Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 113

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191

Soliciting opinions either way at a page unlikely to have many watchers

Please see Template talk:Deletion debates#A garbage bin image plastered across every deletion forum is needlessly inflammatory.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this has been dealt with. Peridon (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it OK for robots to impersonate other editors?

I've run across two areas where a robot, (intended to be helpful) places posts and puts my signature on the post. In one case it is making incorrect promises (implying that a GA review will be completed in under a week) and signing my name to them. That particular one says in the body that it is a robot, but still signs the post as if I had made it. Over a few months I've brought this up in a friendly manner but really got no answer. The robot owner said to talk to the (GA) project that it is helping, and my subsequent inquiry at GA project received no response. The other (AFC acceptance notification) does not have any such errors but does not even identify itself as a robot, and even copies the "style" of my signature. So even though there is nothing in error in the post, it is still disconcerting to know that there are robots making posts and signing my name as if I made them. Is this OK? / Should this be clarified? North8000 (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with the GA review bot, but I can tell you that the AfC acceptance notification is not a bot. It is actually you posting the template on the users page upon acceptance using the helper script and is working as intended. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

For example [1] — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• If a bot is auto-signing for users it should note it in some obvious way, like AnomieBOT does. –xeno^talk 18:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• (monotone) My name is N&EG. I think it is not. Your wishes, master? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Based on the above, I guess that this has nuances. On a more basic level, as a minimum, should it not be made clear when a post is not not written by the person whose signature is at the end of it? And why even use someone's unique signature for something that they did not write? The solution seems simple, have the sig say "xxxx" on behalf of "yyyy" where "xxxx" is whatever (bot, script etc.) generated the text, and "yyyy" is the name (not signature) of the editor that it was acting on behalf of. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You are responsible for any scripts you run. Twinkle does this for many things - AFD nominations, WP:3RR posts, etc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(BTW, at AFC, the scripts are bundled into their standard process for accepting an article. And I think that if one doesn't use it, it makes a mess out of things there.) That aside, "responsible for" is different than indicating who wrote it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The point, I believe, is that scripts and automated tools are only a shortcut for things that could be done by hand, but aren't because of complexity or speed. When I leave a notice using the Page Curation script or Huggle, the notice is signed with my signature because, for all intents and purposes, I am the one who left the message. The script is merely the tool I use to leave it. Novusuna ^talk 21:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

New discussion on inclusion guidelines for redirects

I've been increasingly noting redirects used as a tool for bypassing policies, particularly NPOV. It seems that many clever would-be vandals have switched instead to creating awkward, POV, or outright malicious redirects. While we already have policies in place to let most of them be deleted or retargeted, I feel that our documentation on this isn't up to par. I invite interested parties to read the proposed guidelines at Wikipedia:Malicious redirects, and to join the discussion on its talk page. I'm looking forward to getting this properly sorted. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 13:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Nihiltres, apparently you haven't gotten the memo yet... I've tagged both of those April Fools pranks for CSD as such and reverted your CENT note for the same. Sorry, I'm a spoil-sport... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a hotly debated discussion about April 1 redirects underway at this other page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• *sigh* — this isn't all that funny either... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Allow images previously disallowed because of URAA copyright restoration

There has been a major change in Commons policy regarding non-US images with URAA copyright restoration – Commons will allow (and will no longer delete) images when the only problem is that they may have URAA-restored copyright. I have suggested at WP:VPPR#Allow images previously disallowed because of URAA copyright restoration that Wikipedia should adopt the same policy. I now realise I should have raised the matter here, hence this pointer. Unless someone decides to move the whole discussion here, I suggest further comments should be over there. Thincat (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Summer students

Hi all. I'm currently drafting a description of a summer student project that would focus on writing Wikipedia articles, with the aim of teaching the student how to write scientifically, taking advantage of the similarities between writing a Wikipedia article and writing a review article of a subject. I'd supervise the student for the six weeks of the project, and they would focus on physics-related articles (very deliberately *not* on projects specific to my university - the example article I have in mind is Very-long-baseline interferometry). I believe that they get some subsistence pay during the project, and there's also a prize available for the best summer student of the year (both funded by the school, not from any Wikimedia donations), which is why I'm asking about this here - is this something that would be acceptable, or would it mean that the project would be a non-starter? Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated, as would any examples of how (if?) similar projects have taken place before. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This is fine in concept, but there are some potential problems to watch out for:

1) The article may already exist, like the one you linked to. Even if it doesn't exist under the name you looked for, it may exist under another name. Replacing an article or writing a duplicate article is not usually allowed, unless the existing article is so bad that no part of it is worth saving. The Reference Desk is a good way to check for if the article exists under another name. Say "I'd like to write an article about X, is that already covered elsewhere in Wikipedia ?". Give them a week to respond.

2) I suggest the student first write the article under their own namespace, then copy it over to the mainspace, once done. This prevents people from modifying it during the writing process.

3) They might not like when people alter it, or even delete it, after they copy it over, but they lose control of it at that point, so need to allow others to modify it. They can keep their safe copy unchanged. StuRat (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks StuRat for your comments. :-) On 1) I think I know my way around Wikipedia enough to make sure that there wasn't overlap - I expect that the student would start from an existing article and then create related articles around that where need be. On 2 and 3), I actually think this is a strength rather than a problem - the analogy here is that when you're writing a scientific paper you'll get people (collaborators, reviewers) who want things doing differently and you'll have to adjust to their expectations. Hopefully it won't get flatly rejected (deleted)... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You probably want to start with Wikipedia:Education program. There have been quite a few programs of this type, and there are some volunteers who try to assist with them. --108.38.196.65 (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm aware of what the education program has been doing; this is somewhat difficult, though, in that it would only be one student rather than a whole class, and it's being done outside of term time rather than in it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mike! Speaking as an editor, I am perfectly fine with this and think it's a great idea. I would be more than happy to support it as an editor. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 16:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Chase Me. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• StuRat and 108... both make good points—things I hadn't thought of when I suggested Mike float the idea here. I personally can't see a problem with the idea, as long as it was done carefully. We have quite a bit of experience of similar-ish projects in the UK, so the students would have plenty of support available. Drafting in userspace is probably a good idea, but it could work in the mainspace. The thing that will get people's backs up is a lack of supervision, which could lead to the edits (although well-intentioned) doing more harm than good (as has happened in the past, but we can learn from the mistakes of history). As long as there are experienced Wikipedians on-hand to offer advice, I can see this delivering great benefits to Wikipedia in terms of new or improved content and perhaps some new editors in an area that I imagine could make good use of them. I'll drop a note on the education noticeboard so that the education people can offer any advice from their experience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  Many, many thanks Harry. :-) My intention would be for them to be well-supervised by me, and I'd be open to criticism throughout the whole process - I guess the trust there is the same as for mentorship except without the escape route. ;-) If things don't go well in the mainspace then I'd view userspace as a good fallback option - but I would like to see the student experiencing mainspace editing if possible (since that's the only way to get the full Wikipedia experience. ;-) ) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• You will need to check the foundation:Terms of Use at the time, since they are being revised. If the proposed changes go through between now and then, then it might technically be considered a type of "paid editing" that would need to be declared (a brief note on the talk page would likely be adequate). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This certainly sounds like a good example of the sort of thing that a) should be entirely OK, and b) might be problematic under a badly drafted anti-paid-editing proposal... Andrew Gray (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point, thanks for making it. :-) It's probably easiest if I reply to this in my answer to Kevin below. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see any problems with this, if well-supervised, and trust you to have enough experience to supervise it well. It's certainly not the type of paid editing the Foundation views as problematic, although regardless of any changes to the ToU between now and then a note disclosing that the editor is participating in an educational project is generally a best practice anyway, and should probably include mention that they're receiving a stipend. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  It's interesting that, when I raised the stipend issue with my colleagues today, it came as a surprise to them that this would present an issue. I'm not saying that either in support or opposition of paid editing (personally, I'm actually against it as a rule), but it is interesting that it wasn't perceived as an issue by them until I explained why. I'm saying this because it might present a bit of difficulty when I explain this to the student and ask them to add the mention of the stipend to their user page, but I guess that should be an interesting discussion. At the very least I'll be making sure that they explain that they are a summer student on their user page, and I'll try to add an explanation on my userpage, so it'll be transparent to follow through from this discussion to them. This is, of course, assuming that there is a student interested in this project, and accepted by the selection panel, which may mean that this doesn't take place at all. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• ... "taking advantage of the similarities between writing a Wikipedia article and writing a review article of a subject." In a review there is criticism, and hence how does that sit with "neutral point of view"? Gordo (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

A review article is not the same as a review of (eg) a book or product; it's more an attempt at summarising current knowledge. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What Andrew said. :-) Scientific review articles should be neutral summaries of the topic, which is exactly what Wikipedia aims to do. Of course, they're not always neutral, but that's more often the fault of the reviewer than the expectation. (In fact, I sort of hope that Wikipedia will ultimately replace scientific review articles, but that is sadly a long way in the future right now...) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks to everyone for your comments. :-) I'm now hopeful that this can go ahead. I've posted the draft project description at User:Mike Peel/Summer student - please feel free to edit that page directly, or let me know your thoughts about this description here or on the user talk page. I'm aiming to give the go-ahead to share this with the students at around 17.00 UTC tomorrow if there are no issues before then. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems fine to me, though s/he will have to learn to work with the existing editors in the area, and of course needs to disclose fully at various points. Good luck! Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an excellent initiative, Mike. Please don't hesitate to let me know if there's any way I can support this in my role within the UK chapter. --Toni Sant (WMUK) (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mike Peel:, etc.: nobody seems to have mentioned the Draft: namespace which is surely the place to build a new article if it is not to go straight into mainspace. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all. :-) This is now being advertised to the students. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

One thing I will say is make sure you have an exit strategy in case things go wrong. Having no option but to carry on has been a cause of problems in the past.©Geni (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Claim that talk page guidelines override reference desk ones

Guy Macon (talk · contribs) has repeatedly claimed in different discussions that the talk page guidelines override the reference desk guidelines because the talk page guidelines have wider consensus and the reference desk looks similar to a talk page.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive832#Disruptive_editing_of_the_reference_desks

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Legal_or_Medical_advice

Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Legal_or_Medical_advice

Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Removed_Comments

I say the reference desk is not a talk page and it has specific guidelines and that the talk page guideline is a guideline which only applied where the reference desk specific guideline doesn't override it. So I'll ask here, is there a consensus that the talk page guidelines automatically override the reference desk guidelines on any matters where they might differ in responses on the reference desks? Dmcq (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I clicked two links, but they brought up entire threads and I don't have time to load it all in my brain to figure out what the issue is. It would help to say something like When N&EG let his dog out to poop, Dcmq said that the homeowner's assoc rules prohibiting outdoor dog pooping trump local ordinance that implicitly approves of dog walking on public ROW if you clean up" and and he said that in this DIFF (link to specific comment) At any rate, I note that the ref desk guidelines in the sections for moving, redacting, or otherwise tweaking other's comments say - at the time I looked - that the usual WP:TALK guidelines apply. So I don't see what the issue is. Seems like the ref desk guide might be improved if all the redundancy with WP:TALK is deleted, and instead the thing start off saying that "the usual WP:TALK guidelines apply, and in addition here at the ref desk people should also do XYZ" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

My actual claim is similar, but slightly different from the above description.

My general claim is that, according to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:TPOC trumps WP:RD/G if the two disagree, and I completely reject the notion that WP:TPOC doesn't apply to the reference desks at all because "they are not talk pages" per the second paragraph of WP:TPG: "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply."

My specific claim is that deleting a non-harmful good-faith question on the reference desks because it asks for medical or legal advice is not allowed. It should be answered with an explanation that we cannot offer medical or legal advice and {{hat}}/{{hab}} or one of the similar templates should be applied. I have no problem with deleting an answer that gives medical or legal advice, just with deleting the question. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Guy's explanation seems pretty good to me, and right now I'd agree, but I'm interested in hearing D's rebuttal firstNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Edited 21:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would suggest that "deleting the question" is unacceptable under pretty much most circumstances. We have useful templates like {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} which afford editors the chance to explain why they deem a discussion to be closed, and this could be utilised to stop the ongoing snappish and unfriendly approach to some questions, particularly those from IPs, who some editors clearly consider persona non grata in this encyclopaedia, despite the opposite being true. Direct and abject personal attacks should be removed. Dubious remarks can be removed with a {{npa}} template. Other comments should be archived in a manner whereby the community can learn and understand where they went wrong, not just be zapped unilaterally by some kind of desk monitor at a moments' notice. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• To the above I would add that questions on the reference desks tend to be that person's first interaction with Wikipedia, and having their question silently disappear might very well make it their last interaction with Wikipedia. That being said, such arguments have never deterred the self-appointed reference desk censor squad before, so what we really need is an answer as to whether or not I am properly interpreting Wikipedia policy in my general and specific claims above. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, the arrogance and indifference with which some of these editors, mostly IPs, are dealt is a clear and direct violation of WP:AGF. In fact, I have seen IP-based edits closed with a variation of tl;dr, which sums up the absolute scorn with which IP editors are being treated at the ref desks. As Guy notes, these editors, in most cases, believe the ref desks to be somewhere where questions can be asked without any kind of knowledge. Having your questions summarily removed is contrary to the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Just as a point of order, the "squad" consists of one person, and the balance of the regulars at the reference desk have been railing for years to stop that behavior. So please don't paint it as a plural behavior, Guy. Hatting, deleting, or archive threads prematurely is the bailiwick of a single person, and the problem would likely go away if they chose to accede to the repeated requests to stop. --Jayron32 02:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• First of all the reference desk guideline says that a personal attack should be replaced by [personal attack removed. ~~~]. The silent removal of the personal attack on the reference desk was against its guideline.

Even if the reference desk guideline had said the attack should be removed silently, which it did not, then the point about this query here is that I believe the reference desk guideline is the one that should be fixed rather than depending on the talk page guideline. The reference desk guideline explicitly defers to the talk page guideline on some matters but on others it gives explicit direction, and it gives explicit direction as I described here about personal attacks on the reference desks.

As to the legal and medical stuff we shouldn't be giving any personal advice anyway on talk pages, that is not what they are for. The reference desks is for that sort of thing. There is no need to complicate the talk pages with reference desk guidelines. Also on talk pages people can go a bit loose on OR and things like that but on reference desks we should try and point to reliable sources, There is some personal tales but they should really be marked as personal.

Basically the reference desk contains signatures and indents but having the form of a talk page that way does not make them Wikipedia talk pages. They are part of the visible encyclopaedia rather than discussions about the encyclopaedia.

The major point over all this though is I believe we should not have editors going around saying that a guideline which treats specific circumstances are overridded by general ones which aren't even covering the area. And even if they did cover the area then the guideline should be fixed or deleted rather than arguing on the talk page that they are irrelevant as some other more general guideline overrides it. Do you really want people going around arguing one guideline overrides another as a way of doing things? I believe that is a disruptive way of doing things. If a discrepancy is found it should be fixed according to consensus rather than just made into arguments. May I quote WP:POLICY on this:

not contradict each other. The community's view cannot simultaneously be "A" and "not A". When apparent discrepancies arise between pages, editors at all the affected pages should discuss how they can most accurately represent the community's current position, and correct all of the pages to reflect the community's view. This discussion should be on one talk page, with invitations to that page at the talk pages of the various affected pages; otherwise the corrections may still contradict each other.

If they think there is a problem then fix the problem otherwise adhere by the specific guideline. There's RfC's to get a wider view if they think the local view is limited or they can bring it here or tthere's lots of other ways to fix things. Dmcq (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Try this. We'll see if it survives.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable enough in my view. However do you think that for the reference desk that the reference desk guideline has primacy where it gives explicit guidance or would you follow Guy Macon in saying that the talk page automatically overrides it? If the talk page automatically overrides it then the reference desk guideline should say something like it covering a special case of talk pages like the various MOS guidelines for the general MOS rather than saying for instance "Although the Reference Desk project pages are not strictly talk pages, the same indentation conventions apply". Dmcq (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to clarify what "overrides" and/or "trumps" means. The local guideline / local consensus can be more restrictive than the general guideline. That isn't overriding. Your (Dmcq) example of tighter sourcing requirements for the reference desk is a good example of this; as long as no general policy says that you cannot back up your claims with citations to reliable sources, the reference desk guidelines can require that even though the talk page guidelines don't. What the reference desk guidelines cannot do is to allow something that the talk page guidelines prohibit. The reference desk guidelines could not, for example, say that personal attacks or outing are allowed.

