded at the turn of the 20th century by Dutch immigrants, hence the name. In its prime, the community had a post office, grain elevator, garage, and a school. It, like many small towns, has been hit hard by the gradual trend toward urbanization. The hamlet now has fewer than 25 people; most are of Ukrainian descent.

Demographics
In the 2021 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada, Amsterdam had a population of 30 living in 13 of its 14 total private dwellings, a change of NaN% from its 2016 population of 25. With a land area of 0.3 km2, it had a population density of in 2021.

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

title: Amsterdam, Saskatchewan


text:
Chris Taylor (wrestler)

Christopher J. Taylor (June 13, 1950 – June 30, 1979) was an American super-heavyweight wrestler. He competed in freestyle and Greco-Roman events at the 1972 Summer Olympics and won a bronze medal in the freestyle. At 412 pounds (187 kg), he was the heaviest Olympian ever until the appearance of judoka Ricardo Blas Jr. in 2008 (weight limits have since been imposed).

Amateur wrestling
The 6 ft 5 in (196 cm) Taylor wrestled for Dowagiac High School in Dowagiac, Michigan, Muskegon Community College in Muskegon, Michigan, and Iowa State University (winning the NCAA heavyweight championship in 1972 and 1973 by defeating Greg Wojciechowski and Jim Hagen, respectively), and won the bronze medal at the 1972 Olympics. He lost only to Aleksandr Medved. It appeared Medved was stalling, but the referee awarded a point to the Soviet, charging Taylor with a lack of action. Later admitting that he felt sorry for Medved because of Taylor's size, the referee was dismissed from the Olympic tournament and banned from international officiating. In the Greco-Roman competition, Taylor was unexpectedly suplexed and pinned by a much lighter Wilfried Dietrich, whom he defeated a week before in the freestyle contest.

Professional wrestling career
Taylor wrestled professionally in the American Wrestling Association. His debut was in 1973 vs Rene Goulet. Taylor faced various wrestlers, among them future star Ric Flair. Taylor, trained by Verne Gagne and Billy Robinson, was being groomed to be a major star. Chronic health problems limited the amount of work he could do, and said problems forced him to retire from the ring in 1977. He is often seen in video highlights shown at the AWA training camp, most notably in the WWE DVD releases The Spectacular Legacy Of the AWA and The Definitive Ric Flair Collection. Also appears in a clip on The Nature Boy, an ESPN 30 for 30 documentary about Ric Flair's life. He defeated Flair.

Taylor's finishing move was a variation of the bearhug.

Personal life
On September 9, 1973, Taylor married Lynn Hart. He died of cardiovascular complications at his home in Story City, Iowa, at the age of 29, two years after health problems caused him to retire from professional wrestling. He is buried in Riverside Cemetery in Dowagiac, Michigan. The couple had one daughter.

Championships and accomplishments

 * National Wrestling Hall of Fame
 * Distinguished Member (Class of 2012)
 * Iowa State Wrestling Hall Of Fame
 * Class of 2012
 * George Tragos/Lou Thesz Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame
 * Class of 2013

title: Chris Taylor (wrestler)


text:
William Chauvenet

William Chauvenet (24 May 1820 in Milford, Pennsylvania – 13 December 1870 in St. Paul, Minnesota) was a professor of mathematics, astronomy, navigation, and surveying who was instrumental in the establishment of the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, and later the second chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis.

Early life
William Chauvenet was born on a farm near Milford, Pennsylvania to Guillaume Marc Chauvenet, a former soldier of Napoleon's army reconverted in silk trade after the Emperor's fall, and Mary B. Kerr and was raised in Philadelphia. He entered Yale University at age 16, and graduated in 1840 with high honors. While at Yale, Chauvenet contributed to the school newspaper and was a pianist with the Beethoven Society. He was one of eight founding members of the Skull and Bones Society.

United States Navy
In 1841, he was appointed a professor of mathematics in the United States Navy, and for a while served on the USS Mississippi teaching math. His professorship led Chauvenet to see the necessity of a United States naval academy. While others had proposed the idea, no one had actually seen it through. In 1842, he was appointed head of the naval asylum in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. At the Naval Asylum, prospective officers took an eight-month course before sailing. Chauvenet felt the course was lacking and drew up his own plan for a two-year course. Presenting to several secretaries of the navy, the course was finally accepted in 1845.

He was instrumental in the 1845 founding of the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, and taught there for years. He was president of the academic board and in 1851 was part of a board that recommended the course of study be extended to four years. Chauvenet taught in many subjects, including mathematics, surveying, astronomy, and navigation. He helped to establish an astronomical observatory at the naval academy. Chauvenet's contributions were so important that in 1890, Admiral S.R. Franklin proclaimed him "Father of the Naval Academy". A bronze plaque was installed with this inscription in 1916, at the behest of Congress.

In 1855, he declined Yale's offer of a professorship of mathematics to continue working at the Naval Academy in Annapolis.

