Is there/should there be a notability tag?
It seems to me that just because something is true, and verifiable, doesn't necessarily make it notable enough to be in an article.
Perhaps the real issue with trivia sections is that most of them are unreferenced as to their notability; while they clearly may be factually true, unless somebody has noted that they are important then they should be removed. Right?
So, taking this to the logical conclusions, perhaps we need a notability tag, where somebody has to reference that something is notable, otherwise it would be removed. By notable, a minimum criteria would have to be a significant 3rd party reference to it.
The nearest thing I can find are the various POV flags, which seem to be more divisive and seem to imply the existence of bias, which doesn't seem to be quite the same.
Comments?
Ian Woollard wrote:
...Perhaps the real issue with trivia sections is that most of them are unreferenced as to their notability; while they clearly may be factually true, unless somebody has noted that they are important then they should be removed. Right?
So, taking this to the logical conclusions, perhaps we need a notability tag, where somebody has to reference that something is notable...
Comments?
Well, for one thing, we've got way too many of these cleanup tags already. See [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Editorial banners at the top of pages are annoying and irrelevant to subject matter]].
Second, I don't think the right standard for trivia is notability. It's "interestingness", which of course is a notoriously difficult concept to define. One editor's interesting trivia is another's banal fluff.
There's already a drive (accompanied by an annoying banner) to eliminate trivia sections entirely. I don't happen to agree with that drive, but it makes a "notable trivia" tag sort of doubly redundant: if the trivia sections are all eliminated, we won't need to worry about their verified notability, but if we asked for all trivia items to have their notability verified, virtually none of them would pass (how can you cite such a thing?), so they'd all be deleted, and we wouldn't need Template:Trivia.
(Anyway, aren't "notable trivia" and "notably trivial" both oxymorons? :-) )
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:23:43 -0500, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Well, for one thing, we've got way too many of these cleanup tags already. See [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Editorial banners at the top of pages are annoying and irrelevant to subject matter]].
I guess we could rewrite the css to place them in a sidebar.
Short of stopping people posting spam and personal opinion I'm not sure what else could be done about that.
Guy (JzG)
JzG wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:23:43 -0500, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Well, for one thing, we've got way too many of these cleanup tags already. See [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Editorial banners at the top of pages are annoying and irrelevant to subject matter]].
I guess we could rewrite the css to place them in a sidebar.
Short of stopping people posting spam and personal opinion I'm not sure what else could be done about that.
Then you're not thinking very hard! We could show them only to registered users and not anonymous users. Or only to registered users who self-identify as "editors". We could, as you say, move them into a sidebar. We could move them off the page entirely, and (effectively) into [[Category: Articles needing ___]]. (Where is it written that editorial cleanup tags must necessarily be visible to every reader?) We could make them dismissible, so that anybody who didn't want to see them didn't have to. There's lots of things we could do!
(Actually, I think I like the idea of making them dismissible best of all.)
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:42:22 -0500, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Then you're not thinking very hard! We could show them only to registered users and not anonymous users. Or only to registered users who self-identify as "editors". We could, as you say, move them into a sidebar. We could move them off the page entirely, and (effectively) into [[Category: Articles needing ___]]. (Where is it written that editorial cleanup tags must necessarily be visible to every reader?) We could make them dismissible, so that anybody who didn't want to see them didn't have to. There's lots of things we could do!
The problem with that is that if we've identified a neutrality issue we really ought to let people know.
Mind you, I am increasingly of the view that {{npov}} means that three people reject the dominant world view of a subject and want everybody to know about it.
Guy (JzG)
JzG wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:42:22 -0500, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
There's lots of things we could do!
The problem with that is that if we've identified a neutrality issue we really ought to let people know.
Trivia is not a neutrality issue. Not-long-enough introductions are not a neutrality issue. Not being written in a suitably encyclopedic tone is not a neutrality issue. Having too many links is not a neutrality issue. Even having too few citations is not necessarily a neutrality issue.
On 24/11/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
JzG wrote:
The problem with that is that if we've identified a neutrality issue we really ought to let people know.
Trivia is not a neutrality issue. Not-long-enough introductions are not a neutrality issue. Not being written in a suitably encyclopedic tone is not a neutrality issue. Having too many links is not a neutrality issue. Even having too few citations is not necessarily a neutrality issue.
Neutrality, unreferenced, etc. are issues to let the reader know of (consumer warnings). The trivia "warning" is not for the reader's benefit (and I routinely remove such tags).