I agree with you (Dmcq) that whenever two Wikipedia policies disagree one or the other should be changed, but that does not imply that we should not discuss which one to apply in cases where they do disagree. In cases where a local guideline attempts to override a general guideline it can easily take a month or more to demonstrate the overall community consensus through an RfC and then deal with any editors who refuse to accept the decision of the community. In such cases we need to decide what to do while we work on resolving the conflict, and indeed, that is the question that you asked when you started this discussion. In my opinion, "fix the problem, otherwise adhere by the specific guideline" is incorrect per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I believe that "fix the problem, meanwhile adhere to the general guideline" is correct.

After reading the comments above this one above several times, I am still not quite certain as to which of the following claims you (Dmcq) disagree with.

1. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:TPOC overrides WP:RD/G if the two disagree.
2. Per the second paragraph of WP:TPG, it is not true that WP:TPOC doesn't apply to the reference desks at all because "they are not talk pages".
3. Per WP:TPOC, deleting a non-harmful good-faith question on the reference desks because it asks for medical or legal advice is not allowed.

Could you clarify? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with all three of your assertions.

1. The reference desk is not a local area like we can't have a local consensus of Afghanistan overriding the general guidelines about countries.
2. The reference desks are not talk pages. They use talk page format but they are Wikipedia front pages.
3. The reference desk guideline overrides the talk pages ones where it gives specific guidance. Also the talk pages should not have anything about giving advice to enquirers about anything personal, that is the job of the reference desks. The talk pages are for editors to discuss improvements to Wikipedia.

Also as to your thing about discussing which one to apply, you should have raised an RfC on the problem like I asked or brought it here rather than just asserting your point of view as if it was obvious when others have disagreed with you. If you think the obvious guideline or policy in a situation is wrong that is what should be fixed first rather than having arguments over primacy of guidelines. So overall I disagree with you on every point you have raised. Dmcq (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If anyone other than you ever misinterprets Wikipedia policy in the same way that you have, I will consider posting an RfC, but the comments above make it pretty clear that the consensus here is that I am interpreting Wikipedia policy correctly and that you are not. (If anyone thinks he is right, please speak up now.) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that. How about also if anyone thinks Guy Macon is right and I'm wrong thanks. It is hard to gauge consensus with just one box. Dmcq (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you are both right; I think it should work like Guy described, and I think Dmcq's complaints that the text in the guidelines isn't as good as it could be is also correct. The RD/G should be tweaked to say "general standards for talkpages described at TPG apply, and in addition at the RD do XYZ". Future opinions that there is a conflict should be brought up at the RD/G talk page and resolved via the normal DR process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Dmcq's comments about the guidelines needing improving are spot on. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I think you are saying that you consider the reference desk to be a talk page and that the reference desk guideline is wrong when it says they are not talk pages. I can't say I'm surprised as I seem to disagree with NewsAndEventsGuy on an lot of things they do but I would like to see the reasoning for their thinking. I see the question as if you are in an actual physical library would the guidelines on answering customer queries be considered subservient to guidelines for internal communication? In fact are they even the same thing even thought some of the internal guidelines would normally apply when there aren't special directions for the job - but would you really expect the internal conduct guideline to overrule the specific guideline for interaction with the public when answering their queries? A similar situation would be the support desk for a shop or company. Dmcq (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW I don't think I've ever seen your name on a reference desk - have you ever used them or even looked at them at all? Dmcq (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

(A)Your last question is an irrelevant ad hominem and you read more than I said into my words.

(B)I have no opinion on the taxonomy of the RD and whether it should be classified as a talk page. It seems rather unambiguous that it is in the Help namespace, and WP:TALK starts off saying that it applies to talk pages for article and project pages. But then it says "When pages in other namespaces (like the Ref desk in the Help namespace) are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." You can't post or answer a question at the RD unless you "use" the site and are therefore a "user". So those conditions are satisfied and whether it is a talk page or not is rather academic, isn't it? TPG says "the same norms will usually apply" and there is nothing in RD that says "fie on the TPG!!"

(C) Even if the RD were not a talk page, people can say things like "Hey, something works pretty well over there, let's borrow those good ideas". In my opinion, any place where people "talk" but is not taxonomically/academically/microscopically classed as a "talk page" should (and generally do) embrace the standards articulated in the TPG, plus additional stuff as appropriate, and doing so doesn't change the taxonomic calculus, but rather just means we have a fairly uniform standard for "talking" to each other, regardless of the streetname the various buses happen to be travelling on. Of course, on Route 5, I talk completely differently to everyone, but that's the one that goes past the clown school and its hard to be stay civil to people with red noses and palm buzzers. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

As to (A) the good reply from you rather than talking about ad hominem would be to say something like that you have looked at them or have used a reference desk in a library.

For (B) the whole point of the question here is taxonomy and you said as far as I can see you have said you agree with Guy Macon that if the reference desk guideline says one thing and the talk page says another then the reference desk guideline is automatically overridden and that's what the change of wording you talked about would force. Your basis as far as I can see is legalistic rather than on the basis of the implications or effect. If so can I point out that 'usually' does not mean 'always even when there are specific overriding guidelines', the Wikipedia word for that is 'normally'. Also the reference desks are for enquiries and answers, own opinion is frowned upon and should be clearly identified - they are not 'discussion' pages. The discussion pages in Wikipedia are for discussing improvements in Wikipedia. An example of what WP:TPG means by a non-talk page governed by its guideline is given in the lead by 'All guidelines here also apply to Wikipedia discussion pages, such as articles for deletion.' The articles for deletion pages are for editors to give their own opinions about an improvement to Wikipedia.

As to (C) the reference desk guideline already explicitly refers to the talk page guidelines for much of the mechanism and says that usually it applies - but it also gives some explicit guidelines for some things. The whole point of this discussion is whether the reference desk guidelines can only extend the talk page guideline or whether its guidelines automatically take precedence on the reference desks. Dmcq (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Which is more likely to smooth the operation of the Ref Desk, (A) seek consensus on a taxonomical approach, via discussing all sorts of lofty ideas, or (B) simply identifying possible specific tangible discrepancies between RD/G and TPG, one-by-one, with a well organized bullet list of quoted text from each for comparison, and maybe diffs where eds applied the language differently? At least for me, the abundance of general theoretical complaint isn't really working. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:TPOC tells us when removing another editor's comments is allowed:

"Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. ... Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:"

(followed by a list that includes libel, personal details, violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies, personal attacks, trolling and vandalism.

Nowhere in the list is there the slightest hint that you are allowed to remove a non-harmful good-faith medical question.

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Dealing with questions asking for medical advice contradicts WP:TPOC:

"Questions that appear to be soliciting medical advice, including any answers so far provided for them (regardless of their nature), should be removed and replaced with a neutral boilerplate message (such as {{RD-deleted}}) informing the questioner of the removal and pointing to the reference desk guidelines."

Template:RD-deleted contradicts WP:TPOC:

"This template is intended to be used on the reference desk to replace questions that appear to be soliciting medical, legal or other professional advice."

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#When removing or redacting a posting contradicts WP:TPOC:

"For removing a question seeking medical advice, you can make use of the boilerplate text of Template:RD-deleted to replace the question"

It also contradicts itself:

"When removing or redacting someone else's posting, the usual talk page guidelines apply."

It says that the talk page guidelines apply, but then it goes on to say that you are allowed to do something that the talk page guidelines does not allow you to do.

I could go and edit those pages so as to only allow deleting the answers, but I would be instantly reverted, and I am not a big fan of making edits just to prove a point. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

My take:

1) The Ref Desk is a type of talk page. Therefore, the talk page guidelines do apply.

2) Silent deletion should be avoided in almost every case. Aside from turning users off, they may not know where their post went and simply repost it. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Jeez could you read the flipping section of the guideline you're talking about please. It says that a medical question should be replace by the templkate informing the user of the problem posting it. It says personal attacks should be replace with a line saying that a personal attack has been removed. That is not silent removal.

Could you give a reason why you think a reference desk is a talk page besides that indents and signatures are used? The normal talk pages and AfD pages etc are all about improving Wikipedia and people quote policies and guidelines and discussing things with each other. That simply is not what a reference desk is about at all. Dmcq (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, at least we have a useful something to get teeth into. I concur with you and StuRat, but I would like to know from the relevant archives about when the outright deletion of the question was previously discussed, and review the discussion to see if it still makes best sense for the project. Does anyone know where - if anywhere - the matter was discussed in the past?

• Oldest version of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice is this one (as a split from an earlier page elsewhere) dated April 12, 2007; As I read that version, it supports Guy & StuRat's approach so where did it change?
• Change was discussed in Sept 2007 and implemented in this edit on Sept 10, 2007.

Of course, the basic problem that we can't give professional medical advice is unchanged. I think the hatting approach described in this thread is a worthwhile and advantageous alternative to the Sept 2007 "nuke it" decision. The RD/G could easy be adapted to say "Except as otherwise provided below, the TPG applies to the Ref Desk. In the case of questions seeking medical/legal advice, hat the thread along with a polite message directing the questioner to a qualified professional." That should prevent mayhem and mischief, or at least it could be tested by a time-limited implementation followed by assessment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Now you're saying the opposite of what you said earlier and you're not actually concurring with Guy or StuRat. That is basically what the reference desk guideline does by saying the usual talk page guidelines apply but then giving specific directions where it differs. If an 'except as follows' helps I guess that can be done easily. However Guy was saying that all the stuff about medical and legal questions would have to be stuck into the talk page guidelines as the reference desk guideline could not give specific direction in that case because it would be overridden by the talk page guidelines. Dmcq (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You might be interpreting what you hear the opposite way but I haven't really changed my intended meaning. Arnold has a useful suggestion for the way forward NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the issue of how to deal with inappropriate inquiries on the Reference Desk an important one that should be addressed directly and not as a argument about guideline pecking order. The reference desk is unusual in that its function is something other than to improve articles. I can see good arguments on both sides of the primary question. I'd also like to see some examples of problematic inquiries. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and special situations should be hashed out cooperatively.--agr (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well there has been some disruption of the reference desk by a self appointed controller who goes around deleting things when they have been asked not to but that has been happening for a while and no-one seems to want to do anything much. However the primacy claim is important because we have Guy Macon trying to stick a whole block of Medical and llegal stuff into the talk page guidelines where they are simply not needed and disputing the reference desk guidelines saying what they say is irrelevant even though the reference desks are the only place these guidelines are relevant. It makes it difficult to deal with disruption if the guidelines for the reference desks are treated as irrelevant.

Some things have been deleted by that 'controller' but they should at most have been replaced with a reason rather than silently deleted according to the reference desk guideline. The misunderstanding above that it allows silent deletion is pretty typical of the trouble caused by Guy Macon quoting the talk page guidelines as having primacy. Dmcq (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more clear what you mean by "replaced with a reason" and "silently deleted," maybe with some examples of what was done and what you think should have been done?--agr (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether you remove the question silently or replace it with something is immaterial, because you aren't allowed to edit the question in any way, with the only exceptions being those listed at WP:TPOC. The issue is that the reference desk guidelines say that you can delete a question asking for medical advice for no other reason than it being a question asking for medical advice. We need to either fix the reference desk guidelines and template so that they no longer say that, or we need to add "questions asking for medical advice" to WP:TPOC along with the existing allowable reasons (BLP violations, copyright infringement, etc). This is not optional. WP:POLCON requires it. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with the situation as it stands. lex specialis derogat legi generali. The more specific rule (that about the refdesk) overrides the more general one by forming an exception to it. This has never been a problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying that if the local consensus at the reference desk is to edit the reference desk guidelines to say "personal attacks, outing and copyright infringement are allowed on the reference desks" and "'because I disagree' is a valid reason to remove a comment on the reference desk", those additions override Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines by forming an exception to them. That can't be right. I must be misreading what you wrote. Could you clarify? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You are making one logical mistake: you are confusing "consensus about a limited set of situations" with "consensus among a limited group of editors". The refdesk rules are more specific, and in that sense of more limited scope, than the general talkpage rules. That's not logically the same thing as saying that the consensus that carries them is less strong or less valid than the consensus that the more general rule is based on. "LOCALCON" is about actions of isolated local groups of editors, not about rules for locally specific situations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The difference between silently deleting and giving a reason is that in silently deleting the whole contribution is removed, and in giving a reason you replace it with a template or line saying exactly why it was deleted so the enquirer knows what's happened. Silently deleting is not allowed by the reference desk guideline and replacing with a reason is.

I believe you are wrong in saying the reference desk must follow the talk page guideline as it is not a Wikipedia talk page. We don't discuss improving Wikipedia on it or quote policies and guidelines on it like on an AfD. Quoting WP:LOCALCON as justifying your action on this is just wrong as it is not some local consensus like on some project page and if you read that you'll see it says so. All official policies and guidelines have widespread Wikipedia consensus. If people think there is something wrong with a specific policy or guideline and that things are done better somewhere else then they should try changing the guidelines rather than ignoring them and assuming something else, and there are easy mechanisms for achieving that. As to WP:POLCON the talk page guideline is a guideline not a policy, there is no requirement like you say from it or even as it says "a temporary measure during the resolution process". Dmcq (talk) 07:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Re "As to WP:POLCON the talk page guideline is a guideline not a policy". the actual title of POLCON is "Conflicts between advice pages" and the first words after the title are "If policy and/or guideline pages directly conflict..." How do you get the idea that POLCON applies to policy pages but not guidelines when WP:POLCON says the exact opposite? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you actually go and read what it says thanks - it is quite short. As to any overriding it only refers to policies compared to guidelines: "if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence". As to two advice pages conflicting it says

"More commonly, advice pages do not directly conflict, but provide multiple options. For example, WP:Identifying reliable sources says that newspaper articles are generally considered to be reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) recommends against newspaper articles for certain technical purposes. Editors must use their best judgment to decide which advice is most appropriate and relevant to the specific situation at hand."

I fail to see how you read that as meaning the general talk page guidelines should override the reference desk guidelines. Dmcq (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal A re Ref Desk and talk page guidelines

I propose

• (A) Stop basing arguments on what x policy or y guideline says we must do, and instead just think about what would be best to do going forward Supplemented by me later since the implied meaning wasn't clear to some and then and only then turning wikilawyerwordsmithies (including me) loose to tweak the guidelines, etc, to embrace that agreement-in-principle.
• (B) Add to WP:TPOC Additional reasons may be specified in the guidelines for any page where users directly interact outside the user and article namespace (e.g., the WP:Reference desk)

(later) FYI, I already added "B" to the TPG. We'll see if it sticks or generates new input.