Washington University
In 1859, Yale again came calling, offering this time the professorship of astronomy and natural philosophy. Instead, Chauvenet took a job offered by Washington University in St. Louis: professor of mathematics and astronomy. He brought with him a deep love of music and a familiarity with the classics, in addition to being an outstanding figure in the world of science, noted by many historians as one of the foremost mathematical minds in the U.S. before the Civil War. It was Chauvenet who mathematically confirmed James B. Eads' plans for the first bridge to span the Mississippi River at St. Louis. The directors of the University chose him to be chancellor after his friend and Yale classmate Joseph Hoyt died in 1861. He came to his chancellorship in the midst of the Civil War in a state divided by the question of slavery.

Washington University grew during his chancellorship, adding dozens of professors, hundreds of students, and several new programs, including the law school in 1867. He served as vice president of the United States National Academy of Sciences and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and was a member of both the American Philosophical Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Chauvenet authored many treatises and textbooks, including A Manual of Spherical and Practical Astronomy and Theory of the Ribbed Arch. The calculations of Chauvenet and Charles Pfeiffer were used by James Buchanan Eads in designing and building the Eads Bridge in St. Louis.

Chauvenet served as chancellor until his death in 1870. William Greenleaf Eliot, founder of Washington University, succeeded him as chancellor. Chauvenet died in St. Paul, Minnesota, and was buried at Bellefontaine Cemetery in St. Louis.

Posthumous honors
After his death, the Mathematical Association of America established a prestigious prize in his honor, the Chauvenet Prize; the Naval Academy named a mathematics building for him; and the U.S. Navy christened two ships after him, USS Chauvenet (AGS-11) and. The Chauvenet crater on the moon is named after him as well. Mount Chauvenet in the Rocky Mountains is named after him.

Cultural references
Chauvenet is referenced in NCIS: Los Angeles, S6, E2, as the name of a Deep Net site.

title: William Chauvenet


text:
Talk:Morning star (weapon)

Comments
Is it intentional that the first sentence of the article defines a morning star as having a chain (unlike a mace)?

"The morning star is a medieval weapon consisting of a spiked ball on a chain, resembling a mace, usually with a long spike extending straight from the top and many smaller spikes around the particle of the head."

I thought that the weapon with a shaft, chain, and spiked ball or balls was referred to as a flail? I note also that the picture shows a weapon with no chain, and the immediate discussion talks about how morning stars differ from maces - without mentioning anything about the fact that maces don't have chains. It seems to me that the word 'chain' should be replaced by 'shaft'.

.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.236.254 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

"holy water sprinkler (from its resemblance to the aspergillum sometimes used in the Catholic Mass)."

.... isn't that on a chain connected to a stick? doesn't that contradict:

"the name "morning star" is often erroneously applied to the military flail (also known as the therscol), a similar weapon, but with the head attached by a short chain."

 * isn't that on a chain connected to a stick?—I've never seen one that was made in such a fashion. This photograph depicts a typical aspergillum; as you can see its head is attached directly to its handle. —No-One Jones (m) 07:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If a morning star is distinct from a flail, why is it illustrated with a picture of one? Franey 09:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no common agreement about the terms. MathKnight 00:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Tonight, I noticed that in the Dungeons & Dragons 3.5e book, the picture of a morning star matches this description. One of my player's has expressed disbelief, calling that mace. I think actually the term "Morning Star" refers not to the weapon, but to the ball of spikes on the end of it. Therefore the correct usage would be to say "Morning Star Flail" or "Morning Star Mace". Its not clear cut however, and I think someone should ask a real Medieval Historian. -- NathanO 13:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If I recall correctly morning star can have a short chain connecting the 'star' to the handle as opposed to shorter handle and longer chain of flail. 11:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The "holy water sprinkler" is another name for a type of Flail (weapon). Any weapon with a heavy mass connected to a short haft by a chain falls under the category of flail, not morningstar (whether flanged, spiked, or a just simple iron lump).

And morningstars are distinct from maces in that they have a long spike protruding from the head of the weapon. Other than that, they can be smooth, or spiked elsewhere along the metal of the head.

The "goedendag" is like a morningstar, but is more of a polearm. It was an metal spike jammed into the end of a shaft of wood, and bound by an iron ring to prevent the wood around the spike from splitting. It was quite versatile and could be used like the pike it most resembled, or could be swung to smack things with the heavy ring area. The goedendag really deserves its own article, under polearms. - CW

I compleatly agree with Nantho on this one and that the discription can be placed on any type of weapon as long as it has the spiky head Dobington

The second sentence of the first paragraph describes the weapon as being designed to both use blunt force and puncture to kill or wound the enemy. This is a common misconception. The reason for the spikes was not to puncture armor but instead to allow the star to bite into armor to better allow it to transfer its energy into the person wearing the armor. Medieval armor is designed to be smooth to cause weapons to glance off their surfaces without allowing the energy to be transferred to the person wearing them but by adding spikes, the weapon has a better chance of not glancing off the armor but it isn't designed to penetrate the armor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.91.178 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Interwiki
Can of worms, I know, but this article is connected by mutual interwiki to Fléau d'armes. Does Fléau d'armes really mean morningstar, or should that article be linked to Flail (weapon) instead? --Iustinus 22:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like over there they merged morning star and flail together in one article. Sgtlion (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture
There is a conflict with a local (en) image called Morgenstern.jpg --Avatar-en 08:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Godentag
I don't think godendag should be included within "Morning Star". The illustration I saw had it as a stout club with a single spike on the end. With a long club, you can poke someone with the single spike for nasty damage, and then use it as a club later. I've seen a period illustration of it. I apologize, but I cannot seem to find the site right now. Theblindsage (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Goedendag
Goedendag is indeed not the correct therm for this weapon. Although there is still confusion about it in popular culture. But a goedendag is a very different weapon indeed. Thus I removed the word from the article.