- d.
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:11:31 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Neutrality, unreferenced, etc. are issues to let the reader know of (consumer warnings). The trivia "warning" is not for the reader's benefit (and I routinely remove such tags).
Ditto. Usually along with the trivia.
Guy (JzG)
On 24/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:11:31 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Neutrality, unreferenced, etc. are issues to let the reader know of (consumer warnings). The trivia "warning" is not for the reader's benefit (and I routinely remove such tags).
Ditto. Usually along with the trivia.
Using editorial judgement case by case, of course, not operating on a mechanistic rule!
(I will sometimes leave a trivia tag and will sometimes zap the trivia. Sometimes with an edit summary expressing that no-one looking for [[subject]] is going to care that it was mentioned in an obscure Simpsons episode even if the Simpsons fans will.)
- d.
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:02:16 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Neutrality, unreferenced, etc. are issues to let the reader know of (consumer warnings). The trivia "warning" is not for the reader's benefit (and I routinely remove such tags).
Ditto. Usually along with the trivia.
Using editorial judgement case by case, of course, not operating on a mechanistic rule!
Naturally. I usually leave anything that looks genuinely compelling, or which (incredibly rare) has a reference.
Guy (JzG)
David Gerard wrote:
Neutrality, unreferenced, etc. are issues to let the reader know of (consumer warnings). The trivia "warning" is not for the reader's benefit (and I routinely remove such tags).
Maybe they could use a campaign similar to that undertaken for the spoiler warnings.
Ec
On 25/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Neutrality, unreferenced, etc. are issues to let the reader know of (consumer warnings). The trivia "warning" is not for the reader's benefit (and I routinely remove such tags).
Maybe they could use a campaign similar to that undertaken for the spoiler warnings.
They were put in by one. OTOH, most trivia sections are indeed crap.
- d.
On 11/25/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Neutrality, unreferenced, etc. are issues to let the reader know of (consumer warnings). The trivia "warning" is not for the reader's benefit (and I routinely remove such tags).
Which tag? {{Trivia}} is not a warning for readers, it's a call to action to editors. Its message is clear: please improve this article by integrating these disorganised dot points. Why would you remove such a tag?
Steve
On 25/11/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/25/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Neutrality, unreferenced, etc. are issues to let the reader know of (consumer warnings). The trivia "warning" is not for the reader's benefit (and I routinely remove such tags).
Which tag? {{Trivia}} is not a warning for readers, it's a call to action to editors. Its message is clear: please improve this article by integrating these disorganised dot points. Why would you remove such a tag?
Because that is what talk pages are for.
On 11/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Because that is what talk pages are for.
A template in an article is ten times more effective than the same template on a talk page.
Steve
On 25/11/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Because that is what talk pages are for.
A template in an article is ten times more effective than the same template on a talk page.
{{fact}}
You also need to consider any advantages as balanced against the downsides. After all something in sitenotice would probably be even more effective.
On 11/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/11/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Because that is what talk pages are for.
A template in an article is ten times more effective than the same template on a talk page.
{{fact}}
Right. You wouldn't put {{fact}} on the talk page, now, would you?
You also need to consider any advantages as balanced against the downsides. After all something in sitenotice would probably be even more effective.
What are the downsides of templates in articles?
Steve
On 25/11/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/11/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Because that is what talk pages are for.
A template in an article is ten times more effective than the same template on a talk page.
{{fact}}
Right. You wouldn't put {{fact}} on the talk page, now, would you?
Because fact contains a waring element for the reader that someone finds the info questionable (personally I wouldn't put it in an article either mind)
You also need to consider any advantages as balanced against the downsides. After all something in sitenotice would probably be even more effective.
What are the downsides of templates in articles?
Wasting the reader's time and bandwidth. Making the article unreadable on mobiles and breaking up the article while in no way providing a service to the reader.
On 11/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
What are the downsides of templates in articles?
Wasting the reader's time and bandwidth.
Oh, please.
Making the article unreadable on mobiles
That's solvable.
while in no way providing a service to the reader.
Templates for editors aren't meant to provide a "service to the reader". {{Uncat}}, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}} etc are all in that category - the reader doesn't gain from being told the article isn't categorised, it's for editors that we put that there.
Arguably there could be some way of showing/hiding these templates for different types of readers, but Wikipedia has done pretty well out of naively assuming that every reader is an editor waiting to happen.
Steve
On 25/11/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
What are the downsides of templates in articles?