• (C) At Ref Desk, Change text to something like For questions seeking professional advice (e.g., medical, legal, engineering, etc), editors should leave otherwise acceptable questions intact but direct the questioner to a qualified professional and use {{hat}}...{{/hat}} templates to close the thread. Editors may also modify or delete objectionable text for the usual reasons listed at WP:TPOC, but should identify the reason in the edit summary if they do so.
• (D) Review impact of these changes in 12 months, in case it makes sense to revert
• (E) Get back to productive work

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Comment I did support this but now I should really be counted as a Disagree for the alternate Proposal B - i.e. I think the reference desks should not be counted as talk pages simply that they defer to the talk pages guidelines for most things. This is an even stronger split from considering them as talk pages with a few rights. As a fallback I do support this. Dmcq (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Previously I said: Sounds good to me except (D), I don't think we need set a special date, editors are quite good at fixing things in policies if there is a reasonable playing field to work in. Perhaps for B we should try to specify what it means better, WP:Questions distinguishes between factual questions which go to the reference desk and Wikipedia related queries and I think that is the big divide. It mentions some other pages like the help desk or media copyright questions where we probably also need to be especially public oriented but I don't believe we've had any particular problems with them that require special action. Dmcq (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I can live without D... it was only a gesture to the eds who do or at least did frequent the RefDesk and originally wanted to delete such questions, but it certainly isn't necessary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Although I am the proposer, here is the biggest reason I can think of for saying "no". Even if we hat a question as described in the proposal, the question itself will remain prominently displayed for all the wannabe quacks and gumshoes out there, and such eds might take it upon themselves to try to provide the otherwise prohibited professional advice via email or posts to the question-asker's talk page. That's bad. In addition, does wikipedia have any potential liability exposure as a result of hosting the question in this manner? If push came to shove the foundation might argue "we didn't do it" but counself for some question-asker who followed bad advice might counter with "But did you, Wikipedia, do everything in your power to prevent this tragedy? Did you tolerate the solicitation of this advice on your active web pages, or did you act swiftly to delete and so reduce the odds that quacks and gumshoes would answer?" And so maybe the present "nuke it" policy - while not as friendly as it might appear to be - could be a desirable fact of business life. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd have actually preferred we could point to something more useful for those questions with a strong qualification that no OR was allowed rather than hatting them or replacing with a reason. However you're quite right about what you say. It is difficult even now to stop people trying to give their own opinions and apocryphal stories about legal or medical questions and even sticking in more under the hat when one is used to hide the questions. Dmcq (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Opppose (A). When x policy or y guideline says what we must do, that is the established consensus. If we "just think about what would be best to do going forward". we are saying that the handful of editors who are participating in this discussion can overrule long-established policies that are approved by the entire Wikipedia community. This is a major change in policy.

Strongly Opppose (B). Doing that allows a handful of editors on the reference desk to overrule long-established policies that are approved by the entire Wikipedia community. This is a major change in policy.

Support (C). Makes sense, doesn't contradict any existing policy.

Weakly Oppose (D). Unnecessary bureaucracy. The way we review decisions now is fine the way it is.

Slightly offended by (E). If you don't think that clarifying policies is productive work, feel free to unwatch the page and go do what you consider to be productive work. Please don't belittle those of us who are working on policy clarification. Wikipedia needs a bunch of different people doing a bunch of different things, and subtle putdowns aimed at those doing maintenance tasks are not helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Rebuttal(B-Part1) - If you are referring to it violating WP:TPOC (A) that isn't a policy and (B) it isn't a change at all because taxonomically, the WP:TPOC definitely applies only to user and article name space and only maybe (i.e., "usually") applies to similar pages elsewhere (such as the Ref Desk). The only "long standing" things being talked about here

• the maybe/maybe not ("usually") application of TALK to the RefDesk goes back to the beginning of the RefDesk,
• the RefDesk special rule for this unique need is now 7 years old.

My proposal B would not change either one of those two things, but it would preventreduce arguments that TALK always controls no matter what, even though TALK only says it "usually" controls, by making the maybe/maybe not application more explicit than it is now. Since that is your position I understand that you "strongly oppose" paragraph (B) in the proposal, but think the factual underpinning for your opposition is incorrect.

Rebuttal(B-Part2), we need not let a junta at the RefDesk make up their own rules for special needs because if anyone feels vetting by the wider community is needed for those special rules..... isn't that why we created the RFC?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hilarious to propose (A), thanks, funniest thing I've read all year, maybe all decade. Let's just let everyone do what they think is best, that'll work! So, kick (A) to the curb. In general, there's not one single good reason to "hat" any discussion. What is wrong with using the {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} templates which allow the rest of the world to understand why specific discussions have been prematurely foreclosed? It's not like there are hundreds a day. Goodness knows there are usually only two or three threads a day at these RDs. The whole point of the RDs is to enable those who aren't Wikipedia-savvy to ask dumb questions, good questions, any questions, and to expect to be treated with some level of respect. If we just delete or "hat" their threads, what service does that provide? Visibly archiving the threads that certain editors deem "unacceptable" for the myriad reasons is the only genuinely acceptable approach here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Really? What exactly is hilarious about proposing that we change policies and guidelines to do what the community believes is best? Shall we leave them in some fossilized "ideal" or "long-standing" state even when the community ("we") think that the policy or guideline no longer recommends the best course of action? I suggest that strongly support (A) is the only sensible response in every policy- and guideline-related discussion.
    Also, it happens to be our formal policy to "strongly support (A)": See WP:CCC and WP:POLICY for our "long-standing" policies that we can and should change policies whenever we believe they're not the best option, and WP:IAR for our "long-standing" policy that people can and should do whatever thy think is best for the specific sutation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, really, this isn't about redefining policy at all, it's about common sense and courtesy, much of which is missing in most places I see some editors lurking. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I can see how an accidental misreading of the original might invite ridicule from some quarters, but I have revised the original text by hopefully making it more clear. See Paragraph (A) again please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Got it. Re-reading. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Fine, but the overall proposal to continue this absurd use of hats does not help the community. Transparency (unless absolutely required) should lead us to use a signed, explained archive template. No more of the disappearing text, even for poor old IP editors who are treated like shit by a certain portion of the RD crowd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

People stick in extra even under a hat sometimes on the reference desk. An archive header will basically be ignored. Lots of people are just desperate to say their piece about medical questions in particular and 'help' the questioner or give their own stories. Dmcq (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

A common response to this at the Ref Desk would be "TL;DR", followed by a removal of comment. So, whatever. Pure anecdotalist cruft. Awesome. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support C (abstaining from the rest) - I've never been particularly sold on the idea that talk page guidelines should govern the refdesk (other than Wikipedia talk:Reference desk) since their content and use it just different, but at the same time I don't think the refdesk guidelines are robust or consensus-based enough to merit dismissing talk page guidelines. Regardless, the hatting (and, I will add, deleting, even though that's already explicit) has to stop. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• My opinion on the matter.
  • Strongly Support A As I read A it is saying that we should, for the purposes of this discussion, stop wikilawyering as much (and there is an awful lot of that going on D: ) and instead we should be focusing on figuring out in this order: if there is a problem on the Reference Desk (which based on what I have read into this and related discussion so far I would say that there is), what changes in behaviour do we need to see in order to fix this (without reference to any specific policies), what policies need to be modified in order to make these changes happen, and how do we modify these policies.

Alternatively A could be read as support for WP:IAR, which while I didn't interpret it that way, I would still support it if it was meant that way. Though certainly I would want to see discussion happen as outlined in the paragraph above.

• Support B I think that this seems like a reasonable solution to the problem that people seem to be finding with the talk page guidelines and I think it could fix a number of potential problems down the line. I would ask though that this be put into its own separate RFC given its far reaching implications.
• Strongly Support C This also seems like a reasonable and local fix for the problem. I would recommend making templates for the common closure types. I can't particularly see any problems with adding this here.
• Weak Oppose D I also don't see a reason to set a specific date, but I have no real problems with it.
• Strongly Strongly Support E While I agree that discussing policy (especially this one) isn't a waste of time, this discussion in of itself has been frustrating to watch. In some threads (remembering that the discussion regarding the problem with some users removing questions spans at least 5 different pages) the discussions have had personal attacks and I don't think that everyone in all of these discussions have done the best job of assuming good faith and just being kind to our fellow editors. Its for this reason I haven't contributed until now. I would love to see us hash this out quickly, thoroughly, and politely, and then get back to actual work.
• Comment I casually watch the Reference Desk pages, but generally do not participate. I would love to get involved, but some of what I've see there turns me off to it. Zell Faze (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal B Declare Ref Desk to be a rootin' tootin' talk page

As an alternative, I propose that even though the WP:Reference Desk is part of the Help namespace, we officially classify it as a special form of talk page to which WP:TALK applies. All TPOC type guidelines can then be listed in a section of WP:TALK for vetting by the wider community. It would have the same effect of hosting special TPOC rules for the RefDesk at the RD/G, after RFC from the RD/G's talk page . NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that declaring RD to be a talk page would make any difference. Why wouldn't "I have <medical condition>" be covered under the exception for removing "personal details"? It doesn't really get much more personal than that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If somebody wants to say they're from some village we don't stop them though we do stop other people saying it. Emails are removed for various reasons, people probably have given them by mistake, they should be encouraged to have some security, and we want responses registered in Wikipedia rather than via personal email are the main ones. I'm not sure where we actually have all this written down but it is something that applies everywhere.

People saying they suffer from some condition is fine and they could do that for example on their personal user page. Just they can't go around asking for or giving medical advice, and the only place to ask for advice like that if it were allowed would be the reference desks. Dmcq (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree It seems to me RD is different. Every other talk page is oriented to improving the encyclopedia. Even user pages "are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves" to facilitate collaboration. RD is much closer to a blog or forum, where queries come in from the general public on all sorts of topics and everyone feels free to chime in. That is not at all the type of activity that WP:TALK addresses, so a special guideline for RD would seem appropriate, with a cross reference from WP:TALK as proposed above. One concern I have is someone creating an account in someone else's name and then asking an embarrassing medical or legal question. Questions could also be posed in a way that implies advice. "I take four aspirins with a shot of vodka whenever I have headache and it always makes them go away. Is this is safe?" RD is not a primary goal of Wikipedia and maybe it needs be on a tight leash, with banned questions politely deleted. I could also see replacing a question with a template that says something like "Our article Headache may provide useful background, but Wikipedia doesn't provide medical advice. See a doctor if you have questions about your health." and deleting any additional comments. My inclination is to give a lot of deference to editors who have been managing the RD. --agr (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree. To be clear, I don't want to see questions being deleted off the Refdesk based on the overwrought policies certain groups like to push. But no good can come out of splitting the policy debate into two. We have talk page guidelines for talk pages (including the Reference Desk talk page). We have Reference Desk guidelines for the Reference Desk page. If you think one of those policies is wrong, propose a fix, but please, do not mix them all up with each other. Wnt (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree I think the reference desks should not be counted as talk pages simply that they defer to the talk pages guidelines for most things. Of course a conflict in them is good grounds for discussing a change but by default the reference desk guideline should take precedence for the reference desk. According to WP:POLCON Proposal A would have been okay in most circumstances but we're currently stuck with legalistic wrangling about one guideline compared to the other rather than what's actual best practice in various situations. WP:LOCALCON says in essence that all policies and guidelines have wide consensus, it does not provide a basis for playing off one guideline against another like has been done here but this would stop that in this actual case. Dmcq (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree For similar reasons to those that others have disagreed. Reference desk pages are not talk pages as they serve a very different purpose that talk pages generally do. They are their own type of page, but do defer to Talk Page Guidelines as appropriate, which I feel is completely reasonable as there is no reason to re-invent the wheel. Changes to the guidelines for the References Pages should be done to the Reference Page Guidelines. It also may be useful to make it clearer in the Reference Page Guidelines that the Reference Page is not a Talk Page if that is what we decide here. Zell Faze (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Disputed summary Ref Desk guideline versus Talk page guideline

I think the preceding discussion indicate that the consensus is that the reference desks are not talk pages. The reference desk guideline are best practice on the reference desks. However where there is no specific reference desk guideline the talk page guideline should be followed, and in general disagreements between them are undesirable unless there is a good reason otherwise.

There is one obvious difference in that contributions on reference desks are more often hatted that on talk pages, e.g. requests for medical or legal advice, or removed with a comment like [personal attack removed. ~~~~], and that is supported by the reference desk guidelines. There is some sentiment against that here but not enough consensus to say the reference desk guideline should do anything about its advice on that. It might however be worth discussing specifically on the reference desk talk page. There is a strong sentiment against just removing a contribution without a comment, but as far as I can see there is nothing in either guideline that encourages that. I modified your section heading ("Summary Ref Desk guideline versus Talk page one") because what you wrote was not, in fact a summary of the preceding discussion. (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I modified your section heading ("Summary Ref Desk guideline versus Talk page one") per WP:TPOC because what you wrote was not, in fact a summary of the preceding discussion. Instead, it was your personal opinion on a subject that was not on the proposal's A through E list. Please feel free to edit it to your liking and remove my signature as long as the result is not a misleading summary of a straw poll that asks four unrelated questions. Feel free to post an RfC or straw poll asking whether the reference desks are or are not talk pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay I've stuck in 'disputed' into the title and will ask for an admin to come along and summarize. Dmcq (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a request for a summary and closure at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure. Dmcq (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC raised on Proposal A part B

There is an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Poll about whether to include an explicit statement in the talk page guideline saying the reference desk guideline can give its own advice as described in proposal A part B above.

Unfortunately I have my doubts this RfC will resolve the issue one way or the other as currently the main reasons for not including are policy creep. Please make your thoughts clear there also on whether you believe the talk page guideline overrides the reference desk guideline as well as whether you support or oppose the proposal in the RfC. Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request regarding Proposal B (Declare Ref Desk to be a rootin' tootin' talk page)

It appears to me (I could be wrong) that Dmcq is interpreting disagreement with Proposal B (declare Ref Desk to be a rootin' tootin' talk page) as agreement that the reference desks can, through consensus, override any Wikipedia guideline.[2][3][4][5] Note that nowhere in the question does it specify that this is only true of deleting good-faith non-harmful medical questions. If the local consensus at the refdesk overrides other guidelines, that implies any guideline. They could decide that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest doesn't apply on the reference desks. Even if you interpret it as saying that only the talk page guidelines can be overridden, They could decide that you are not required to sign your comments and that it is OK to delete the signature of anyone who does. They could decide that top posting with no indentation is the norm on the reference desk and that it is OK to move new questions to the top and remove any indenting from the answers.

Note that the alternative would be to do what we are already doing, which is to edit one or the other of the conflicting guidelines so that they no longer disagree and neither tries to override the other.

Because of this, I am asking the following question: --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Should the talk page guidelines not apply to the reference desks? WITHRAWN

(Formerly Should the Reference Desk Guidelines be allowed to override other guidelines?)

Yes

• YES The community should embrace the notion of non-redundancy. The simplest way to achieve that is to add a *short* section for the RefDesk at the Talk page guidelines just for the RefDesk, and then we should merge the RefDesk guide into WP:TALK. If discussion of solicitations for professional advice (medical, legal, engineering, whatever) becomes overly long for WP:TALK, then that part of the discussion can remain broken into a separate page, just like it is now. By taking this approach we avoid all the arguments over operation of "usually apply" (like this debate), and we avoid the maintenance headache of redundancy, because all the guidelines are consolidated in one single place. Plus, any special tweaks for the RefDesk would be vetted by a lot of people, due to the number of watchers of WP:TALK. As far as I can see, everyone who has spoken on either side of the issue would achieve at least one of their passionate goals with this approach. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. Of course not. Conflicting guidelines should be edited to remove the conflict. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Object to form of question

Since we're talking about talk page guidelines, a better question is Is the RefDesk a talk page in the first place? and if we're talking about any other secret unnamed guideliness then of course no one can analyze a question about secrete unnamed other guidelines viz-a-viz the RefDesk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Agree. It only overrides other guidelines if other guidelines explicitly apply. That's why WP:Notability (academics) doesn't "override" WP:Notability (fiction). The questions should be "Should the talk page guidelines apply to the reference desks. But as I've said elsewhere, the refdesk guidelines are currently so problematic that I, for one, wouldn't be ready to support "setting them free" despite not entirely agreeing that they should be considered talk pages. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable. I just changed it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

(Please reply here, not in the support or oppose sections.)