Bobby Siecker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.240.189 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Holy Weapon?
I can't remember the 'star being "holy" in D&D, or in any other fantasy/medieval game I've played (if anything, the ordinary (non-spiked) mace gains that role). I can't vouch for Knight Online, since I haven't played it. 81.16.160.34 (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How can you need a citation for that?
How do you need a citation to confirm the fact that Havik uses a morning star? It's not an opinion, it's a fact. The game is there, anyone can see that. Would anyone write "The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 meters per second (citation needed)"? No, so why would anyone need a citation to see that Havik uses a morning star? Devil Master (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely you are asking for a rationale approving Original Research? I don't have this game, i never will; so how can i be sure that what WP has is correct?  Because it is verifiable from published sources.  Cheers, Lindsay 19:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The game itself is a source. Using your rationale I should go around asking for every citation from material I can't get access to be replaced — this is sure to work splendidly when looking for sources on incredibly rare esoteric documents; which themselves may also be rare. No, the problem isn't that the game isn't a credible published source, the problem here is the game isn't cited.
 * To be frank though, I'm sick of all the various [citation needed] crap everywhere. It's far too frequently used on things that are neither unintuitive, controversial, or difficult to confirm. It's getting to the point on some articles where every second sentence is sourced, sometimes more than twice. –Xoid 06:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Terminology
I quote from the articulated clubs section of "Weapons, An International Encyclopedia from 5000B.C. to 2000 A.D." from the Diagram Group ISBN 0-312-03950-6 :

"Articulated clubs use flexibilty in some form to multiply the force of a blow and to make it more difficult to parry. The simplest were war-flails, adaptations of the grain-threshing tool. More effective against armor were clubs of the "morning star" type, a spiked ball on a chain"

The acknowledgements page of this book refers to many world-wide military museums and esteemed personages of military society and study so it's safe to say they are a fairly accurate and reliable source.

Also can I just point out that when discussing serious historical tools of war can I remind the Role-playing community that it would be better to quote a source that wasn't derived from mythology and story telling. Kinda detracts from the authenticity of it all when I keep reading things like "In the 3.5 rule book of D&D..." like it was a reputable piece of literature on European warfare or; "That's not right, On Fanboy Online it says...". Rant over Ah-thankyou. --Cruxinshale (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming & categories
I've visited the site and while here done a bit of tidying, referencing etc. However, before devoting any more time to this, I'd like to ask some basic questions

Is the title correct? The morningstar is only one of the weapons dealt with. Would Medieval Spiked Clubs be better? Or should it be stripped back to just the forms of Morningstar, with linking references to weapons like the Mace and flail ? Should Goedendag be here at all? It is quite different to the other weapons, lacking a bulbous head and multiple spikes. It also has it's own (better referenced) Wikipedia entry Goedendag. Should this content be combined with that?

The other thing to note is that there are actually some good books that have been used to create this article but there is no proper inline citation. Can't do it myself as I don't own the books. There are also some strange assertions, which need citations (like Blind John of Bohemia).

I am happy to work on this article, if we have some structural consensus and others possessed of references can drop them in. Monstrelet (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge meteor hammer into morning star?
The intro and picture on the article misrepresent it, as the article later says that it includes things that are flails with things on the end too (which is what a morning star usually refers to in contemporary usage). On that level it is basically the same as meteor hammer and the two pages should probably be merged with a writeup on how two cultures came to develop the same thing rather than treating them as totally different! --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

 * But they are totally different. A morningstar is a rigid weapon. It gets its name from the star-like arrangement of spikes on the top. The thing with a chain with things on the end is a  flail. It is hard to see how the meteor hammer can fit in this article. --Monstrelet (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

 * You can't really combine the articles because the meteor hammer's operation and function are completely different from the flail/morning star. The morning star uses leverage and mass to destroy the opponent, whereas the meteor hammer uses mostly speed. No. --67.41.246.29 (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Concur. A flexible weighted whiplike weapon is not similar in function to a morning star--a mass weapon. --Mzmadmike (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

 * No, absolutely not. The meteor hammer has different origins, handles differently, and doesn't even come close to resembling the morning star. If the two get merged you might as well merge bolas and chained cannonballs. The reason the term morning star and flail often get equated is because at least the two look similar and people did not do the research, possibly combined with the German name for a flail — chain-morning star — which may itself be incorrect. I've seen it suggested elsewhere that "morning star" referred to the type of spiky head used. –Xoid 06:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Absolutely not. Leaving aside the controversy over whether a morning star has a chain or not (and we really some proper medieval scholarship on that)--even if we're talking about a true flail, there's no comparison to the meteor hammer. They're constructed and used in very different ways. "Weight on a chain/rope" is no stronger a connection than "blade on a haft/hilt". You might as well try to merge Sword and Axe. Phasma Felis (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 * It looks like we've got consensus, so I'm closing the discussion and removing the merge template. Phasma Felis (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Morningstar etymology?
Where does the name come from?

