Login
Login

WP:Update/1/Content policy changes, July 2010 to December 2010

{{collapse top|4th quarter 2010}}

  • Wikipedia:Article titles
  • In WP:TITLE#Deciding on an article title, changed: "As part of this, a good title should convey what English, in an encyclopedic register, actually calls the subject (this does not mean Wikipedia must follow other encyclopedias' titles)." to: "As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English."
  • In WP:TITLE#Common names, added: "Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what name is most common (see below)."
  • In WP:TITLE#Non-neutral but common names, added: "Further, even when a neutral title is possible, creating redirects to it using documented but non-neutral terms is sometimes acceptable; see WP:RNEUTRAL."
  • In WP:TITLE#Precision and disambiguation, added: "Often there is no alternative to parenthetical disambiguation, and it does have the advantage that the non-parenthesized part of the title may most clearly convey what the subject is called in English. On the other hand, such disambiguations may be longer or less natural than an alternate but unambiguous form, when there is one."
  • In WP:TITLE#Article title format, added: "To italicize a title, add the template {{italic title}} near the top of the article: Use of italics should conform to WP:ITALICS."
  • In WP:TITLE#Italics and other formatting, added: "In addition, certain templates, including Template:Infobox book, Template:Infobox film, and Template:Infobox album, will by default italicize the titles of the pages they appear on; see the pages for those templates for details."
  • In WP:TITLE#Titles containing "and", added: "however, "Media's coupling of Islam and terrorism" may be acceptable."
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  • Substantial changes throughout since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=387342469 September]
  • Wikipedia:No original research
  • In the introduction, removed: ["original research" ... refers to any analysis or synthesis] "by Wikipedians" [of published material ...]. Added: "Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material."
  • In WP:NOR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, added: "Unless restricted by another policy," [primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, ...]. Added: "Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy." Added: "Whether material counts as a primary or secondary source is not fixed. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source of material about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source of material about those issues."
  • In WP:NOR#Citing oneself, added: "In fact, expert input is encouraged and experts often have specific knowledge of the relevant literature."
  • Wikipedia:Verifiability
  • Substantial changes throughout since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=387804883 September]

{{collapse bottom}}

{{collapse top|September 2010}}

  • Wikipedia:Article titles
  • In WP:TITLE#Deciding an article title, added: [Naturalness ...] "As part of this, a good title should convey what English, in an encyclopedic register, actually calls the subject (this does not mean Wikipedia must follow other encyclopedias' titles)." Added: [Consistency ...] "and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria above."
  • In WP:TITLE#National varieties of English, added: "But when local usage is itself divided, we do not necessarily follow the majority or plurality of local English usage against the consensus of the rest of the English-speaking world: Ganges, not Ganga."
  • In WP:TITLE#Special characters, removed: "Do not apply formatting: Formatting, such as italics or bolding, is technically achievable in page titles but is used only in special cases, one example of which is taxonomic names of genera and species. (See italics and formatting restrictions.)"
  • New section: WP:TITLE#Italics and other formatting
  • In WP:TITLE#Titles containing "and", added: [Where no reasonable overarching title is available,] "it is permissible to" [construct an article title using "and" ...]. Added: "However, titles with "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in Original research. For this reason," [avoid use of "and" in ways that appear biased. For example, use Islamic terrorism, not "Islam and terrorism".] "Also avoid the use of "and" to combine concepts that are not commonly combined in reliable sources."
  • Wikipedia:No original research
  • In WP:NOR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, removed part of a footnote: "[http://library.duke.edu/research/finding/primarysource.html Duke University, Libraries] offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."

{{collapse bottom}}

{{collapse top|August 2010}}

  • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
  • In WP:BLP#Tone, changed: [BLPs should be written responsibly,] "conservatively" to: "cautiously"
  • In WP:BLP#Attack pages, changed: [Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, and] "which appear to have been created to disparage the subject," [should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; ...] to: "which may disparage the subject,"
  • New subsection: WP:BLP#Do not cite to court documents and other public records
  • In WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source, changed: "These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses, because they are not self-published." to: "These provisions apply less forcibly to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses (which are NOT "self-published"), but might still be borne in mind (especially point 2)."
  • In WP:BLP#Subjects notable only for one event, added: [Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article,] "or, when the event is itself non-notable, delete the biography."
  • In WP:BLP#Privacy of names, changed: "An event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is verifiable by its publication in reliable secondary sources, the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is not private, unless there has been a court seal on the disclosure of the name." to: "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject."
  • In WP:BLP#Templates, added: "The template {{tl|BLP removal}} can be used on a talk page of an article (or a user) to explain why material has been removed under this policy, and under what conditions the material may be replaced."

{{collapse bottom}}

{{collapse top|July 2010}}

  • Wikipedia:Article titles
  • In WP:TITLE#Deciding an article title, changed: "Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles." to: "Consistent – When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles."
  • Wikipedia:No original research
  • In WP:NOR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, changed: "A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." to: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

{{collapse bottom}}