Guy, sorry to be blunt, but please stop beating the dead horse. Do you really want us all to go through the moves of having to !vote about this yet another time? This is bordering on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on your part. Can we please close this section? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Amen! Plus the form of the original question stunk because it assumed the conclusion, i.e., that the RefDesk is in fact a "talk page". Plus the replication of the same issue across multiple venues is disruptive. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Dmcq claims that "the reference desks are not talk pages and can set up their own advice."[6] He says that this RfC supports both of those statements. Everyone including me agrees that they are not talk pages, but I see no indication that there is any consensus for "and can set up their own advice" so it is entirely proper to inquire as to whether there is consensus for that. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. I purposely omitted any mention of it being a talk page. I changed it back to the question I asked. If you want to ask another question, ask it yourself. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hooray! Progress! In the above comments, I have heard - or at least I have noticed - for the first time that we all agree the RefDesk is NOT a "talk page". Given that we agree with that basic fact, I am super-confused why Guy thinks the talk page guidelines control how the RefDesk operates. POLCON isn't really a problem, because the rules for zebras (talk page guidelines) don't exert super-control over the doings of other types of critters, e.g., lungfish. No one would say zebra and lunfish rules "conflict" would they? I mean, they are entirely different contexts! How could they "conflict"? Mind you, lungfish might pick and choose from the zebra rules that make sense for lungfish... like breathing oxygen, eating, that sort of thing. But lungfish, having unique needs, get to make their own rules. So if POLCON ain't the problem, and the RefDesk is not a talk page, why the devil does Guy think the talk page guidelines nonetheless exert super-control over other things that are not, as we all agree, talk pages? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please quote to me the part of the talk page guidelines where it says that they only apply to talk pages. I purposely omitted any mention of talk pages from my question because I do not dispute Dmcq's claim that it isn't a talk page. I dispute his claim that they can set their own rules, and I now dispute NewsAndEventsGuy's claim that if it isn't a talk page, the talk page guidelines do not apply. If WP:TPG does not apply, that means that the reference desk can decide that you are not required to sign your comments and that it is OK to delete the signature of anyone who does. Do we really want to grant a local consensus the power to do that? More importantly, did those who opposed Proposal B think they were supporting that? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You are still caught in that same logical mistake. "The reference desk" cannot "do" anything of its own. "The reference desk" doesn't "decide" anything at all. The local rules for the reference desk are not created by the reference desk – the "power" that creates and maintains them is the community at large, the same community that also maintains the talkpage guidelines. The community is perfectly entitled to create both general rules for general cases and specialized rules for specialized cases, and the latter can override the former where necessary. Your whole concern about "local consensus" is based on the false premise that specialized rules are based only on a limited consensus of a limited local group of people. I see no evidence that this is the case here. We would be dealing with a problematic "local consensus" situation only if the reference desk rules were the product of the arbitrary preferences of an isolated local group of editors against the wishes of the wider community. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    • OMG, that was well put! I wish I had said that, Future! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Fut.Perf., that is a compelling argument. Based upon the above, I am changing my position. WP:LOCALCON does not allow WP:TPOC to override the refdesk guidelines, and I should concentrate on making the refdesk guidelines better, not on deciding which guideline can override the other, Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That sounds good to me. If no one objects I think we're all done here and I'll withdraw my request for an admin close here and support for the statement about the refdesk in the talk page guideline as really it is a bit of instruction creep. BTW I believe the reference desk should normally default to the talk page guidelines where they overlap. I think WP:POLCON is basically saying that we should try and remove needless differences in all sorts of advice where they conflict between guidelines, any differences should only be there for good reasons. Dmcq (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And after all unnecessary fluff and redundancy is purged, we should just merge the remaining couple paragraphs (if my projection holds true) into WP:TALK NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked accounts

There's an editor that I recently reverted and warned who just got himself banned for other vandalism past my revert. Looking at the contribs, he seemed to be good WikiOgre in plant-related articles who suddenly became a vandal (all vandal edits were today, last good edit last September). How are legitimate accounts that were (probably) gotten ahold of by vandals dealt with? An indef ban labeled "vandal-only account" seems kinda harsh to me in this case. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's possible that the account was hacked, or the user was having a very bad day, or any number of things. "Indefinite" doesn't mean "forever". If he wants to appeal the block, he can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright. What's with the "vandal only" label, though? The vandalism was just today, but the other 30 or so edits from the past few years were just fine. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Be careful of a WP:BROTHER thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisting

Some days ago a number of websites related to Kable Business Intelligence Limited and Progressive Digital Media Group Plc. were blacklisted due to spamming by IP-user related to the company. Unfortunately, it also affects a large number of articles were links to these websites were added for legitimate reasons and serve as useful references. WP:Energy is mainly affected by listing of offshore-technology.com and power-technology.com sites. References to the first one included in more than 130 articles and to the second one in more than 150 articles. It may be a case that use of these links in some of the article may be considered as spamming (although I did not find any of that kind) but most of them seems to be valid and useful references. Finding replacement for these references and changing them are huge workload for the Wikiprojects. And this is only about two websites, but also additional large number of similar x-tecnology.com websites were blaclisted. It seems that avoiding some evil were creating even more evil by ourselves. The bad thing is that affected Wikiprojects get a know about blaclisting only when bot started tagging articles that means after the decision about blaclisting was made. In cases affecting a large number of articles it should be compulsory to notify affected Wikiprojects about discussion before making any decision to have wider society-based consensus. Blaclisting should be the last resort which should be used only in cases all other tools fail and it hould be preventing spamming, not punishing fellow editors. Therefore I propose to modify Spam-blacklist guidelines correspondingly. Beagel (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Are these websites the ones currently under discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#cbronline.com? If so, they're probably best discussed on the existing thread, per WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Notwithstanding discussion, they are already blacklisted. And no, the purpose of this thread here is not to discuss this specific issue (although my post was trigged by blacklisting these websites) but I am proposing to implement a compulsory notification policy to avoid in the future that kind of actions without notifying relevant Wikiprojects first. Beagel (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support That would be a good idea. In view of the enormous damage to the project as a whole, blacklisting should be the very last resort. So requiring notification of the projects should be required. There will always be plenty of time. Blacklisting goes against WP:NOTCENSORED, and doing so to thousands of pages without notifying the projects is the worst imaginable violation of our principles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

  WP:NOTCENSORED? This is not censoring, are you suggesting that by blacklisting links we are censoring spammers? We are NOT censoring editors, we have a whitelist for a reason, and blacklisting links does not disable the links that are there to be active and the pages can still be edited freely (those pages may (and do!) run into problems, hence the bot effort to have that resolved). And calling this the worst imaginable violation of our principles: WP:SPAM is a community guideline, as are the pillars WP:NOT and WP:NPOV - that is what the spammers are violating. Having a legitimate, though blacklisted, link on a page is not violating anything. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  You are not censoring the spammers, your are censoring your fellow editors. And you're right, WP:SPAM is just a guideline, whereas WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy. We don't like vandals, but we tolerate a certain degree of vandalism as the price of allowing everyone to edit. The same goes for spammers. If some congressional staffer posted spam, would you blacklist the entire us.gov domain? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  They are not censored, that is not true. There is a longstanding process enabling this, we have a whitelist for a reason. WP:SPAM is based on WP:NOT ,the same pillar as WP:NOTCENSORED is based on. You're basically arguing that spammers should be free to violate WP:NOT because otherwise we would violate WP:NOT. And you know the answer to "If some congressional staffer posted spam, would you blacklist the entire us.gov domain?" - no, I would block the editor and send an email to WikiMedia that I did so (I've actually run into this situation). If they persist, then I might blacklist the sites that he spams as well. Here, the spammers were blocked in the past, it did not help - the sites were and are spammed all over, so I would blacklist the sites, yes. Do remember that some sites that are blacklisted do have their legitimate position on Wikipedia - still they are blacklisted. Again, we have a whitelist (and a blacklist) for a reason. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Enormous damage has been done to a huge number of articles by this blacklisting epedemic. It really is very disheartening. Dormskirk (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Let's think about the issue. Wikipedia is a top-ranking website where anyone can edit. How can articles be kept relatively clean, without a couple of boosterism links (or WP:REFSPAM links) in every paragraph on every page? That requires serious effort, and those doing the heavy lifting are often abused and seldom thanked. The abuse comes mainly from the "good faith" spammers but also from onlookers who find some inconvenience. Most spammers know what they are doing and give up after finding that their first ten spams are reverted. But there are occasional pests with a highly developed sense of self-importance, and they demand to know why their links are removed when articles have other links. Would anyone wanting their links to work right now please engage with the underlying problem—it ain't easy. If blacklisting were not frequently enforced, Wikipedia would be flooded with crap, and the people running the anti-spam systems need support. Sure, ask them questions, but think about the answers. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, the problem of spamming exist but does it help us to fight spamming better if we do not notify relevant Wikiprojects about discussions of proposals to blacklist some problematic sites? Beagel (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Spam fighting is a community effort, there was ample time for the whole community to comment in the blacklisting discussion - WikiProjects are also not notified for the last resorts actions of blocking, page protection or edit filters - those are also community discussions, WikiProjects don't [WP:OWN|own]] the articles, it is up to the community. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, spam fighting is a community effort and involving all stakeholders follows the spirit of Wikipedia and assist to create a community-based consensus. Being notified does not mean that you own the article. WikiProjects don't own the articles, but also the rather limited number of editors active in MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist‎ does not own the blacklist. Lets create a wider community-based involvement and consensus. Beagel (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

We, owning the blacklist? Every admin is free to edit it, every editor is free to discuss. It is linked from every other noticeboard, but simply: no-one cares. That is not to blame on those few editors that do edit the blacklist, that is to blame on the community. Maybe the community should be made more aware of the problem that spam is, and the problem that persistent companies pushing their POV/spam are, and more editors should get involved with fighting and controlling spam. All you want is to increase the workload on the few editors that do try to mitigate that problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• One issue that I have noticed and has me scratching my head, There where a half dozen links added the the blacklist, that people are complaining about. It turned out that these sites are unreliable, scraped data that may or may not be accurate. In one case the text was about Utah and the images where from San Diego. At first glance these look reputable but often its just crap. There are often times when a source upon review is discovered to be either a copyvio, re-prints, or have serious factual errors (just to name a few cases) but before the source is reviewed it may have hundreds if not thousands of links added to it. All backlisting does is bring to the front a deeper issue, that often goes unnoticed until it reaches critical mass and ends up on the black list. Werieth (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

We have relevant guidelines (WP:RS) and we have a relevant noticeboard (WP:RS/N) to discuss reliability issues. Blacklisting is not a tool to deal with reliability issues. It is decided case-by-case basis if the given source is reliable in certain context or not. Therefore it is even more important to notify Wikiprojects because they are dealing with articles and relevant area sources on the everyday basis and have more knowledge if some website is reliable for particular project's articles or not. And talking about the current case which trigged this discussion - I myself as also a number of other editors from different projects have expressed an opinion that for some Wikiprojects some of these sites (e.g. offshore-technology.com) have a certain value and sometimes it is even not possible to replace them. Therefore, in every case a wider discussion is needed and notifying affected/relevant wikiprojects serves this purpose. Beagel (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that CBROnline (the other site of the same owner) links were discussed on WP:RS/N - and found unreliable, scraped. Here I did see the same as what Werieth said, some of the information is trivial, scraped, and Werieth even shows plainly incorrect and copyvio? The sites may have 'a certain value and sometimes it is even nto possible to replace them': that is what we have a Whitelist for! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is very broad interpretation of WP:RS/N. And this policy proposal is not about WP:RS but about compulsory notification of affected/relevant Wikiprojects to increase transparency and to create a broader consensus when backlisting websites. Beagel (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it was not a broad interpretation of WP:RS/N - and I know, this is not about WP:RS. The compulsory notification is a layer of bureaucracy that is unnecessary because the consensus to blacklist sites that are spammed is in our pillars, policies and guidelines. These sites were blacklisted according to the consensus recorded in those pillars, policies and guidelines because they were spammed, and the fact that other sites of the same owner are scraped and found unreliable, and that these sites are similar in nature just does not help, but it is not the basis of the decision to blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Blacklisting was and is a last measure, page protection here obviously does not work, blocking editors (there were multiple, as a whole sockpuppet group in the previous case) is futile - they make new accounts (spamming pays their bills, they do not care to make new accounts, the IPs mentioned have completely different ranges). Blacklisting here was a last resort (XLinkBot was also already invoked, I am the operator, I know what real spammers do: ignore the bot). When we fully protect a page because of on-going pushing, we do not seek the advice of a WikiProject (who owns the article anyway, when we block an editor we do not seek community consensus on community boards or ask WikiProjects the editor is a member of, nor if he vandalises mainly in the field of that; it is a community process, taking place at Wikipedia talk:Spam blacklist, NOT at the project or user talkpage level - the discussion was up for quite some time (mainly ignored by the community) before blacklisting was invoked). Blocking/protection/edit filters/blacklisting are last measures to stop abuse, you say that it is a lot of work to get everything whitelisted (there is NO hurry to do that, one can request the whitelisting and make the bot remove the template, there are clear instructions), it is however a lot of work to detect vandalism, warn and warn and block, revert the edits; to detect the new spammer, block them, revert their edits and clean out the rubbish (and that, in my opinion, does have more priority than having an 'ugly' (sigh, that argument again, {{unreferenced}} stays for years without complaints, this is 'ugly' within seconds) banner on a page for some time. And note, while these pages come under view by many editors, the spam has to be cleaned out by a mere 5 'interested' editors, who cares. Well, it is obvious from this thread who cares (luckily, the WMF does care with their newly suggested Terms of Use)
  Note as well, blacklisting does not damage Wikipedia, pages can normally be edited - however having the blacklisted links there can damage the editing experience (and many long-standing editors do not know why their cleanup actions suddenly hit the blacklist, for newbies that may be biting - it is better that the links that do have merit get whitelisted, hence the bot effort).
  It was, and still is, my opinion that the only realistic way of stopping this spam was to blacklist the sites, letting whitelisting make us use the other sites. From the earlier CBROnline spam it was shown that most (not ALL!) of their sites contain replaceable content (they rewrite/republish company statements). A look at some of the info led me to the conclusion that it was used both in regular 'External links'-spam as well as reference spam. I removed the blacklisting for now, but if I find more ongoing spam (multiple accounts, etc.) I will not hesitate to blacklist this again - it obviously then is the last resort. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I apology for my words but the attitude that I did not and we will not notify relevant Wikiprojects does not help to create a consensus-based encyclopaedia. I really can't understand what is wrong with notifying affected Wikiprojects, which makes Wikipeadia's decision making process more transparent. First it was said that notifying is not possible but it needs just some re-programming of the bot. Also, I don't think that we should discuss the concrete case here as this is about the policy proposal but as it was already brought-up, I would say that calling all these links spam ignores the valid concerns by a number of long-time good editors. Maybe there is no rush to remove these links because they are valid and useful references? Beagel (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Re@I will not hesitate to blacklist this again. This is an excellent example what is wrong with the current blacklisting policy. That kind of decisions can't be a decision just of one person. This is the perfect proof why a broader discussion is needed and why notification of relevant Wikiprojects is so important. Beagel (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that the anti-spam process is corrupt, and should be overturned? If so, please provide some evidence. In the above, some very negative claims have been made regarding the website in question. I would have thought that anyone wanting the website unbanned would be engaging with the points raised. Please find an example of a fact in an article where a page on the website would be a good reliable source and post the link (but omit the "http://" at the start) Regarding the issue (that certain projects be notified of certain things): Wikipedia is run by volunteers. Is anyone here volunteering to monitor the blacklisting process in order to determine what wikiprojects should be notified, and so notifying them? Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

My proposal was about the policy and not about the concrete case which should be discussed on the relevant boards, not here, so lets focus to the policy proposal. I am more than happy to discuss reliability of these websites at the proper venue as probably would be happy also NortyNort or Dormskirk. And implying that more than 100 editors, some of them have brought articles to the featured class levels, are spammers inserting unreliable sources can't be serious discussion. But lets focus on the main topic. Answering your question: no, I am not saying that the anti-spam process is corrupt. However, I see two major issues:

• the current system does not provide opportunity to predict the consequences of blacklisting concrete site as there is no information provided how many articles are using the concrete site, not talking about the more precise information if these links are used as references or external links, how many editors have inserted these links, in which time period it have been happened etc; that means information if these links are inserted by spammers or by ordinary editors. Without this information it is impossible to avoid a situation when blacklisting makes more harm and workload then not blacklisting and fighting spamming by other tools.
• The number of participants making these decisions are rather limited. Notifying relevant WikiProjects creates an opportunity to involve more people in the decision-making process and therefore making it more legitimate.