I heard, at one time, that this weapon was used by medics after battles, when they would come to collect the wounded and wanted to grant mercy kill for the hopeless. This would be done in the morning after battles thus naming the weapon morningstar. I would like some reference to this as I think the name comes purely from the look of the weapon which is resembling a star(Venus = Morning star).

What is your thought on this?

Be well, Kpreitsetljiann (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 * The Oxford English Dictionary would agree with you - the name comes from the comparison of the head to a star. Apparently it is used earliest to describe the weapon in Danish, is adopted into German and reaches English in the 17th. century.  The other definition belongs in the category "urban myth".  The wounded would have been despatched with any weapon to hand - they didn't need to create a special weapon for the purpose Monstrelet (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Morning star (weapon)


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/to do

Move
I've moved the to do list off this talk page to the actual to do page, and cut out all the stuff that is done. I've also moved all comment on the to do page to this talk page. I figure that makes it easier to see what is left to do. Hiding talk 17:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Old to do list

 * 1) Attract more members!
 * 2) Develop a project template to go at the top of talk pages, like template:philosophy, to build awareness. DONE
 * 3) Settle on a hierarchy for the "big" pages like comics, comic book, graphic novel, sequential art (my instinct is to merge and redirect this to comics), underground comics and alternative comics ( merge these two? restructure?), etc.
 * 4) *See below and at this page.
 * 5) Develop a "template" for comics articles. This would replace the "related articles" section.
 * 6) *See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates, and discuss there.
 * 7) Select an "exemplar" article for various categories (character, creator, etc.), upon which we should model every other article of that category.
 * 8) *See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/exemplars
 * 9) Fill out everything in Category:Comics stubs
 * 10) * Figure out how to link to a category page, instead of using which means "Add this page to Category:Foo" :
 * 11) ** Here's one [way] to do it. ike9898 20:03, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) *** That's what I did above; I'm just looking for a more elegant way. -leigh (φθόγγος) 20:34, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) ** Category:Comics stubs produces Category:Comics stubs)
 * 14) Develop templates for:
 * 15) Comics publisher articles
 * 16) *Hmmm. I have been creating/editing/updating/fixing many comic publisher pages, mainly smaller, now defunct ones.  I've tried to include history (who established, when, when they went under), what characters they published (especially if they were superheroes), what titles they published (including number of issues and year of publication).  Others have included company logo(s), which I think is good.  I've also tried to incorporate links to other sites, especially Toonopedia &/or International Superheroes.  If there seems to be major fan sites, I'll add those in as well.  --Emb021 19:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Comic-book series articles (Template:ComicBookBox)
 * 18) *What about start indexing series? The content of every issue can be added at the bottom of the article. Covers could be added too.--andresin 17:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) **I think this would be a bit overkill, especially when you start adding in cover images. Think about series like Batman with 600-700 issues. I think the index is something that maybe could exsist on an entirely seperate ComicsOnly Wiki, but for these purposes it would just be too much. --AjaxSerix 19:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) ***I see your point. What about a separated article (ie. Detective_Comics:Index)? I really like the idea of getting information about every comic (or book, or CD, DVD...) from the Wikipedia, like a free (in the whole sense of the world) culture catalog. Each issue could be connected with evey author's article, or characters's article...--andresin 09:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) ****I guess I have nothing against it personally and in fact would be willing to work on a couple series myself. It does seem however to go against a number of comments about this sort of thin elsewhere. I think It might be better to run the index with short summaries and crestor details, but only put cover images on "key" issues. Might make the articles less clunky.  I mean there are articles listing every single discovered asteroid so why not each issue of Batman. --AjaxSerix 21:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) *****This is already done (albeit slightly sporiadically) at List of The Amazing Spider-Man comics --Jamdav86 09:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Comic-book characters (Template:Superherobox)
 * 24) Comic-book teams (Template:Superteambox)
 * 25) Comic-book artifacts
 * 26) Other?
 * 27) Start a comics collaboration of the week.
 * 28) Make a wiki on WikiCities for comics. See proposal.
 * 29) Make a Comic Book Category Portal see Culture Portal
 * 30) *I'd suggest it should be a comics portal. Hiding talk 20:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) *Wouldn't a Wikiportal - i.e. Wikiportal/Comics - make more sense and be more consistant? - SoM 15:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, quite right. good catch. Hiding talk 20:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Fix the Kyle Rayner article.