Wasting the reader's time and bandwidth.
Oh, please.
Making the article unreadable on mobiles
That's solvable.
while in no way providing a service to the reader.
Templates for editors aren't meant to provide a "service to the reader". {{Uncat}}, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}} etc are all in that category - the reader doesn't gain from being told the article isn't categorised, it's for editors that we put that there.
Arguably there could be some way of showing/hiding these templates for different types of readers, but Wikipedia has done pretty well out of naively assuming that every reader is an editor waiting to happen.
Steve
Uncat shouldn't be in the article. Wikify is generally there when the the problem with the article is serious enough that we should acknowledge it.
On 11/24/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Which tag? {{Trivia}} is not a warning for readers, it's a call to action to editors. Its message is clear: please improve this article by integrating these disorganised dot points. Why would you remove such a tag?
Because it continues to encourage mindless blanking of potentially valid content, rather than the more nuanced approaches of: 1. Removing the items for which no source can be found (this should be automatic), while leaving the properly referenced "triviums" alone. 2. Finding a more appropriate (perhaps chronological) place to put the verifiable information, i.e. promoting it to a greater expository status than "trivia".
It would actually work if people followed the instructions rather than giggling something about the "trivia" tag being some perverse sort of "{{sectionprod}}".
—C.W.
On 11/27/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Because it continues to encourage mindless blanking of potentially valid content, rather than the more nuanced approaches of:
- Removing the items for which no source can be found (this should be
automatic), while leaving the properly referenced "triviums" alone. 2. Finding a more appropriate (perhaps chronological) place to put the verifiable information, i.e. promoting it to a greater expository status than "trivia".
I don't understand. A tag that says "please integrate this content" promotes the removal of that content, rather than its integration? Do you have evidence of this removal taking place? And I'm asking a lot, but can you demonstrate at all that the tag is doing more harm than good? You're making some bold claims here.
Steve
On 24/11/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
JzG wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:42:22 -0500, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
There's lots of things we could do!
The problem with that is that if we've identified a neutrality issue we really ought to let people know.
Trivia is not a neutrality issue. Not-long-enough introductions are not a neutrality issue.
It is frequently a NPOV issue though, if it isn't notable. And if it is to be notable, then it must be verifiably notable, so there's a verifiability issue *also* in many cases.
Where trivia meets the NPOV and verifiability and reliable source requirements, then it *should* stay.
Right?
Right.
Ian Woollard wrote:
On 24/11/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Trivia is not a neutrality issue. Not-long-enough introductions are not a neutrality issue.
It is frequently a NPOV issue though, if it isn't notable. And if it is to be notable, then it must be verifiably notable, so there's a verifiability issue *also* in many cases.
"NPOV" _is_ "neutrality." The two are synonymous.
Where trivia meets the NPOV and verifiability and reliable source requirements, then it *should* stay.
Right?
Right.
Right. But notability and verifiability are, sadly, not synonymous in their usage on Wikipedia. I think they should be but therein lies the great conflict of our time.
Even accepting that "notability" is going to be with us for the forseeable future, though, I think it's a bad idea to be applying it widely on a sub-article level. We want our biography articles to contain peoples' dates of birth, for example, but in very few cases is that date of birth a "notable" fact. Simply a verifiable one.
On 24/11/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
"NPOV" _is_ "neutrality." The two are synonymous.
That depends how you use it.
I think if you're being anal about it, neutrality is NPOV, but NPOV is not simply neutrality; in the same sense that all lions are cats, but not all cats are lions.
NPOV is bigger than neutrality; but if you're using neutrality as a slang for NPOV, then yes, of course.
But notability and verifiability are, sadly, not synonymous in
their usage on Wikipedia. I think they should be but therein lies the great conflict of our time.
No, I absolutely don't think so. Just because something is verifiably true, doesn't mean it should go in the wikipedia. Plenty of things are unencyclopedic.
Even accepting that "notability" is going to be with us for the
forseeable future, though, I think it's a bad idea to be applying it widely on a sub-article level. We want our biography articles to contain peoples' dates of birth, for example, but in very few cases is that date of birth a "notable" fact. Simply a verifiable one.
On the contrary, I find that it's a notable fact if somebody significant noted it, and that usually happens with a birthdate if the biography is that of a significant person.
Ian Woollard wrote:
On 24/11/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote: But notability and verifiability are, sadly, not synonymous in
their usage on Wikipedia. I think they should be but therein lies the great conflict of our time.