The technical solution of my proposal is quite easy and the it needs just one time work. We already have ‎Cyberbot II, which tags pages when any link is blacklisted. It should be just re-programmed to check the pages immediately after the website is proposed for blacklisting. The checking process is the same. At the same time it would create a list of all articles using the website which is under discussion. Probably the best place for the list to be placed is a special subpage of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. This gives as overview how many articles would be affected by blacklisting. Based on the project banners the bot can also account how many articles of each Wikiproject are affected and based on this provide notification at the relevant project pages. As there may be some replacement of banners, let say it will notify if more than 10 articles of certain Wikiproject is affected. Alternative solution could be that Cyberbot II will just mark the pages and based on this mark ‎AAlertBot will notify relevant Wikiprojects as it does in case of AfD, RfC, GAN etc. This option has its minuses:

• It does not create a list of affected articles, so it does not help to predict the consequences of blacklisiting.
• In case the website is linked from hundreds of pages of some Wikiprojects as happened recently, the Wikiproject Article alerts section will become unmanageable.

Therefore, I personally prefer the first option. Beagel (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Beagel, we have Wikimedia Talk:Spam blacklist - that is a community process. The discussion board is linked from every other community discussion board, and when a source is being discussed on WP:RS/N (as an example) the practice is also not to notify the projects per se. If that is what you want, then that should be implemented on all community noticeboards. And I strongly oppose it, blacklisting, like blocking, page-protection etc., is done to protect the encyclopedia. First, I did give ample time, secondly, it was discussed and mentioned on a community noticeboard, and thirdly, if all of that needs to be discussed it leaves the spammers to go on (I would agree that the hurry here was not that big, that is why I gave time to the suggestion to blacklist, in most other cases it is not that way, not blacklisting sites does result in significant ongoing damage to Wikipedia). Do you want extended discussion and community consensus on blocks as well - those are also done on the spot by one admin, there is no consensus involved except for the earlier consensus as determined by our policies and guidelines (again, the pillars WP:NOT and WP:NPOV here are of interest, those have the community consensus that allow for using the blacklist for stopping persistent spammers). Moreover, the 'local' consensus by a WikiProject does not override the consensus that built our pillars, policies and guidelines. These sites were spammed and I still stand by my decision that blacklisting was the last resort where blocking the editors and/or protecting the pages does and will not help and that blacklisting them was the last resort to stop (in fact, that other sites of the same owner were blacklisted a couple of years ago, the fact that accounts that were spamming at that time were blocked, and the fact that the same company is still spamming shows the need for blacklisting as last resort: this company will not stop spamming their sites.

Also, it is not a decision of one person, it is a decision based on (previous consensus) and (time allowing) discussion - again, I gave ample time to discuss it, and blocking, page-protection and edit filters (other methods to protect the 'pedia) are, in the end, also performed by one editor, who determines the need, determines the consensus and executes the verdict. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, as instruction creep, any policy that makes notification of a wikiproject mandatory. VQuakr (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support' This has been a problem for years. I ran into this years ago, where legitimate sites which had been hosting legitimate, reliable sources became blacklisted ONLY because someone started spamming them in a (relatively) few articles. I got told basically "Go back and play little boy, let the grownups handle this." Blacklisting should only be done carefully and considerate of how the sites are being used, not just as a knee-jerk reaction to one or a few editors bad behavior. --Jayron32 18:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's see what happens when we start asking the pharmacology wikiproject over and over when we intend to blacklist taladafil-spam, and the porn wikiproject when a porn-site is up for blacklisting (after all, the notification is mandatory). IAR for most of the links, probably? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support modifying the list. I requested water-technology.net be removed already as it effects both WikiProject Energy and Dams Articles. 84 Dams articles have been affected. I agree with Beagel and believe this is a net-negative for the project. More thought should have been put into blacklisting the sites beforehand.--NortyNort (Holla) 20:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a discussion about making changes to policy regarding notification of wikiprojects about blacklists, not about a specific listing. VQuakr (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I cited the specific example above as a negative effect of the quick blacklisting. With that, in the latter part of my comment, I believe the effect demonstrates the need for more thought, ie a policy change.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

NortyNort You know that there are also examples of the negative effect of slow blacklisting, right? Did you see some of the old requests for blacklisting that have not been handled for weeks/months, where editors are re-requesting the blacklisting to be performed because of ongoing abuse. Moreover, the example that precipitated this was up for discussion for 27 days (I noticed on the 4th of March that there were editors spamming these sites, identified 3 likely spammers, and did some cleanup; on the 31st of March another editor made an independent report with 3 other spammers, upon which I decided to blacklist. This is NOT an example of quick blacklisting, there was ample time for discussion on a 'community noticeboard'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that the blacklisting was undone awaiting further discussion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If this was up for 27 days and still the negative impact came as a surprise to the large part of community, it is shows perfectly that something is wrong with the process and larger involvement is needed. Notifying relevant Wikiprojects will serve this purpose, so I really don't understand the opposition to the proposal. "I analyzed" and "I decided" does not sound as a community-based process. Beagel (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

My objection is to it being compulsory. Notifications should be recommended in the same way as deletions and it should be the nominator who does the notifications, but there are reasons for rapid blacklisting (e.g. server compromise) where waiting is suboptimal. MER-C 11:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I see the point and I agree that cases like you mentioned should be exemptions, where no need to wait. I fully agree with the principle and if you could to propose how this principles should be worded, it would be great. I also think, as I proposed, that using a bot for notification actually solves the problem if it should be compulsory or not because once it is re-programmed, it will do its job and no manual notification by any editor is needed. Beagel (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:Beagel: yes, to that part you are right - it shows indeed that larger involvement is needed. But to make it compulsory to identify all the wikiprojects and notify them is not a solution (it is a good suggestion to apply in questionable cases, and in fact, I have done such things in the past when I noticed that a heavily spammed link was also used appropriately, as I explained below, here I did see that it was used appropriately on such a large scale (actually, I still question that, it appears that spammers have added a lot of what there is, mostly external links, and going through pages that link it is easier to find spammers than to find regulars that have added it)).

Regarding the 'I analysed' and 'I decided' - in the end, that is also what an admin does when they delete a page, one admin analyses the situation and deletes - after allowing for discussion. Did I allow for discussion: yes. Did I see opposition: no. Did I respond to the requests for review after the decision: yes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I explained here and here how the notification could be technically done. If it would be done by bot, it no needed to be done manually and the question if it is mandatory or not would be not an issue. Probably this explanation helps. Beagel (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• One should always look at the linksearch results and investigate the spam before blacklisting stuff. If there is going to be significant collateral damage it is common courtesy (and sometimes advantageous, if the notified editors help deal with the problem) to send out notifications. I am surprised this did not happen. I don't think it should be compulsory, though. However, the broader community should also a greater interest in blacklisting discussions regardless of what notifications go out. MER-C 07:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The thing is, I did that analysis - the couple of editors I found sometimes added over 50 links to these sites, some of these sites being linked a reasonable number (but similar orders of magnitude; the 4 spammers who were active in 2014 have about 200 additions on their name, I see 139 additions of the most-added site 'naval-technology.com', 490 links still there, but also knowing that CBROnline has been active for 5, 6 years - the two other spammers identified at the time were active in 2009, with another 100 additions of links, 7 accounts in 5 years - unlikely to be all of them? Actually - just found another current spammer with another 100 edits on their name), not all of the edits were cleaned out (not a necessity before blacklisting is done), and spammers were not always reverted (the spammer from 2009 I just identified has many edits still standing - they do add up in the link-count). Moreover, I am aware of the history of the CBROnline sites (some are just plain aggregator sites, they copy what they read somewhere, or just re-report what a company reports, some of the CBROnline sites went through WP:RS-analysis and found unreliable in addition to being spammed) and saw some of those links here as well of similar nature. They were and are both used in normal (external-link section) and reference spam, some of the references I saw being added being trivial or typical aggregator-type ("This multinational multibillion company opened a factory in a small village" - solely referenced to an aggregator page which probably got the information from a company newsletter; is it notable enough anyway, or just mentioned so you could reference?; "the abbrev. XYZ means 'xxx-yyy-zzz'" + ref .. did you really need thát site for that info, that is not the original source of why company X names xxx-yyy-zzz 'XYZ'). As more and more spammers were found, I reckoned that most of the additions were of that type (note that I just found another spammer - another 50 links from the link search that are not legitimately added by regulars). My conclusion was there: most of the links present were spammed, it is long term and ongoing, and it is done by many editors on a large variety of subjects. I did leave the report for some time (I blacklist sites sometimes seconds after reporting - I did not do that here on the 4th of March, I blacklisted when more spammers and sites were identified on the 31st). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Another addition as part of the analysis: many of these links are in external links sections, and spammed to external links sections. Although there are cases of references, there are also some cases of reference spamming next to the normal external links section spamming. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support something This can be a serious problem. It might be more effective for someone to write to the companies concerned, or their clients, pointing out that what may have been the actions of an employee have resulted in all links to their sites being removed. Or maybe they see that in their analytics figures. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Foreign language refs

On Larisa Matros there are many refs to web sites which are written in something which looks like Russian. This is on the English Wikipedia. Does anyone think that we should feel free to just remove all these refs and insist that on the English Wikipedia everything should be written in English, including the refs and the detail found on them  Jodosma  (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There's nothing wrong with foreign language sources as long as we are assured of the translation (normally via an editor skilled in the language, as opposed to Google Translate). What we write into the prose our articles should use English, but we don't block the use of non-English sources to start with, as described here WP:RSUE. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, it's better to use English websites, but just as books are acceptable references, foreign ones are too. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I say no since the proposal goes against WP:NOENG.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

BRD enforcing

Is there any procedure for enforcing WP:BRD? See the start and end of the section Talk:Crimean status referendum, 2014#Observers and legitimacy for motivation. I am desperate... — Petr Matas 22:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Petr Matas: WP:BRD is an essay. It is not "enforced". Related policies include WP:EW and WP:CONSENSUS, as well as the guideline WP:RS. Since there is already an open RfC on the talk page, give it some time for consensus to form. VQuakr (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see! That slipped my attention. I could save myself from much frustration if I knew that. THANKS!!! — Petr Matas 05:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Not so fast there VQuakr and Petr Matas, BRD is actually more than just an essay: " it is intended to supplement the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages". So, while BRD is not a policy, it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. "BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring. Avoiding edit warring is a policy that all editors must follow.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, guess I should have referenced WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW in my previous post, Mark Miller. Oh, wait... VQuakr (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Not like I don't have eyes and can't read....but you still tried to state it couldn't be enforced and that is actually not totally correct.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is actually correct: BRD directly says that you cannot require other editors to follow BRD. Doing BRD right actually requires some subtle and advanced skills in consensus-building. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Does WP:UNDUE apply across multiple articles?

I came across a discussion on Talk:Islamic terrorism and noticed that while we do have articles about other forms of religious terrorism, this one in particular is far more developed and has a lot more content. Considering that it may seem like we're giving Islam a lot more attention here than any other religion, can WP:UNDUE apply in this case? CodeCat (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

that would be a highly non standard interpretation of policy. Just because a subject area suffers from recentism issues doesn't mean WP:UNDUE applies.©Geni (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No, UNDUE is only about what happens on single pages, relative to the specific subject of that page. But you might like to join WP:CSB and see if you can help create pages on the "missing" subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Aaaah! Recruitment pitches! Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If the articles do not suffer from WP:UNDUE individually, they cannot collectively. However, an individual article failing an UNDUE test can be remedied by reference to other articles within a class. For example, if there are UNDUE problems at Islamic Terrorism, reference to the treatment in Hindu Terrorism can be used as a sort of control group to reference when ameliorating the problems at the former. Likewise, if Hindu Terrorism has UNDUE problems, Islamic Terrorism, as the most developed article within the subject area, would make a very good reference for bringing Hindu Terrorism up to snuff. VanIsaac_WS^cont 05:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Using annual seasons as time indicators

Ho. Apologies if this has been brought up elsewhere.

One thing that annoys and confuses me is when articles use local seasons (such as "the movie will come out in summer") which only make sense if the reader knows the global hemisphere pertaining to the author or event. An error in guessing this could lead to a six month temporal misunderstanding.

This practice is unnecessary and liable to lead to errors. I recommend a policy that articles should use months or quarters rather than seasons as indicators of time. Seasons should be reserved for occasions that are season-relevant (e.g. "the lodge at the snow fields only opens in winter", or "the city is particularly popular in spring when the temperature is moderate".)

Cheers

Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nylonnet (talk • contribs) 03:41, 9 April 2014‎

I fully agree. The problem is made even worse by the fact that countries differ on whether seasons start at the equinoxes and solstices, or on the 1st day of the month in which they occur. Then there's fall vs autumn. Overall, seasons are a bad choice for identifying time of year. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel that if a movie from the northern hemisphere is confirmed to be coming out in summer by reliable sources, but no more information is known, then it's fine to say summer. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

But many of our reliable sources have target audiences from a geographically much narrower area than ours, which is global. Can you not see the problem that "summer" is ambiguous? HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This issue is addressed in MOS:SEASON (which basically agrees with the OP). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Q re quoting from a Youtube vid

Hello, and sorry if this Q has been covered already 100 times ... There is a Youtube vid that contains an interview with a notable person on a subject, and I would like to include said statments & opinions (from said person from the Youtube vid, and as an WP:RS) in an article on the subject (that exists). Is this allowable? (I'm not aware the statements in the vid are in print anywhere, I tend to think they are not. But the vid interview is clear, and if I quoted the statements/opinion, it would be my dictation to print directly from listening to the Youtube vid myself [of course].) Anyway I'm not sure the allowability of this, please guide me. (I think I've explained my Q okay -- let me know if I haven't.) p.s. Am I in the right venue for this Q? Thank u. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:YOUTUBE. The key is that the video does not violate copyright and meets the reliable sources criteria. --  Gadget850 ^talk 12:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I would take this to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for a more definitive and practiced answer, but as a first pass, my concern would actually be whether the producers of the video constitute a reliable source. A bare video of a highly respected scientist would not constitute a reliable source by itself if the video was not created and edited by a reputable organization. Some whack job could edit even the most respected and highly informed scholars on any number of topics to imply something completely at odds with actual scholarship. Just recently, some nutjob catholic fundamentalist put out a production with clips from several respected scientists, and narrated by Kate Mulgrew that was edited to imply scientific support for geocentrism. VanIsaac_WS^cont 12:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There's plenty of YouTube channels run by reputable colleges, companies, organizations, etc. You might want to check for this notable person in some related channel. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    • And if the college, company, organization, etc is a reliable source, then a video from their Youtube channel would probably be as well. The point is that who appears in a video is, frankly, irrelevant; rather it's the provenance of the video production itself that makes it RS or not. VanIsaac_WS^cont 18:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing current consensus from guidelines

If you look at Category:Dog_breeds, all names are capitalized. Some editors think that this is incorrect and undesirable, and they keep removing mentions of dog breeds from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) [7][8].

Aren't guidelines supposed to reflect current consensus? What am I supposed to do? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Discuss the addition of the change to the guidelines after it has been boldly added and then reverted? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Especially after it's been pointed out to you already that this issue is complex and disputed, and is a MOS:LIFE/MOS:CAPS issue not a WP:AT/WP:NCCAPS/WP:NCFAUNA issue (the AT/NC pages defer to MOS on style, and this is a style question). Capitalization of animal breeds, which is not about dogs in particular somehow, but about all breeds, is itself subject to long-running disputes (which are actually factually and logically separate from species common name capitalization disputes, believe it or not &ndash one can support the one and oppose the other, and vice versa). The fact that some particular categories of breeds are presently capitalized is best addressed at WP:FAITACCOMPLI to the extent it isn't simply an entirely incidental result of WP:NCFAUNA formerly instructing wikiprojects to just make up their own rules, before WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy was written and before MOS:LIFE firmly settled on lower case for common names of groups of animals. "What's going on right now in some that I agree with in some editing backwater, regardless why it's happening" is not synonymous with "current consensus" across Wikipedia on a best practice. I'm actually sympathetic to the idea of capitalizing formal breeds, as will be many others (e.g. there's a formal convention to capitalize the plant equivalent, cultivars, so botanists and horticulturalists are as likely to support the idea as dog or horse breeders). It's a long discussion that has not played out yet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Talk:Welsh_Corgi#Requested_move, it looks like there is consensus to keep breed uppercased. And Category:Breeds is full of uppercase articles. Yet the guidelines mention nothing of this, due to the vocal opposition of a few editors..... --Enric Naval (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

AL Class

I have seen a few WikiProjects add AL Class to their assessment lists yet I am having trouble finding what AL class is and what it involves. I am assuming it is going to be an in-between level between List and Featured List or am I wrong? Can someone please provide links to the relevant discussions and Wikipedia pages? Otherwise, what is AL Class? Thanks. Simply south ...... discombobulating confusing ideas for just 8 years 17:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There was recently a discussion about Good List status, and if I recall correctly, consensus seemed pretty much for it. I'm not sure what happened after that, though, is this maybe what ended up happening with that? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST uses it per WP:MHA, and the Highways Wikiproject and its subprojects have just implemented it per WT:HWY/ACR for lists reviewed through WP:HWY/ACR. The first nomination has been opened there as a way to peer-review lists to polish them to a higher quality than the ordinary list article assessed by the projects. At least in the case of HWY/USRD/etc, the lists will be assessed against the FL criteria (just as A-Class articles are essentially reviewed against the FA criteria), so it's in no way related to Good Lists, which would be a lower standard. Imzadi 1979 → 06:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about disambiguation pages

Hello,

Should disambiguation pages include "disambiguation" in the title?