Comic Portal
Make a Comic Book Category Portal see Culture Portal
 * I'd suggest it should be a comics portal. Hiding talk 20:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a Wikiportal - i.e. Wikiportal/Comics - make more sense and be more consistant? - SoM 15:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, quite right. good catch. Hiding talk 20:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Supporting character and Non-superhero comic book character infoboxes
Supporting characters (Template:Supersupportingbox) Non-superhero comic book characters Wasn't that Marvel comic called Damage Control? Phil Kent 22:22 11 November 2005 EST
 * Aren't the last two above one and the same? Hiding talk 23:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) *I agree with Hiding. I support ONE only type of character, even if the character doesn't belong to a superheroe or mainstream comic.--andresin 16:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're the same. If Enid Coleslaw had her own article, she obviously wouldn't be a superhero, but you couldn't put anything in her "Supporting character of" field either. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:19, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would point out that there are titles like 'Gotham Central'. The primary characters in that series are the GCPD. They don't have any super powers. However, they're not supporting either. Marvel had an early '90s title about people who cleaned up after disasters. (And for the love fo god, I can't remember the name). There's also Transmetropolitan. The characters and titles exist. It's just not a large percentage of the market.Toffile 13:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I take the point. Hiding talk 14:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * ...and waht about Archie Comics and the like? --FuriousFreddy 19:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Indexing series

 * What about start indexing series? The content of every issue can be added at the bottom of the article. Covers could be added too.--andresin 17:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this would be a bit overkill, especially when you start adding in cover images. Think about series like Batman with 600-700 issues. I think the index is something that maybe could exsist on an entirely seperate ComicsOnly Wiki, but for these purposes it would just be too much. --AjaxSerix 19:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I see your point. What about a separated article (ie. Detective_Comics:Index)? I really like the idea of getting information about every comic (or book, or CD, DVD...) from the Wikipedia, like a free (in the whole sense of the world) culture catalog. Each issue could be connected with evey author's article, or characters's article...--andresin 09:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I have nothing against it personally and in fact would be willing to work on a couple series myself. It does seem however to go against a number of comments about this sort of thin elsewhere. I think It might be better to run the index with short summaries and crestor details, but only put cover images on "key" issues. Might make the articles less clunky.  I mean there are articles listing every single discovered asteroid so why not each issue of Batman. --AjaxSerix 21:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is already done (albeit slightly sporiadically) at List of The Amazing Spider-Man comics --Jamdav86 09:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this still be used?
I don't see this being used or talked about? What's up?--Chris Griswold 09:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was personally about to deprecate it, we tend to use the task template now. There's not a huge amount left to do on it now, the templates left to be created we sort of can't agree on, and the stubs always need expanding. Hiding Talk 13:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/to do


text:
Bob Ctvrtlik

Robert Jan "Bob" Ctvrtlik (born July 8, 1963) is a retired American volleyball player who is a three-time Olympian, Olympic gold medalist, and a former member of the International Olympic Committee. He is a 1985 graduate of Pepperdine University.

In 2007, Ctvrtlik was inducted into the International Volleyball Hall of Fame.

Early life
Bob Ctvrtlik was born in Long Beach, California to Margaret and Josef Ctvrtlik. He attended Long Beach Wilson High School in Long Beach.

College
In 1982, Ctvrtlik became a member of the Long Beach City College Vikings volleyball team. He won the state championship and was selected as the MVP of the championship tournament.

In 1983, Ctvrtlik played for Long Beach State and was an All-American. He then transferred to Pepperdine to play his final collegiate year under the leadership and guidance of coaching legend Marv Dunphy, winning the 1985 NCAA title and being selected as the MVP of the tournament.

In 2009, Ctvrtlik was inducted into the Pepperdine Hall of Fame.

National team
After a successful college volleyball career, Ctvrtlik joined the United States national team. He won gold medals at the 1985 FIVB World Cup in Japan and the 1986 FIVB World Championship in France. In the 1988 Olympics in Seoul, South Korea, Ctvrtlik earned a gold medal by helping to defeat the Soviet Union in the finals. In the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona, Spain, he became one of the national players who shaved their heads in protest of alleged officiating misconduct. The United States defeated Cuba in the consolation match to take home the bronze medal.

After the Barcelona games, Ctvrtlik went to Europe to play in the Italian Club League for Brescia along with fellow Olympian Scott Fortune. He returned to the national team in preparation for the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, winning a bronze medal at the 1994 FIVB World Championship in Greece. Ctvrtlik was selected as the Best Player in the World by the International Volleyball Federation in 1995, but the national team would fail to win a medal in the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. He was regarded as one of the best serve receivers in the world.

Beach volleyball
Ctvrtlik was a beach volleyball player on the professional four-man circuit. He attained the "AAA" beach rating while playing on the two-man circuit.

After volleyball
In 1996, Ctvrtlik was elected to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Athlete's Commission, and then re-elected for an eight-year term at the 2000 Summer Olympics. He was appointed to the IOC in 1999. He was a founding board member of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and served on the IOC Reform Committee.

Personal life
Ctvrtlik's business concerns include real estate rehabilitation projects as president of Green Street Properties, LLC in Huntington Beach, California, and import-exports, via his company, the Ciram Corporation.

Ctvrtlik and his wife Cosette have three sons: Josef, Erik, and Matthew. Matthew played volleyball for Harvard.

Cvrtlik's father, Josef, a native of Czechoslovakia's Moravian region, was a graduate of Charles University in Prague and knew eight languages. He was imprisoned for three months during the German occupation for refusing to serve as a translator. Josef left his country in 1948 by taking a train from Prague to Bratislava, and then skiing to Austria with three friends. After 18 months in West Germany and five years in New Zealand working as a wool buyer, he moved to California in 1955 and worked as a professor at California State University, Long Beach (Long Beach State) before his death in 1983 from colon cancer.

title: Bob Ctvrtlik


text:
Wikipedia talk:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2/Wikify?