No, I absolutely don't think so. Just because something is verifiably true, doesn't mean it should go in the wikipedia. Plenty of things are unencyclopedic.
But you're not me, and therefore can have different opinions. Hence the conflict.
Even accepting that "notability" is going to be with us for the
forseeable future, though, I think it's a bad idea to be applying it widely on a sub-article level. We want our biography articles to contain peoples' dates of birth, for example, but in very few cases is that date of birth a "notable" fact. Simply a verifiable one.
On the contrary, I find that it's a notable fact if somebody significant noted it, and that usually happens with a birthdate if the biography is that of a significant person.
I see extremely few citations for birthdates in Wikipedia. They usually only show up when some pedant is using WP:V as a blunt instrument for other reasons, or in a few rare cases when there actually is some sort of significance to the person's birth date.
On 24/11/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Ian Woollard wrote:
...Perhaps the real issue with trivia sections is that most of them are unreferenced as to their notability; while they clearly may be factually true, unless somebody has noted that they are important then they should
be
removed. Right?
So, taking this to the logical conclusions, perhaps we need a notability tag, where somebody has to reference that something is notable...
Comments?
Well, for one thing, we've got way too many of these cleanup tags already.
Or perhaps we have the wrong set.
See [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Editorial
banners at the top of pages are annoying and irrelevant to subject matter]].
I completely agree with that, I don't see that a full-page banner would be at all helpful. I was thinking more about a tag for just a single paragraph, similar to [citation needed], such as [reference for notability].
Second, I don't think the right standard for trivia is notability.
It's "interestingness", which of course is a notoriously difficult concept to define. One editor's interesting trivia is another's banal fluff.
Exactly my point though, it should NOT rely on the *editor* to determine this; since that constitutes original research, that any particular fact is notable; and I think that's where the big contentious arguments come in, and quite rightly so.
Am I not correct in asserting that under the core principles, we need a verifiable, notable opinion that something is notable for it to go into an article?
There's already a drive (accompanied by an annoying banner) to
eliminate trivia sections entirely. I don't happen to agree with that drive, but it makes a "notable trivia" tag sort of doubly redundant: if the trivia sections are all eliminated, we won't need to worry about their verified notability, but if we asked for all trivia items to have their notability verified, virtually none of them would pass (how can you cite such a thing?), so they'd all be deleted, and we wouldn't need Template:Trivia.
Right. And I think that that's the point of the idea, because if it has been tagged, then we can defensibly remove stuff, but in the few cases where they are actually verifiably notable then they CAN be kept. I don't think the 'remove all trivia' concept stands up to the core values.
(Anyway, aren't "notable trivia" and "notably trivial" both
oxymorons? :-) )
;-)
I don't understand this continued war on trivia. Trivia that's OR is a problem obviously but other forms of trivia aren't problematic unless they are distracting or the article needs to be cut down in size. Many readers like Wikipedia articles precisely because of the trivia. Leave well-sourced trivia alone.
Quoting Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
Is there/should there be a notability tag?
It seems to me that just because something is true, and verifiable, doesn't necessarily make it notable enough to be in an article.
Perhaps the real issue with trivia sections is that most of them are unreferenced as to their notability; while they clearly may be factually true, unless somebody has noted that they are important then they should be removed. Right?
So, taking this to the logical conclusions, perhaps we need a notability tag, where somebody has to reference that something is notable, otherwise it would be removed. By notable, a minimum criteria would have to be a significant 3rd party reference to it.
The nearest thing I can find are the various POV flags, which seem to be more divisive and seem to imply the existence of bias, which doesn't seem to be quite the same.
Comments?
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/24/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
I don't understand this continued war on trivia. Trivia that's OR is a problem obviously but other forms of trivia aren't problematic unless they are distracting or the article needs to be cut down in size.
I can't envision a scenario where an article "needs to be cut down in size", per se, except when portions of its content are unverifiable or otherwise *actively being bad*. There is no correlation between this and what proportion of the article has been properly or improperly sectioned as "trivia". A more nuanced approach to "too long" articles would be to choose a few of the longer and/or more compartmentally stable sections into "sub-articles". We do it all the time. There's no such thing as "too much [verifiable] information".
Many readers like Wikipedia articles precisely because of the trivia.
Editors too. Enjoyable reading and enjoyable editing go hand-in-hand.
Leave well-sourced trivia alone.
