Forums: Index > Watercooler > Wiki Rules and Blocking Policy


It seems from Help:Wiki Rules and Blocking Policy that we have a few weeks to generate a set of rules, otherwise admins will not be able to block. I suggest that we start with the suggested rules on that page then discuss them. --- Robin Patterson (Talk) 02:35, February 18, 2021 (UTC)

Pages with no relation to anyone's genealogy[]

I would like to see a rule preventing the copy of pages from Wikipedia (often without acknowledgement) which have nothing to do with genealogy. I have recently deleted pages called:

  • Golden Raspberry Awards
  • Template:SFBayshopping
  • Muslim world
  • Great Barrier Reef
  • Busch Gardens Tampa Bay
  • Wonder World Tour (Miley Cyrus)
  • 1993 World Trade Center bombing
  • Adult contemporary music
  • Singer-songwriter

There are some more, such as Art critic (and several related pages), and pages on particular works of literature, which seem (to me) to be individual "fandom" interests, but not genealogy. Thurstan (talk) 05:27, February 18, 2021 (UTC)

Good idea (though a couple of the above might be places for genealogically notable events one day) - you can add that and others to Familypedia:Rules, where I have modified the suggested rules and added one already. --- Robin Patterson (Talk) 11:41, February 18, 2021 (UTC)


I fear that the rule "Do not edit templates unless you are fully aware of what they do." is not very objective: the average wannabe who monkeys with our templates would insist that he was an expert (and I haven't even mentioned the Dunning–Kruger effectWp globe tiny.gif). I do not see a better statement, so I would like all the templates used on the standard person page and its subpages to be protected "admin only". Maybe some of the others too. Thurstan (talk) 05:30, February 19, 2021 (UTC)

Such people will instantly prove that they were not fully aware and can then not complain about being blocked. But I support that protection proposal. A job for User:ThurstanBot? --- Robin Patterson (Talk) 09:08, February 19, 2021 (UTC)

After today's little fiasco with {{Showfacts person}}, I think it should also be mandated that that (and similar) templates should not be changed without a test version having been proved and a general agreement to the change. I stand by my comment about the DK effect. Thurstan (talk) 03:45, March 5, 2021 (UTC)

Seems good to me. A BIG warning notice threatening blocking should be prominent at the top of the template and its doc. I'm sure you can devise a good template for that! {{BEWARE}}? --- Robin Patterson (Talk) 08:19, March 7, 2021 (UTC)

Relationship to genealogy[]

I was not aware that Familypedia is limited to genealogy, as Thurstan's comment seems to indicate. On the contrary, opposed to other genealogy sites, which are strictly limited to genealogical information, the advantage of Familypedia is that is accepts articles for various persons, who are not necessarily part of the elite who can overcome the hurdle of worthiness to be quoted. These articles could include information not only about their birth, death, ancestors and successors, but also about their schooling, career and accomplishments. In this case, additional information may be required which can be found in other articles, such as the schools they have attended, the localities in which they were born or have been active, their profession and so on. Any article containing such information should be acceptable to Familypedia, regardless if it is taken from Wikipedia or is an original article.
Localities are of particular interest. In this case, there have been cases in which I have attempted to present articles to Wikipedia about settlements in which somebody was born or did something else only to find out that that particular locality was otherwise too insignificant to justify a Wikipedia article.
Take for instance the example of Art critic. Obviously, looking at it only from a genealogic viewpoint, it is of no interest. However, it is a profession, and implicitly linked to persons, and for persons who are not limited to purely genealogic interests, a profession is closely linked to the persons. The same goes for events: an article presenting a battle or another incident should be justified if there is an article about somebody having been killed in that battle or otherwise be implicated in that particular incident.
In conclusion I consider that additional articles should be acceptable if they present information which is linked to persons, and where these links are shown in the articles of any person. Afil (talk) 01:07, March 9, 2021 (UTC)
So you think we should copy every Wikipedia article across, because every article has something to do with somebody? Thurstan (talk) 02:58, March 9, 2021 (UTC)
I think what I use as a criterion for deletion and blocking is if an article about a person has no mention of parent or child and the author has been asked to provide such material. I have a feeling Thurstan's idea is similar. Any qualifying article is then welcome to have maximum detail about the person (though if on Wikipedia we may shove most of it onto a biography tab), and we want an article about every place that was significant for that person (with a bdm subpage to link). --- Robin Patterson (Talk) 08:22, March 10, 2021 (UTC)

Random renaming pages[]

A favourite activity for the newbies seems to be rename "famous" pages. Barack Obama is still sitting at the end of a chain of double-redirects after multiple renamings. I would like to outlaw this in general, but I am not sure how to phrase it. Basically if your only interest is fiddling with celebrity pages, go away. Thurstan (talk) 02:23, March 8, 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. "Do not rename a page that has the same name as a Wikipedia page or is a redirect from such a page". --- Robin Patterson (Talk) 08:22, March 10, 2021 (UTC)

Portable infobox person[]

I would like using {{Portable_infobox_person}} to be explicitly noted as a "blockable" offence. Thurstan (talk) 05:52, March 12, 2021 (UTC)

Too draconian. It doesn't hurt the wiki. Some well-meaning newbies may use it innocently (though stupidly). When we see one we can just delete it and remind the author to use Form:Person.
Isn't it possible to make it work only on a proper page? Same sort of thing as the way the children fields don't work if an existing page is being edited?
--- Robin Patterson (Talk) 09:47, March 12, 2021 (UTC)
But I don't see how you can innocently use a template which is not documented for use, nor listed anywhere for use. This doesn't seem like an ignorant error to me. Thurstan (talk) 10:12, March 12, 2021 (UTC)
Until we know how they find it, we shouldn't judge guilt. I've asked the latest one where he or she found it. --- Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:17, March 13, 2021 (UTC)