The page Text of the GNU Free Documentation License should not be edited (see copyrights, GNU Free Documentation License). In theory, someone could edit the license maliciously (e.g., "from now on, all contributions are immediately owned by Joe Blow") and argue all later changes implicitly accepted the modified license. Such changes are unlikely to stand in court, but it could make life unpleasant and life is too short to let vandals cause these sorts of problems. A check of the history will confirm whether it has been or not, but normally the text is protected so it cannot be edited at all.

 * Should we not try to wikify it a bit? I would certainly have appreciated links to the FSF website and the text of the GPL. Hyperlinks would not in any way change the meaning of the license, but would make it a more useful document. -- ChrisO 16:13, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * No, I think it's best not to edit it at all. If people start editing it to add various wikilinks, it will make it harder to check whether someone has actually changed the text. Angela. 03:39, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * I disagree... there's no reason it can't be done in a structured way with actual changes being only made by admins... besides, edits can be verified to see that nothing other than  has been added. --Random|832 11:55, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, although we should not modify the license itself (not even to add links), I would like to see a few links to related things. Brianjd

 * A little unclear? We should not add links in the middle of the license, but a links section should be added above or below (I think below is best), clearly separated from the license. Brianjd

Why the License is included:


text:
Gaffney

Gaffney is a surname common to the region of Cavan in Ireland, and now spread across other English-speaking nations. Gaffney comes from the Gaelic septs of Ó Gamhna, Mac Conghamhna and Ó Caibheanaigh. Gaffney more commonly does not appear with the Gaelic prefixes of O' or Mc but there have been Gaffneys recorded with either of the Gaelic prefixes.

In Hebrew context the surname Gaffney (Hebrew: גפני, alternative English spellings: Gafni/Gafny) is used for Jewish people whose ancestors were wine makers as "Geffen" (גפן) is the Hebrew word for vitis.

Notable people with the surname include:
 * Beryl Gaffney (born 1930), Canadian politician
 * Christopher Gaffney (bishop) (died 1576), Irish bishop
 * Chris Gaffney (musician) (1950–2008), American singer–songwriter
 * Christopher Gaffney (archaeologist) (born 1962), British archaeologist
 * Chris Gaffaney (born 1975), New Zealand cricketer
 * David Gaffney (born 1961), British writer
 * Dean Gaffney (born 1978), British actor
 * Derrick Gaffney (born 1955), American football player
 * Edward Gaffney (born 1943), American politician
 * Elizabeth Gaffney (born 1966), American novelist
 * Eric Gaffney (born 1967), American songwriter
 * Eugene S. Gaffney, American paleontologist
 * F. Drew Gaffney (born 1946), American doctor
 * Frank Gaffney (born 1953), American lobbyist
 * Frank Gaffney (Medal of Honor) (1883–1948), American soldier
 * Jabar Gaffney (born 1980), American football player
 * James Anthony Gaffney, British civil engineer
 * James E. Gaffney (1868–1932), American baseball executive
 * Jim Gaffney (1921–2015), American football player
 * John Gaffney (1855–1913), American baseball umpire and manager
 * Kiley Gaffney, Australian musician
 * Mason Gaffney, (1923–2020), American economist
 * Matt Gaffney, (born 1972), American crossword puzzle constructor
 * Mo Gaffney (born 1958), American actress
 * Patricia Gaffney (born 1944), American writer
 * Robert J. Gaffney (born 1944), American politician
 * Robbie Gaffney (born 1957), Irish football player
 * Rose Gaffney (1895–1979), American environmental activist
 * Tony Gaffney (born 1984), American basketball player

title: Gaffney


text:
Wikipedia talk:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2/Contents

Can I this, or something? The numbering as it stands is dodgy. But I'm not allowed to just remove the numbers from the headers, I guess. Evercat 16:39, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * This is rather makeshift, but how about:

 * I NOTOC'd it for now. Maybe a hand done TOC would be a good idea... but some people have them turned off in prefs. :-/ Martin

 * Better to just not have it than have it behave weirdly in this one instance, I think... hmmm... Evercat 20:58, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Why not have a TOC like the one above? Brianjd

истрий wikipedia talk:Text of
искам всичко дасе истрие има злоопотреба с лични дани и финанси 148.252.129.152 (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


text:
Clinton Township

Clinton Township may refer to:

Illinois

 * Clinton Township, DeKalb County, Illinois

Indiana

 * Clinton Township, Boone County, Indiana
 * Clinton Township, Cass County, Indiana
 * Clinton Township, Decatur County, Indiana
 * Clinton Township, Elkhart County, Indiana
 * Clinton Township, LaPorte County, Indiana
 * Clinton Township, Putnam County, Indiana
 * Clinton Township, Vermillion County, Indiana

Iowa

 * Clinton Township, Linn County, Iowa
 * Clinton Township, Ringgold County, Iowa
 * Clinton Township, Sac County, Iowa
 * Clinton Township, Wayne County, Iowa

Kansas

 * Clinton Township, Douglas County, Kansas

Michigan

 * Clinton Township, Lenawee County, Michigan
 * Clinton Township, Macomb County, Michigan
 * Clinton Township, Oscoda County, Michigan