Thank you, Jesus. Maybe we could require people to solve a captcha whenever removing a <ref> tag. I should see if wiki-books has a decent crash course in PHP. Haha, only serious.
—C.W.
On 26/11/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
There's no such thing as "too much [verifiable] information".
Not quite true. An example would be school ofsted reports. They are published and verifiable (another example is school accounts which are nominally available) but it would be posible to render articles on schools pretty much unreadable by including enough information from them.
On 11/24/07, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the real issue with trivia sections is that most of them are unreferenced as to their notability; while they clearly may be factually true, unless somebody has noted that they are important then they should be removed. Right?
The short answer is "no".
So, taking this to the logical conclusions, perhaps we need a notability tag, where somebody has to reference that something is notable, otherwise it would be removed. By notable, a minimum criteria would have to be a significant 3rd party reference to it.
But for the sake of argument, of course: How does one determine whether or not one's source is presenting information (about some topic) as "notable" or "non-notable"? For whole subjects it might be easier to discern, but for individual facts, it would be ambiguous at best, and in any situation the light being cast is a product of the author's own POV.
—C.W.
On 26/11/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
But for the sake of argument, of course: How does one determine whether or not one's source is presenting information (about some topic) as "notable" or "non-notable"?
If reliable source(s) mention it, then it is noted, and notable. Even if it is disparaged it is still notable, notable for being disparaged.
Of course that pushes back on to how you tell if the reliable sources are reliable. If they're noted of course!
At this point you might start to think that there's an infinite regress... but no you don't need to infinitely regress in practice.
It's a similar issue to that faced by google when they calculate Page Rank- google have a web of page links; essentially each link states that the web page thinks that another web page is notable. So each link puts ups the reputation of the page they link to.
However, google don't use a straight count of links to determine reputation (page rank). What google do is, progressively diminish the transitive effect of reputation, and so after a certain number of hops the reputation of going n-ancestors back stops having any effect.
So bringing the analogy back to the wikipedia:
if the BBC says that X is true, then it probably is notable, because there's lots of people that in turn say that the BBC are notable, and some subset of the people that say that the BBC are notable are notable also; because others say that they are. And then for example you might stop.
Whereas if 45.65.73.4 says that X isn't true, then there's probably nobody that says that this anonymous IP is notable.
I think that the wikipedia's processes approximate to this method; in many cases people agree that certain organisations are notable without having to check further, so we don't normally have to bother with going more than one notability back unless somebody challenges it. Is the BBC really notable? Yes, because the New York Time says so.
Anyway, I claim that this is roughly how the Wikipedia's notability works. It's not that it's perfect, but it's better than most of the alternatives.
—C.W.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 12:25:55AM +0000, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 26/11/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
But for the sake of argument, of course: How does one determine whether or not one's source is presenting information (about some topic) as "notable" or "non-notable"?
If reliable source(s) mention it, then it is noted, and notable. Even if it is disparaged it is still notable, notable for being disparaged.
Of course that pushes back on to how you tell if the reliable sources are reliable. If they're noted of course!
At this point you might start to think that there's an infinite regress... but no you don't need to infinitely regress in practice.
It's a similar issue to that faced by google when they calculate Page Rank- google have a web of page links; essentially each link states that the web page thinks that another web page is notable. So each link puts ups the reputation of the page they link to.
However, google don't use a straight count of links to determine reputation (page rank). What google do is, progressively diminish the transitive effect of reputation, and so after a certain number of hops the reputation of going n-ancestors back stops having any effect.
So bringing the analogy back to the wikipedia:
if the BBC says that X is true, then it probably is notable, because there's lots of people that in turn say that the BBC are notable, and some subset of the people that say that the BBC are notable are notable also; because others say that they are. And then for example you might stop.
Whereas if 45.65.73.4 says that X isn't true, then there's probably nobody that says that this anonymous IP is notable.
I think that the wikipedia's processes approximate to this method; in many cases people agree that certain organisations are notable without having to check further, so we don't normally have to bother with going more than one notability back unless somebody challenges it. Is the BBC really notable? Yes, because the New York Time says so.
Anyway, I claim that this is roughly how the Wikipedia's notability works. It's not that it's perfect, but it's better than most of the alternatives.
You may well be right that it is better than the alternatives, but it still really does not address the question of whether a topic should be in an encyclopedia. Given we can inot use experts and I think for good reason, I agree we have to use the notability guideline, but we should use it in a way that it is not a reason for deleting stuff that clearly should be in an encyclopedia.
Brian.
?C.W.
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l