I created Wolf of Wall Street (disambiguation) and reformatted it a little thus: [9]

However, this has been redirected to Wolf of Wall Street and lacks "disambiguation" in the title, with the comment that it was "Unprintworthy redirects". Why do most disambiguation pages have "disambiguation" in the title, and some do not? Why should a redirect be "printworthy"?

Also, one of the films has been put under "See also" when it was a remake of the 1929 version despite the slight change in title and should, in my opinion, be listed with the other films.

And the additional material seems to violate the rules of Wikipedia:Disambiguation:

Wolf of Wall Street may refer to:

• The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film), a film by Martin Scorsese and based on Jordan Belfort's memoirs
  • The Wolf of Wall Street, a memoir of Jordan Belfort
• The Wolf of Wall Street (1929 film), a silent film by Rowland V Lee and starring George Bancroft
• David Lamar (1876–1934), con man known as "The Wolf of Wall Street"

==See also==

• Wolves of Wall Street, a 2002 film by David DeCoteau
• The Lone Wolf of Wall Street or Bernard Baruch (1870–1965), American financier, stock investor and philanthropist

My version is Wolf of Wall Street (disambiguation)

Wolf of Wall Street may refer to:

==Arts==

• The Wolf of Wall Street (1929 film), a silent film starring George Bancroft, directed by Rowland V. Lee
• Wolves of Wall Street, a 2002 film directed by David DeCoteau
• The Wolf of Wall Street (2007 book), memoir of the American stockbroker and criminal Jordan Belfort; sequel: Catching the Wolf of Wall Street: More ... (2009)
• The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film), a film based on Jordan Belfort's memoirs, directed by Martin Scorsese

==People==

• David Lamar (1876–1934), con man known as "The Wolf of Wall Street"
• Bernard Baruch (1870–1965), American financier, stock investor and philanthropist sometimes referred to as "The Lone Wolf of Wall Street"

I think my version conforms more to the point. Please tell me if I'm off base.

Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages only use the qualifier (disambiguation) if the base name has a primary topic. WP:DABNAME. When you "created" the dab at Wolf of Wall Street (disambiguation), you did so by cut-n-pasting the content from Wolf of Wall Street (which is bad) and created a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page (which is also bad). Partial title matches are typically placed in See also, or removed from the disambiguation page entirely. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Gaming the edit counter with edit wars and users own user pages.

It seems engaging in edit wars though likely to get a user blocked can give users an extra hundred posts every now and again or more over time. I propose these edits me struck from the edit count to prevent inflating the status of wikipedia users who frequently edit war; I'm also not sure if your own user page should count; otherwise someone can just ramble on their page 6000 times in a weekend and become part of the top 10,000 contributors. Technically that would be in accordance with the rules. Cassandra Truth (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Why bother? Nobody with any sense thinks that raw edit count data indicates much anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Per Andy, who gives a shit? Edit counts are a meaningless thing, and no one who makes any decision that matters at Wikipedia ever looks at them. Like pretty signatures and well designed user pages, edit counters are a mild amusement, but ultimately serve no purpose for building the encyclopedia. --Jayron32 19:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit counts do matter for when you're applying for more user rights (Article Reviewer needs at least 500 mainspace edits, for example), but generally the sysop doing the approving checks through edits looking for edit wars and such. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

My observation is that the editors who are obsessed with edit counts tend not to have very many. By the time one has a few thousand edits, one realizes what is important and it isn't edit count.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Rambling on one's own user or talk page seems a misguided premise. Unless one converses with themselves. (6,000 times) It is much better to make constructive edits than destruct community and content further in edit wars. + one for my own count. ツ Fylbecatulous talk 18:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Edit count is one of the silliest things to be concerned with... I got almost 440,000 now, but it is meaningless. A good editor can get most tools with under 1000 edits, and its the demonstrated skill and need for them which typically results in approval. The edit count is just a rough marker and really matters very little. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit counts mean jack shit without analyzing the contributions. I once racked up 1777 edits in a single session for a job of questionable value that probably could have been done by a bot. OTOH, I spent the better part of a day on a handful of edits at Heinz Hoenig. I love my 1937 Wikipedia First Edition, but if I want to know about an editor, I look at their edits, not at their badges. 6000 edits in one weekend on your own talk are against policy. So is edit warring. What your proposal lacks is any kind of evidence that first person counting is actually a problem. Paradoctor (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm kind of in agreeance with the WGaF group here. Edit counts are very much meaningless in most cases, it would be just as easy to game the system for an astronomical edit count by running through making minor edits (moving punctuation or fixing sentence case) as it would by talking to yourself on your userspace or edit warring (and a lot less likely to get you into trouble). So, who really cares? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User warning for inaccessible sigs

I have created a level one warning template, {{Uw-sigdesign1}}, which reads:

Hello, I'm [Username]. I wanted to let you know that your signature ("sig") design might cause problems for some readers. This is because of low colour contrast, an unreadable font, or suchlike. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines and policy on customising sigs. Thank you.

where "of low colour contrast, an unreadable font, or suchlike" can be replaced by |1= and "Thank you" by |2=.

I invite comment about its content and deployment, on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Or someone could, you know, just tell the person in their own words to change their signature, and why they should do so. That'd work too. --Jayron32 03:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk page

Why is any talk page not accessible from mobile view? Unless you know where to go people may not know places for discussion Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 08:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits under the Education Program

I had a look at the Education program page and see that it recommends expansion of stub articles. This appears to be the source of some problems in recent article edits. Stub articles are often that way because there is little information available through secondary sources. Copying and pasting information from the subject's website isn't the recommended way to expand them, and this should be pointed out in the guidelines to these education projects. It often results in plagiarism and the introduction of promotional language. The obvious solution to this issue is just to revert the changes. Who's in charge of the way this page is written? Pkeets (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You are. --Jayron32 01:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of sports records

Regarding pages I've recently edited: 1956–57 Tercera División, 1960–61 Soviet Cup (ice hockey), 2006–07 Santosh Trophy...I feel articles like these fall under WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and should be nominated for deletion. Any objections or agreements??? Xaxafrad (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll disagree that these should get deleted. The current state of especially the Tercera and Santosh articles is woeful, but the solution is to add proper narrative and excise the irrelevant stats (eg, scores of matches), distilling the statistical information into content appropriate to a narrative on the subject. I'll spend a couple ten minutes and work on the Soviet Cup article to see if I can't show how these can be better. VanIsaac_WS^cont 07:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

So check it out and see if that's not a lot better. It's still a fairly sparse article, but now there is clearly a place for more thorough coverage of different aspects of the '60-'61 Soviet Cup, and we've gotten rid of the tables of dry statistics. VanIsaac_WS^cont 07:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I like your changes, but I won't be able to narrate an unfamiliar sport as easily. My goal was to start tapping at under-linked articles, the first bunch were all sports lists, and then I came across 2006–07 Santosh Trophy. The prior year's article looks fine (from a formatting POV), but the subsequent year is equally poor, and I have no idea how to interpret that data and make it meaningful. So my next logical thought was to question its necessity of presence. Maybe I'll give it another try... Xaxafrad (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

One thing to consider is what exists for other such years for those specific topics, and what exists for comparable sports that may be more likely to have direct English sources. For example, the Soviet Cup article would be comparable to anything about the National Hockey League, which is well covered in sources. And given that Russie has a good media, its very likely there's a lot of Russian sources for that, but someone just needs to do the legwork to find and translate and include. We do have to be careful of the possible systematic bias that could be introduced by favoring the English-weighted sources for otherwise equivalent events. --MASEM (t) 05:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This whole @/tagging/mention thing

Hi, guys-

I've been away for a while, so this might be a rather obtuse question, but what is the generally accepted practice (I assume there's not a policy yet, but thought this would be a good place to ask anyway) on stuff like the hatted bit of text here? On the one hand, I can see the utility in bulk-listing names of users whose input would be valuable... but another part of me thinks it's really, really, obnoxious. Since I bothered to post this question, I'm sure I'll end up doing it myself in the next week or so, but I wonder if there's been any fruitful discussion on this in my absence. How much is too much, do canvassing restrictions apply, etc.? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe we have fully adapted canvassing, etc. guidelines and policies to account for the ability to ping users in this fashion. But I think the general principle remains the same. Bencherlite's ping flood there was functionally identical to leaving a talk page message for numerous users and was made in good faith with the aim of fostering discussion of interested parties in TFAR. OTOH, I have also seen other editors use ping floods to both explicitly canvas like-minded editors and as a means of harassing enemies. I think the current policies been generally sufficient, though it may be worth codifying acceptable and unacceptable use of pings somewhere if it is not already. Resolute 14:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-related to this, are the "So-n-so thanked you for your edit" logged anywhere? If not, why not? (Add your favourite quote about a wiki and transparency here : ) - jc37 21:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep Novusuna ^talk 21:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Great to know, thank you : ) - jc37 22:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Handling contradictory sources

In writing Mukai Cold Process Fruit Barrelling Plant I found a lot of mutually contradictory statements in the sources with respect to the history of the Mukai family. It's a long time (several years) since I worked on a Wikipedia article where facts were so difficult to ascertain, and I may not be up to date on policies and guidelines about handling contradictory sources. Someone may want to take a look at what I did and see whether my approach is acceptable. I know it would be "original research" to explicitly favor one supposedly reliable source over another. I myself believe Mary Matthews' chronology is the most plausible, and clearly she did far more primary research than the other cited sources. I've tried to write in such a way as to let the reader can judge the plausibility of the various sources for him- or herself. - Jmabel | Talk 03:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you did it just fine. In cases where reliable sources disagree and the disagreement cannot be resolved, speak in the source's voice and not Wikipedia's. Let the reader reach their own conclusion if there is not agreement. One should not pretend an agreement exists, and if there is scholarly disagreement, just say what the scholars themselves say, attributing the positions. --Jayron32 13:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Critics of relativity... "viewpoints are not accepted by the scientific community."

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Regarding the lead in the "Criticisms of the theory of relativity" article: "Even today there are some critics of relativity (sometimes called "anti-relativists"), however, their viewpoints are not accepted by the scientific community." Is this Wikipedia policy, i.e., in effect, "No criticism of relativity allowed?" If so it must be changed to allow a fair representation of published criticism of relativity. (See subsection on my talk page.) LCcritic (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@LCcritic: I am afraid you have failed to detect the sarcasm in the recommendation made on your talk page to attempt to change Wikipedia's policy on fringe theories. Note that it is possible to provide due coverage of fringe ideas, but sourcing needs to be presented that shows the theories you promote are themselves notable. Thus far, none of the sources you have provided are reliable. VQuakr (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't let them discourage you. It was to be expected that those steeped in the old ways would merely point at their misguided traditions. This is the place where policy is made, and "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments". The stage is set, the lights are on: present your argument. Paradoctor (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please someone block this poor guy now, for his own good - WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE issues, thanks.--cyclopia^speak! 20:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

LCcritic, there is simply no possibility that you will be permitted to use Wikipedia to promote your anti-relativist arguments. This has been made entirely clear to you on multiple occasions, and you have only two choices - accept it and work within Wikipedia guidelines and policies, or find somewhere else to advance your theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The sources and your interpretations, as listed on your talk page, were dismissed on various previously shopped fora. For a partial overview of places where the dismissals have taken place, see here. - DVdm (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Will someone here please address the issue of policy which endorses the above quoted statement that no criticism of relativity is "accepted by the scientific community?" If those who agree are allowed to "dismiss" all such published criticism (as cited), then no criticism is accepted as legitimate. In that case, the "Criticisms of the theory of relativity" article should simply be reduced to one short statement: "There is no legitimate criticism of relativity theory." Btw, I am not promoting "my personal point of view," as constantly accused. Einstein said clearly that he was not a realist: “It appears to me that 'real' is an empty meaningless category (drawer) whose immense importance lies only in that I place certain things inside it and not certain others." Also, "'The physical world is real.'... The above statement seems intrinsically senseless..." Also, "I concede that the natural sciences concern the “real,” but I am still not a realist." (Letter from Albert Einstein to Eduard Study (Sept. 25, 1918.) Wikipedia; Realism: “Philosophical realism, belief that reality exists independently of observers." "Real" criticism of relativity comes from realists (as I have cited), but they are not allowed a voice even in the (sham) "Criticisms of the theory of relativity" article. I appeal to a consensus to change that policy (or that agreement to dismiss all criticism) to allow "real" fair coverage of "CriticismsLCcritic (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ps; In case I did not make the relevance of realism clear: Length contraction theorists claim that physical objects and the distances between them (stars, for instance) contract as a result of being observed/measured from from different frames in motion relative whatever is observed. This frame-dependence of physical lengths and distances denies realism, as defined most simply above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LCcritic (talk • contribs) 19:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

There are well-documented, published, criticisms of relativity; what makes such criticisms worth mentioning is not their acceptance or denial by anyone, or even that they are or are not criticisms, but that they are well documented in reliable sources as such. After all, Wikipedia has many articles and sections on notable pieces of bullshit, such as the flat earth, homeopathy, astrology, etc. The difference is two-fold 1) Wikipedia only presents information on such pieces of known bullshit in proportion to how the reliable sources do. Any wingnut with a website can say anything they want, that doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to mention it, even to refute it. Some stuff is just not worth mentioning here. This has nothing to do with whether something is bullshit or not, but rather, how much attention the bullshit has gotten. 2) Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy doesn't demand we give equal credence to the possibility that every position is equally valid. Rather, we're allowed to call bullshit "bullshit", and not pretend like it's filet mignon. If there aren't any widely accepted criticisms of relativity within the science community, then we say that there aren't. We don't pretend as though, merely because such criticisms exist, and even if such criticisms are notable enough in their own right, that they are accepted. That doesn't mean we don't mention the notable criticisms, we do mention them. To show how they are widely refuted. --Jayron32 19:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If you are proposing that Wikipedia makes a specific change to policy, please indicate what specific change you are proposing, and the grounds on which you are advocating such a change. - the village pump noticeboards are not an appropriate place to discuss specific problems with specific articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Allow criticism of relativity from published realists. Presently no "real" such criticism is allowed. (See quote from "Criticisms..." article lead.)LCcritic (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

So what specific changes to the wording of which specific policy are you proposing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what specific policy resulted in the quoted lead statement that no criticism of relativity is "accepted by the scientific community?" Yet the list of critical publications on my talk page has all been swept aside as not legitimate, and that opinion seems to have a consensus here, as the distinction between "mainstream" and "fringe" science. The result is that the philosophy of shrinking physical objects and the distances between them, between stars for instance (length contraction) stands as "mainstream," allowing no criticism from realism, i.e., as succinctly quoted from Wikipedia on realism above. Ps: "Real criticism" is based on realism, as so defined. My list of authors are examples of realists, in this context. LCcritic (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Define "real criticism." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

TIMECUBE IS TRUTH. --108.38.196.65 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