Minnesota

 * Clinton Township, Rock County, Minnesota
 * Clinton Township, St. Louis County, Minnesota

Missouri

 * Clinton Township, Clinton County, Missouri
 * Clinton Township, Douglas County, Missouri, in Douglas County, Missouri
 * Clinton Township, Henry County, Missouri
 * Clinton Township, Texas County, Missouri

New Jersey

 * Clinton Township, New Jersey, in Hunterdon County
 * Clinton Township, Essex County, New Jersey, defunct

North Dakota

 * Clinton Township, Divide County, North Dakota

Ohio

 * Clinton Township, Franklin County, Ohio
 * Clinton Township, Fulton County, Ohio
 * Clinton Township, Knox County, Ohio
 * Clinton Township, Seneca County, Ohio
 * Clinton Township, Shelby County, Ohio
 * Clinton Township, Vinton County, Ohio
 * Clinton Township, Wayne County, Ohio

Pennsylvania

 * Clinton Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania
 * Clinton Township, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania
 * Clinton Township, Venango County, Pennsylvania
 * Clinton Township, Wayne County, Pennsylvania
 * Clinton Township, Wyoming County, Pennsylvania

South Dakota

 * Clinton Township, Miner County, South Dakota, in Miner County, South Dakota

title: Clinton Township


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Universism

The Universist Movement is quickly gaining notable attention worldwide. Could this possibly warrant a new review on submitting an article about them? See http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-33,GGLD:en&q=%22Universist%22 kkawohl

 * Keep For heaven's sake, Marshall Applewhite's group has an entry, and the only thing that makes them "notable" is that they all rode the barbiturate train up to Halle-Bopp. Fred Phelps' group has an entry, and the only thing notable about them is that they invented the art of stalker-evangelism.  Universism, on the other hand, has something to offer us in the hotter-than-ever public debate over the place of religion in the civic sphere.  But what makes it truly notable is its phenomenality, reflected in the exponential growth in the number of interested parties.  It is a viable movement, one which will likely carry some historical currency in the present debate.  And no, I am not a universist.  - Meadhouse
 * This is not the place to vote; most people will not see what you have written here. And while you may not be a Universist, this is your first Wikipedia edit, so what you say carries almost no weight. -- Scott $e^{i \pi} \,\!$ 10:38, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Keep
In a world inundated by religiosity, the more info about free-thought, reason and non-theist-based though, and more important, more info for those who are waverng toward reason and unbelief, the better. Chuck