LCcritic, the relevant policy is "Reliable Sources", which has been summarized as saying that Wikipedia articles on science need to be based on "reputable publications in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, or divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications". As you surely know, there's an abundance of reliable sources (according to this definition) stating that special relativity is logically self-consistent, thoroughly tested, and empirically successful (and, by the way, completely compatible with objective realism). There are no modern reputable sources (according to the stated definition) claiming otherwise. This is the basis for the statement you quoted from the article on "criticisms of relativity". In contrast, all the sources you've advocated for inclusion in the article fail to meet the stated criteria of "reliable sources". So, in order to get those sources into Wikipedia you would have to change the Wikipedia definition of "reliable sources" - or else persuade Wikipedia to allow unreliable sources. I don't think either of those is likely.EllisMcgraw (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

EllisMcgraw, I understand the policy labeled as "Reliable Resources." Of course the task remains to define "reliable" in a way which is fair to both critics of relativity and "mainstream" defenders. If a consensus of 'mainstream defenders' here, with 'policy' supporting them against so called "fringe" arguments (just name calling by 'main camp relativity') consent to delete all criticism from realism (as defined above before being re-defined by relativity), then the result is that Wikipedia has an article on "Criticisms of the theory of relativity" excluding all criticisms from realism as cited in my "Published criticisms of relativity" section on my talk page. "...that special relativity is logically self-consistent, thoroughly tested, and empirically successful (and, by the way, completely compatible with objective realism). There are no modern reputable sources (according to the stated definition) claiming otherwise." But "reputable sources" are defined by the criteria of hard core mainstream relativity "experts," denying any expertise among critics, like those I have frequently cited. "Objective realism" indeed. No real world independent of observation. Relativity re-defined realism to suit Einstein... who denied a 'real world' in favor of the opinion/philosophy that 'reality' depends on the frame of reference from which it is observed. All Is Relative to frame of reference. This was his philosophy as the 'father of relativity.' No criticism can therefore be reasonable, according to his followers. Reality is determined by frame of reference. Period. End of argument. LCcritic (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

LCcritic, you say the task remains to define "reliable", but that's not true, because the Wikipedia policy on Reliable Sources already includes the applicable definition of "reliable". Again, reliable sources are defined (for Wikipedia) as "reputable publications in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, or divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications". As you can see, the criteria don't say anything about relativity or any other specific subject. Wikipedia simply defers to the major academic journals, universities, publishing houses, etc., to judge what is reliable and notable. So your quarrel is really with those institutions, not with Wikipedia. (An editor once claimed the moon is made of green cheese, but all his edits were reverted on the grounds that his sources were not "reliable". He responded that this was an insidious Catch-22: "The reason you people say there are no "reliable sources" for the moon being made of green cheese is because anyone who says the moon is made of green cheese is automatically considered unreliable!")EllisMcgraw (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

EllisMcgraw, I honestly challenge your reading comprehension. I said, "Of course the task remains to define "reliable" in a way which is fair to both critics of relativity and "mainstream" defenders. My appeal is to change Wikipedia policy on what "reliable" means as applied to criticisms of relativity, not to re-affirm your by-the-book reiteration that "Wikipedia policy on Reliable Sources already includes the applicable definition of 'reliable'." Of course it does, and that definition excludes all the sources I cited which criticize relativity on the grounds that it denies realism. Relativity has re-invented the definition of realism, which you call "objective realism," usually called "scientific realism" which translates to a frame-of-reference centered definition based on Einstein's philosophy (which I have often repeated) that "reality" varies with all possible frames of reference. So you totally miss the point of this appeal and simply parrot present standard procedure here. No different than our last conversation which I terminated in my talk page section, "Going nowhere... fast." LCcritic (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

LCcritic, thanks, that clarifies things quite a bit. Previously you had been asked what specific change to what specific policy you were proposing, and you answered "I don't know what specific policy resulted in the quoted lead statement that no criticism of relativity is accepted by the scientific community" So I explained what the policy was that resulted in that statement. Now you say that you are fully aware of the policy that resulted in that statement, and you simply disagree with the policy and want it to be changed. Okay, so we come back to the question you were asked initially: What specific change to this policy are you proposing? You can't simply say "Change the policy so it allows me to insert material that the present policy doesn't allow". You have to propose a specific policy change. For example, you might propose that Wikipedia articles should treat personal web pages and self-published works on an equal footing with peer-reviewed journals and academic publications, and not reflect the predominant views of the mainstream scientific community. But I don't think any such proposal will find acceptance, since the existing policy of reflecting the mainstream scientific view is one of the cornerstones of the whole Wikipedia project. Please see AndyTheGrump's comments below.EllisMcgraw (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is under no obligation to be 'fair' to anyone. We reflect the scientific consensus, and will continue to do so. This is not open to negotiation, regardless of how many times you waffle on about 'realism', 'frames of reference' and whatever other bees you have in your bonnet. To put it bluntly, we don't care whether you consider the scientific consensus to be wrong, our policy to be unfair, or Einstein's philosophy to be inconsistent with whatever version of reality it is you consider to be real. The only 'frame of reference' that matters as far as Wikipedia content is concerned is that provided by our rules, guidelines, and practices - and we aren't going to start writing exceptions into policy just because you don't like it. I suggest that rather than wasting your time and everyone else's by engaging in this self-evidently futile attempt to adapt Wikipedia to your own personal whim, you accept that it isn't going to change, and take your campaign against whatever it is you are campaigning against elsewhere. If you carry on as you are, you can be assured that our patience will run out - possibly quite soon - and at that point, you will be obliged to do so, whether you like it or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Editors, I have heard from the usual defenders of the realm against criticism of relativity by realists such as those I have cited in the "Published criticisms of relativity" section on my talk page. These realists all agree (unlike Einstein) that 'the real world' exists with all its intrinsic properties, dimensions, etc. independent of whatever frame of reference from which it might be measured. Are there any editors here who have read the above cited references and do not dismiss them all as "fringe," making all criticism from realism* unacceptable to the "scientific community" as the lead dismissal does ? *Note: Not my "personal whim," or point of view as accused. Realism (see definitions) is presently not allowed to criticize relativity in Wikipedia. LCcritic (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

^{(Repeating from above)} The sources and your interpretations, as listed on your talk page, were dismissed on various previously shopped fora. For a partial overview of places where the dismissals have taken place, see here. DVdm (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said, "I have (already) heard from the usual defenders of the realm. This includes you, DVdm. Re-read my question, "Are there any editors here...?" LCcritic (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Only 9 editors have rejected your offering here, that is not even one third of a percent of the Village Pump's watchers! Obviously just an insignificant cabal of hidebound reactionaries bent on bollixing your noble cause. They won't prevail, because "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments", and your quest is just. 'Tis but a scratch, you've had worse. Persevere, Percival! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 20:08, 16 April 2014‎

LCcritic, you asked if any editors don't dismiss your references as "fringe", but that isn't a relevant question unless you first change Wikipedia policy. As you yourself have acknowledged, according to current Wikipedia policy the references can only be accepted if they are published by a peer-reviewed journal, academic publisher, university presses, etc. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of the content of your references. All that matters is that they are not from peer-reviewed journals, academic publishers, university presses, etc. You already agreed to this previously, when you scolded me for my lack of reading comprehension, and assured me that you understand full well why current Wikipedia policies don't allow your references. You said your aim is to change Wikipedia policy. But whenever someone asks what specific change you are proposing, you decline to answer. It's difficult for anyone to help if you won't/can't explain what you are requesting.EllisMcgraw (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

LCcritic, this is a discussion board regarding Wikipedia policy, not a forum for discussing the reliability of individual sources. If you really feel that you haven't pushed this stone up the hill long enough (you have), the reliable sources noticeboard is thataway. My advice to you continues to be to drop the stick, though. VQuakr (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@LCcritic: you should be aware that the Arbitration committee has set up rules regarding fringe theories and pseudoscience as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and allowed a speedy process to deal with those who disruptively push fringe theories. Continued tilting at Windmills and refusing to acknowledge that fringe sources are not going to be allowed to be acceptable as sources will soon provide ample evidence that your editing in the subject area is unacceptably disruptive and will lead to you being topic banned and / or blocked from editing at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, Please read my opening appeal above and reply. If no criticism of relativity is "accepted by the scientific community" (among relativity theorists), then the whole article, "Criticisms..." is a sham. Please also read the section in my talk page referencing a good sampling of such criticisms, "Published criticisms of relativity." A core of "mainstream defending" editors has blocked my every attempt to include such criticism, claiming that all sources cited belong in the excluded "fringe" category... the "policy," I must presume which makes all criticism of relativity illegitimate. I have been seeking an authority here, other than my usual critics (who btw consistently violate civility protocol) who can rule on this as Wikipedia policy. If you agree (rule) that none of the critics I have cited are "legitimate," I will give up on trying to bring fair representation of criticism of relativity to Wikipedia. Thanks. LCcritic (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@LCcritic: What specific changes to the text of WP:RS are you proposing? The word "relativity" does not appear within the text of that policy. VQuakr (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I will wait for a reply from the authority who wields the "red pen of doom." If all sources cited in my (talk page) section, "Published criticisms of relativity" are ruled to be subject to the policy against "fringe" sources, then there is no hope for fair representation of criticism of relativity in Wikipedia.LCcritic (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the rabid way some editors push WP:FRINGE and would prefer to destroy such articles describing fringe scientific ideas rather than try and develop them properly. They really hate such stuff. However the article Criticism of the theory of relativity looks quite reasonable to me. It describes the various criticisms and what has been said about them and provides citations. It isn't a marvelous read but it isn't bad either. One thing it doesn't go into is the modern non-scientific opposition as in things like the Conservapedia campaign against Einstein's Relativity because they think it promotes moral relativism in children. It can be hard to get good studies of such stuff though in this age of the blog. I have to agree with the rest here that in an article like that the criticisms need to be in reliable sources rather than blogs and other such self published sources without any vetting. Otherwise it's like saying in an article about smoking that the CDC says smoking causes lung cancer but my grandfather lived to 90 and smoked 40 a day all his life and died of pneumonia. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to TRPoD for the link to “Requests for arbitration/ pseudoscience." (On my talk page, not here. Don't know why.) From the discussion of “Neutral point of view as applied to science; "Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.” This, from arbitration on another issue, could as well apply to legitimate criticisms of length contraction. I will formally request such arbitration on what criteria legitimately disqualifies criticism of length contraction from traditional realists as represented in my talk page article, “Published criticisms of relativity.” As often admitted, I have minimal technical skill for navigating this labyrinth, but I will do my best to comply with all rules which apply to such a request. LCcritic (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of innocent bystanders: TRPoD did link to the Pseudoscience ArbCom case on this page. With LCcritic, this kind of lapse appears to be a design feature.

@LCcritic: Attaboy, that's the way to go. It has been long known to strategists that a Stellungskrieg is the quickest and most efficient way to promote The Truth. Paradoctor (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Your nasty sarcasm is not now and has never been appropriate or helpful or civil, as per the guidelines. What "lapse?"... how a "design feature." Never mind! I don't mean to encourage your constant ad hominem attack strategy. Btw, speaking of not helpful, I don't speak German.LCcritic (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Since it seems abundantly clear that LCcritic is making no concrete proposal regarding any change to Wikipedia policy, I suggest that this thread be considered closed. If LCcritic wishes to pursue arbitration (of whatever form) concerning this matter under existing policy, it is of no relevance here, and must be taken up elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I am in fact making a proposal to change Wikipedia policy, and this is the appropriate place for it. Andy's definition of "concrete" will need further clarification. How better to clarify my proposal? That the "Criticism of the theory of relativity" article should fairly include criticisms from the vast community of realists who criticize relativity on philosophical, epistemological and ontological grounds. And on the grounds that Earth's diameter doesn't "really" shrink. (Small joke, but "true.")LCcritic (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm closing this discussion down. Without regard to the merits of the substance of this discussion, this page is clearly not the correct venue. This is not to quash this general discussion, or say that this does not need to be resolved somewhere, but this venue is not the appropriate place, as the OP has been repeatedly reminded. Please move the discussion to the appropriate talk page. --Jayron32 00:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Handling of inhouse made maps and diagrams

While strolling around on Geneva Conventions I ended up pondering about File:Parties to the Geneva Conventions.svg and I realize it has some issues:

• First of all it lacks any source for the actual data used to make the map; only the blankmap source is given. As commons doesn't care about verifiability, it's perfectly fine to have such a map there.
• Secondly maps could be a breach of No original research - Original images, as they could have been made from raw data without any previous analysis of said data, or the data has never before been used to illustrate global distribution or similar (data + blank map could be defined as a synthesis of two different sources).

I've not made any extensive research into how common it is that maps and diagrams lacks sources for their data, but as people will not get any feedback on commons if they forget to include it, I'm afraid it's a common occurrence.

The question is how we should handle maps and diagrams in general, and especially how to handle those which are on commons, and outside our "jurisdiction". Should we allow maps displaying unsourced data to be included in articles or not? Would it be enough to source the data when using the map in the article, should we require the actual map itself to be fully sourced, or is map sources not needed?

I hope I made myself clear here, and not just rambling words. _→AzaToth 14:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Maps and images are subject to the same rules of verifiability and sourcing. If you are challenging the data on a map, you should start a discussion on the talk page of the article in question where you outline your specific challenges as to which parts of the map you think are wrong and why you think it is wrong. I would invite the map creator to such a discussion, and give a reasonable amount of time for people to comment. If no one can produces sources to verify the map, you should remove it as you would a dubious sentence or paragraph which was also unsourced. But the most reasonable way to handle it is to have a discussion, and give people the opportunity to produce the sources. It is unlikely that the map was created out of whole cloth (possible, but unlikely) and more likely that the person creating it had source material he was working from, and just didn't cite it. --Jayron32 14:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Your example seems rather odd, as the main article in which the free map is used Geneva Convention has a link to the website with the data in the sources of the article. [10] Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:OI says ". Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". I don't see anything in the image that introduces unpublished ideas or arguments into that article. The most that could be brought against it that I can see is that somebody made a mistake in identifying a country or the shape of a county has changed in some relevant way but that would be in essence a typo rather than something needing a source for verification. Dmcq (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the example is bad, but the OP has a valid point in general: Original maps or graphs that display some sort of data or things like that DO need some sort of connection to published data. If an image is a photograph of something, perhaps not, but where a map says "here's a bunch of countries that have done XXX" or something like that, there should be an overt citation to the source of that information. --Jayron32 00:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree - even if the data is absolutely uncopyrightable, some RS to show the source of that data is needed. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ingrained conservative bias

I have come across a number of topics on wiki recently where wiki policies are being used to stifle ideas which are clearly provocative. Among these are the Shakespeare authorship issue and the writings of mythicists such as Ralph Ellis. The latter is being blackballed and reverted. I also had the same issue on the alcoholism page with a reference to ongoing research in France on baclofen treatment which is in the French wiki.

What seems to be happening is that certain people who have made studies of these topics and know a lot about them are being banned from editing because they are effectively outnumbered and out gunned. The policies on wiki require peer reviewed referencing. The problem is that these days a lot of people are choosing to publish through on line publishers which is regarded as self publishing and self promotion. While approving that would open up wiki to anyone who self published an idea, there must come a point where some of these issues are published on Wiki.

Joe Atwill, for instance does not have a page. He is mentioned on the Jesus Myth page as another mythicist author. His idea is very radical but very significant, and similar to that of Ellis. Atwill is involved in a debate with Richard Carrier which is largely taking place over the internet. Carrier has a specific mention of his works in the Jesus Myth page and I think Atwill should be mentioned in greater detail than he is. Atwill was recently promoted by Richard Dawkins and Dawkins is on the Jesus Myth page even though he is not a mythicist or academically trained in the field. Same with Hitchins.

The same issue comes up with the Shakespeare authorship page where I am aware that a certain contributors who a vast knowledge of the issue has been banned so that the orthodox position is being presented by people who understand it but those who support the opposing view are being "ganged up" on.

Baclofen is another example of this. Mentions of Olivier Ameisen were reverted because someone thought they sounded like "advertising" whereas his work was published in peer reviewed journals such as the Oxford Journal of Alcohol and Alcoholism. The drug was recently approved by the French government and is being used by many but its mention as a drug for alcoholism treatment was reverted and put under Research.

One becomes afraid to put anything in about some of these types of topics because there is a conservative element in each of these fields who have the benefit that their references are older and therefore in print, in journals. There is a growing movement towards on line publication now and scientific discoveries and theories about history are changing much more quickly, largely because of the internet.