Universism
Keep! As one of the 5,000-plus who have signed on to Universism, I say it would be an unconscionable error to deprive others of the right to learn about this important outlook on life. I have a "Universist" bumper sticker on my car, and am willing to discuss the subject with anyone.--Askswhy84
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox - rernst 18:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep! I am a Universist. Before Universism I did not have a place where I could discuss my philosphical beliefs. Universism is not a religion in my view, it just people who are trying to discover truth through reason and science. Granted some Universists are Deists, but their beliefs are their own and do not represent all Universists. It has grown in the last year as a movement. Perhaps, it is not well known enough for Wikipedia standards. However, many groups start small and grow into larger movements. If you research Universism you could write an article about it. As a philosophy it stands alone and I am proud to be part of it whether or not it remains here. Freddy
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You people just don't get it, do you? The ultimate question is whether or not this article and 'universism' in general is notable enough to have an article. It's not a question of how many anonymous votes you can plaster on the vfd page. I'm tired of seeing people who have never heard of wikipedia before answer a rallying call because their pet article might be deleted. The VFD usually decides whether an article is worthy of inclusion or not, but you people screwed it up with the crapflooding: people are voting against you because they don't think that said article could ever be NPOV because of the tons of anonymous edits. An article which is forever in protect mode can't be said to be alive - rernst 02:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is NOT the place to vote. Vote on the project page itself. This is the talk page, which is rarely used for on VfD vote. However, you should know that votes from people who haven't made any edits prior to the start of the vote are usually not counted. --BM 13:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another Arbitrary Break svp?
I added myself to the recap table, but am waiting on another Arbitrary break to vote in the main body of votes. Samaritan 01:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New York Times
This is where you use the word "Irony." Just as the Wikipedia article was being deleted for not being "notable" enough, an article and illustration on Universism takes up about half of the Sunday New York Times Op-Ed. I think the Sunday NY Times is the most read paper in the world, or second to something in India no doubt. I have my suspicions based on the amount of email today. No doubt someone will start an article on Universism again, my only concern is that the article not be POV, which BM's early edits clearly were. The last version of the article wasn't POV and was fine. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/opinion/12horgan.html --Deist 05:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deist, this piece wasn't "on" Universism, was it? Universism is mentioned three times, and in particular the writer used the question on the front page of your web site "Who will fight for the faithless?" as the introductory hook for his essay. But the article is about the phenomenon in general, and mentions several groups. Indeed, Horgan (the author) ends the essay with a sarcastic sentence about starting his own religion, too, horganism. Somehow, I don't you'll get much competition from him. Incidentally, I also think the phenomenon is notable, and if there were a Wikipedia article on it, Universism would merit a mention, along with the Brights, and several other groups that by themselves might not be sufficiently large or notable (yet) to merit a separate article -- especially not an article which they would write and treat as a promotional vehicle. --BM 13:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well-put. Or, as I put it to Deist, as he added the same verbatim comment as above to my talk page (hey, if he can recycle, why can't I?):
 * P.S. Op-ed writers write about a variety of topics. Very often they will write about a specific individual, organization, or incident in order to illustrate an opinion they are expressing. If an op-ed writer writes an editorial about the prevalence and shamelessness of spam on the Internet, he may well cite and quote liberally from a letter from the famous MRS. MBOTHO UBUNTU of Nigeria to make his point -- does this mean that MRS. UBUNTU is clearly a notable person? This opinion piece by John Horgan only proves that Universism was at some point brought to Mr. Horgan's attention -- not too unusual, or too significant, considering the "insanely active promoter" who founded it.
 * --Antaeus Feldspar 19:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Mrs. Ubuntu would be just one among thousands of names of an individual, typically fake, signed to advance fee fraud letters, out of millions of possible names. "Her" relevance to the public sphere would be for an isolated crime (unless she really was a controversial ex-First Lady or something and independently notable). Otherwise, there would be little more to say about her that wouldn't be provided or implicit from the Times piece. Universism is a quasi-religious group, with a public life on the Internet, and one of immensely fewer groups that could be used as exemplar of the phenomenon the Times piece discussed.
 * While a reader of a piece on 419 fraud would be highly unlikely to seek to research Mrs. Ubuntu further, an reader could very concievably seek to research Universism further; I'm certain no small number have. And there's no reason a Wikipedia article shouldn't await them, at the level of notability such that they'd be looking a small religious group up after a reference in the Sunday New York Times. Samaritan 14:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * As you say, Mrs. Ubuntu would have to be independently notable; merely being the hook on which a writer hangs an op-ed piece is not itself proof of notability. All it proves is that it came to an op-ed writer's attention, and that actually means less than it would if we hadn't seen that Ford Vox works just as hard as Mrs. Ubuntu at bringing what he has to offer to everyone's attention.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No doubt someone will start an article on Universism again, my only concern is that the article not be POV, which BM's early edits clearly were. The last version of the article wasn't POV, was the product of group effort including BM, and was fine. As for your comments about the Times article, I can't even respond. I look forward to being equally flabbergasted by your minimization of a newsweek feature. --Deist 21:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * If and when Newsweek prints such a feature, flabbergast to your heart's content. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, in fairness I think you have to give me credit for most of the final version, although also in fairness I have to give credit for prompting from several other people. So, Deist, when can we expect to see you on the Newsweek cover? Have you given any thought to what the Pope of Universism should wear? --BM 22:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Too bad the article has been deleted. I would have changed my vote from "delete" to "keep" based on this NYT publicity. The mention may not have been big, but it *was* a mention in the New York Times. To me, that's the New York Times. I'm not sure what it is to you. I think that this has probably become an issue of your dislike for Ford Vox and Universism more than one of notability, which does not suggest an NPOV approach. This NYT mention would certainly have changed my vote, no matter if the the writer had said "Universism sucks" or anything else. This issue was supposed to be notability, and I cast my vote to delete on the basis of that issue, just as I would now change my vote on the same basis. --Nat 23:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I guess I don't consider everything mentioned in the New York Times as in itself notable, solely based on being in the NYT. If they mention several obscure groups as examples of some larger trend, the mention makes them only slightly less obscure.   The trend is perhaps notable, but perhaps not the various constituents of a trend.    If they have an article about people dying their hair green, and write, "Asked why he died his hair green, BM said 'I think the chicks dig it'", BM does not thereby become notable.  I'm exaggerating a little.  The Universism mentions were a bit bigger than this; but I hope you take my point.    By the way, I don't dislike Ford Vox or Universism.   I don't know much about F.V. except for his aptitude and "insane" energy devoted to self-promotion, and that I find egotistical and not very likable, I confess. But you, Nat, said he is otherwise a kind of likable chap, and I have no reason to think you are wrong.  He does seem a bit snarky, but most people do when they are on the defensive.  So I don't hold that against him.    As for Universism, philosophically I agree with more of it than I disagree with.  I must admit I have my doubts about whether the answer to the problems created by religion is another religion, as rational as it may initially aim to be, which (by the way) was the NYT writer's point also --BM 23:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The New York Times seemed to think the article was about Universism. They printed our letter to the editor first on Sunday. You and Scott did a great job of removing all references to Universism from Wikipedia by the way under the lame claim that they linked to a deleted page. If you didn't really have a vendetta you would have changed the link to text, leaving the reference. At several points in this debate it was conceded that Universism deserves mentions in related articles like freethought but you felt it didn't deserve its own article. Now of course your entire premise that Universism consists of one guy and his dog has been blown to smithereens. At the very least Universism deserves mentions in related articles. --Deist 18:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about Scott, but for me to have changed the link to text in such articles as Atheism, pantheism, etc would have required me to believe that universism was significant in relation to these topics -- and I don't. --BM 19:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My point exactly. I rest my case. --Deist 01:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)