On the other hand, the St. George page starts with a reference to the saint as being a real person and is referenced by a book called "St George: Let's Here it for England!". The book is written by a Sun journalist in London who has been able to get it published because of her connections, and not because of its literary or scholastic value. The St. George page thus reads like a jingoistic promotion of St. George as a real person with complete certainty which has never been an accepted position in peer reviewed academia.

I feel there needs to be a way in which these particular types of topics are dealt with so that people who are actually "experts" and have radical and important ideas are not banned because the policies of Wiki are overly conservative and too heavily reliant on paper media and peer review when that is unlikely to happen for some time.Burdenedwithtruth (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That is how Wikipedia works - we reflect current knowledge, and aren't here to present 'radical' ideas as yet unaccepted by the mainstream. Feel free to start your own online encyclopaedia and do it differently - you can even start by forking existing Wikipedia content if you like. Just don't expect others to help you, and don't expect readers to trust your articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is one of the core policies, as are WP:V and WP:NOR. On a side note, WP:DAW. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What is up with Template:copyvio?

The current revision of Black mamba (beginning at revision [11]) is defaced with some gigantic "copyvio" notice that was put in over a disputed paragraph. Half the notice sounds like it was written for a talk page, yet the instructions seem to call for doing just what is done in this article. What's more, using the notice as instructed seems to involve preserving text that you know is a copyright violation as part of the source of the page. I mean, I know we keep the old revision history, but intentionally keeping copyvio text in the article source seems like a new way to poke the bear. Has there been any discussion of this template use? I thought the way to deal with copyvios was to fix or delete, leave the rest to edit summaries or ANI. Wnt (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The instructions on Template:copyvio, though admittedly a bit confusing, say to replace the disputed text with the template subst ("If a text page is a likely copyright violation, replace the text with the following"). The div tag bit is used if you're only removing part of that section and want the rest to display. So if it's being used correctly, the copyvio text will have been manually removed from the source and replaced by the (huge, ugly) template. Looking over the template documentation, it seems like it's trying to do two things: first, telling you to remove the text so it doesn't stay in the source, and then hiding any remaining text automatically, so even if you don't remove it, it doesn't display. That seems a bit redundant (if you're following the instructions, there's nothing to hide, I would think?), but nevertheless it seems to be what the template is going for. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of picture

Deletions like this one really distress me:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Statue_of_Peter_the_great_in_Moscow

This was just ordinary picture of a very interesting and notable statue on very public view in Moscow. After its deletion, the corresponding article is left bereft and fairly pointless.

I don't care about Wikimedia Commons, but can anything be done to restore this and other pictures similarly deleted to Wikipedia, and to prevent such disruptive deletions in future? I am totally in favour of recognising reasonable copyright restrictions, but the idea that pictures of such publicly accessible views can be subject to copyright (other than the photographer's own) is completely ridiculous. On a scale of anality, the people who perform these kind of deletions must out-anal virtually all other website administrators in existence. Why can't they find something useful to do instead? Really, who is bothered that we have a picture of this statue? No one. Who is harmed? No one. Who is ever going to complain or ask us to take it down? No one. 86.171.42.228 (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears the images were deleted from Commons because under Russian law, images of the statue in question are considered derivative works, the use of which requires a license from the original creator until the expiration of the copyright. Such copyrighted images can be hosted on Wikipedia if they have a valid fair use justification, but Commons cannot host them. Novusuna ^talk 01:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent polemic from the IP. As for Novusana, Russia is full of laws no one gives a damn about or pays the slightest attention to. It can almost be said to be a social pact (origin Peter the Great as it happens). The first place to look for this image would be the Russian wikipedia. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a time limit on these derivative works laws or are statues from Roman times even protected this way? Dmcq (talk) 13:32, 16 (UTC) April 2014

I would point out that the relevant law in the US is similar. Images of copyrighted public artwork like Forever Marilyn can only be uploaded locally under fair use rules or with free licensing from the author as with America's Response Monument. Images of the Peter the Great statue are used on the Russian Wikipedia, but with seemingly contradictory license tags, saying the images are released under CC-BY, but under Russian law, can only be used in non-commercial applications. Mr.Z-man 15:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought US Law allowed the 2-D depiction of 3-D objects because there is always the "creative element" of what angle the 2-D image will capture. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In the US , a photo of a 3D work of art installed in a public location in a country where there is no freedom of panorama, where the 3d artwork is still under copyright, is a derivative work, with both the photographer's implicit copyright, and the copyright of the original statue. While the photographer can release the photo as CC-BY, that still makes the image non-free due to the artwork copyright. If we need to illustrate the copyrighted artwork (if itself is notable) we ask that a CC-BY photo be made so that we only have the artwork copyright to worry about. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

and who said copyright law was confusing....-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

What is CC-BY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 11:18, 30 April 2014

CC-BY is one of the Creative Commons licenses. There have been several versions - the latest is CC-BY 4.0 --Redrose64 (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability of fictional items and tie-in sources

I hope I'm bringing this up in the right forum; if not, please feel free to move the thread accordingly. I'm also hoping I'll word my concerns as I mean to.

Minas Morgul is a fictional city in Lord of the Rings. For sourcing, the article only includes tie-in material, by which I mean books, DVDs, etc. that are already discussing LotR-related material. In other words, it is to be expected that they would discuss Minas Morgul. Based on the lack of non-tie in sources the article was brought up at AFD, resulting in a decision of No Consensus[12]. This troubles me given that none of the editors involved in the discussion were apparently willing and/or able to provide sourcing that did not involve tie-in material.

To be clear, if the tie-in material specifically discusses the larger impact of the article subject outside of the franchise in which it originated, all well and good, but that's not clear.

I'm concerned that this AFD is setting a precedent that tie-in material can be used as a basis for establishing notability, which I don't believe is appropriate. For instance, as much of a fan as I am of Star Trek, I do not believe that simply being discussed in The Star Trek Encyclopedia, or even dozens of Star Trek-related books/novels/movies/etc. should ever be considered grounds for the notability of any of the numerous subjects the book discusses.

Consequently I'd like policy to clearly establish that tie-in material does not satisfy notability concerns unless the tie-in material does in fact discuss the article subject's impact beyond its area of origination...which should be made explicitly clear within the article itself.

Pinging @Mendaliv: at their request. DonIago (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

With "The Lord of the Rings"/"The Hobbit" the only true tie-in work is "The Silmarillion" written by Tolkien himself. All the other references are third-party sources and would not be normally called "tie-in" sources because they were written far separated from Tolkien. Or to put it another way, a tie-in source is not going to be an "independent" source as it is written by the original author or people directly involved with the production. Tie-in media would be a non-independent source, and alone are not appropriate for notability.

Now, there are questions remaining if those other sources are "secondary" (if they are just redocumenting the books without any additional original thought or analysis they are at best tertiary, perhaps primary, but definitely not secondary). There is also question if they are "reliable", both also facets in considering sources for notability. I don't make any claim for those if they are or are not good enough but clearly those aren't "tie-in" works. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies if "tie-in" wasn't the correct term to use, hopefully my concerns are clear to anyone reviewing the thread nonetheless.

I suspect the books would be reliable in terms of, say, discussing Minas Morgul's significance within the LotR body of work, but the point of this thread is whether such books discuss Minas Morgul in an out-of-universe context. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I will say that looking at the article that there is something wrong with the sources as the only out-of-universe discussion was how Minas Morgul was depicted in the recent LOTR films (Which is more about the films, and less about the fictional aspects of the city) and not the importance of the actual city to the work. I do think that that's a tricky issue to conclude from how little the AFD brought, so its hard to say that the AFD closed "Wrong". But that said, this is a tip of the iceberg problem - I was going to say that this is a prime candidate to merge into a larger "locations in middle earth" article but find that we have Outline of Middle-earth which spot-checking has dozens of articles in similar or worst shape, each able to attempting to latch onto the LOTR films to provide the location or other aspect notable. That's a problem in terms of notability of the location, not the film's representation of the location. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for investigating this further. I'm a little concerned we're getting a little too focused on LotR...while there are, as you noticed, a number of potentially problematic articles there, I think the problem exists in a more broad context. For instance, we've got List of Star Trek planets (C–F), where the "references" are the episodes in which the planets appear and little else. I feel we need a general policy regarding what I initially referred to as "tie-in" sources to make it clear that with regards to the Wikipedia definition of notability, such sources are not applicable. Granted the article I just linked to is a List, but even lists are supposed to have inclusion criteria, not "every planet that ever appeared in Star Trek". I would hope we could all agree that even if all of the planets were listed in The Star Trek Encyclopedia that would not in and of itself make them more notable. DonIago (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• This has LONG been a problem at Wikipedia... The major problem is outlined at WP:INUNIVERSE, Wikipedia articles should write about fictional concepts as though they are fictional, and provide an out of universe perspective. If things worked write, ONLY those fictional subjects which were themselves subject to reliable third-party analysis completely independent from the work they were created for would be subjects of their own articles. If all we have to rely on is the actual works of fiction the characters appear in, we have no source for out-of-universe writing, and properly the concept shouldn't be at Wikipedia, it should be transwikied to Wikia (e.g. Wookiepedia, Memory Alpha, One Wiki To Rule them All, etc.) However, this is one of those "practice overrules policy" things, there's SO much of this stuff at Wikipedia, and a lot of it is pretty well cared for, that in practice there's no way to get rid of it. Years ago, there was even a guideline of sorts called the Pokémon test to give some guidance as to what sorts of fictional items should be subjects of stand-alone articles. --Jayron32 17:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• In previous deletion discussions, I've successfully argued that comprehensive, in-universe guides do not establish notability. Perhaps this could be explicitly stated somewhere, but I'm not entirely sure where. Maybe someone could resurrect the attempt to pass WP:NFICT. WP:LSC would work for lists, but it seems a bit specific to speak explicitly about fictional works. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • With the presumption that bringing a NFICT to consensus is near impossible, we could use WAF to explain how to avoid using recapping guides extensively, and other related issues. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd really prefer that whatever we put together be a policy rather than a guideline...but at this point I also think anything would be an improvement over nothing. I was rather surprised by the outcome of the AFD and it troubled me that there was nothing to fall back on to establish that the sources being provided were insufficient for notability purposes...but I imagine I'm stating the obvious. DonIago (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:N itself is not a policy, so it would be strange if a clarification of how to interpret it were policy. --Trovatore (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. :p DonIago (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd have argued that the sources barely meet notability guidelines and would have suggested a merge, on the weakness of the secondary nature of the sources on the fictional location as written by Tolkien. The only reason sources that are good for notability talk about the city as shown in the movie, and that's not the same. Unfortunately we can't repeat the AFD (DRV wouldn't accept it), but I do think that there is merge possibilities --MASEM (t) 04:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Masem; editors need to more easily accept the result of merging as opposed to delete/keep. There is some content of value here, some not, but it could easily be covered in a longer, more suitable article (which probbaly exists) called "Geography of Middle-Earth", or some such. Articles like this kind get more edits, and therefore more eyes to keep quality up and vandalism down. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 11:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I would have been fine with merging...in fact I started a discussion at WT:AFD to make the discussion pages for AFDs more friendly and provide a basic explanation of the common options; unfortunately, despite apparent agreement with my view that discussion seems to have stalled. I also would have been fine with keeping the article provided sources were added that provided a real-world context. Merging was brought up during the deletion discussion but apparently failed to gather any momentum. As it is, I fear the article will remain in its unsatisfactory (IMO) state indefinitely. DonIago (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger suggestions often go unnoticed in AFD debates... the "inclusionists" and the "exclusionists" among us are often too focused on saving/destroying the article to even consider that there may be a third option.

Perhaps what is needed is a separate WP:AfM (Articles for Merger) process page... where that third option is the sole focus of the discussion from the beginning. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a page called Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Would this suggestion be different enough to warrant an additional page?--67.70.140.89 (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

PM's existed but it suffers the problems of not being well advertized (a feature that Deletion Sorting helps to attracted commentors) and doesn't have weight of admin closures behind it, even though a merger should not require admin power. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

PMs could be closed by admins, just like AFDs that end in merge or keep are already closed by non-admins.

Deletion Sorting could probably be expanded to cover merges, but WikiProject clean up listings like this one already list all merge-tagged articles. It might be more helpful to get them listed at Article alerts. WP:Requested moves are already listed there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

So...I guess I'm left wondering a) whether anything should be done specifically with regards to Minas Morgul and b) whether there's anything we can do to keep this from coming up again. DonIago (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not dropping in here until now, finals kind of crept up on me. My general feeling is that notability isn't exactly the right way to address this. As was stated above, the Pokémon test might provide some guidance, but I think it would be even more instructive to look at the policy arguments that were made later, when the Pokémon test was deprecated (i.e., when all the sundry Pokémon articles were merged to the master list article). I'm not sure where that discussion took place though, but I think the same general policy considerations should be equally applicable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

We do clearly need more clarity on this; there's an tremendous amount of fan-geeky stuff on WP that belongs on fandom wikis (BattlestarWiki, Memory Alpha, etc.) and is not encyclopedic in WP's sense. I don't see that this VPP discussion will achieve that, but it at least suggests that figuring out where to make a more formal proposal should be the next step. I'm thinking WT:N is where that should be discussed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

First mentions of place names should mention the country

As a Singaporean reader and editor of the English Wikipedia, I chanced upon a newly-promoted good article about a bridge in "Bridgeport, Connecticut" and initially thought that Connecticut was a country. To reduce systemic bias and make the English Wikipedia more accessible to its global readership, I am proposing a policy that the first mentions of place names should include the country, except when obvious from context. --Hildanknight (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

While I can understand your perspective, I think that it's safe to say that Wikipedia has always assumed a minimal level of general knowledge in its readership - or has assumed that readers that don't have sufficient knowledge will understand how to look up things they don't know, when it matters to them. Possibly assuming that readers will know where Connecticut is might be asking too much, but would 'New York, the United States', or 'New Delhi, India' really be necessary for the majority of our leaders? Telling readers too much may tend to drown the significant in the insignificant, and make comprehensibility worse rather than better. Judicious Wikilinking will help, clearly, though again overlinking is best avoided. To some extent it is a judgement call, depending on context, and I have to say that hard and fast rules seldom make for good writing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with Hildanknight: countries must be named on first used on the first sentence of every article on a geographic place or organization. Most United States states are very little known. --NaBUru38 (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Clearly the problem is much larger then US articles. There are plenty of articles out there that provide no context for where the place is in the first sentence. So yes, something needs to be done, but the US articles are the least of the problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: @NaBUru38: @Vegaswikian: Is there any existing policy or guideline on this issue? This problem occurs most often for the USA, but also happens for other countries, such as Canada and England. Hence any policy or guideline on this issue should apply equally to all countries. We should not assume that Western readers would know the major cities of China, India, Japan or Russia. The "except when obvious from context" cavaet is intended to prevent "hard and fast rules". For example, for an article listing electoral districts in New York, it is sufficient for the first sentence of the lead to mention that New York is in the United States. No reasonable reader would argue that the country should be repeated in the first mention of each district. --Hildanknight (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that a "policy" should be the thing needed, this is more an issue on style, which depends strongly on the context. Is it a article with a topic focused on a country (such as "Music in Foo") or a general article with no geographic boundaries (such as "Music")? If it is the first, do things always stay within the country, or do we mention places from other countries later on? Do we talk about a modern country (such as Egypt), a former country with a similar name but another extension (such as Ancient Egypt), a disputed territory that once belonged to X and now belongs to Y, a disputed territory that is currently being disputed...? It is not material for rules set in stone, but for general guidelines that adapt to the context. In a more general view, Wikipedia already encourages to state the obvious as if it wasn't, perhaps we can consider this case under that light. Cambalachero (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed wording for the Subject preference RfC at the WP:NCP talk page

Over a month ago an RfC on subject preference was initiated at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RfC: Subject preference.

In one of the subsections of that RfC a new wording to be included in the guideline is proposed: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Approach.

It was suggested to avoid mere local consensus, so this proposal has been listed at Template:Centralized discussion.

Feel free to chime in! --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No one needs free knowledge in Esperanto

There is a current discussion on German Wikipedia on a decision of Asaf Bartov, Head of WMF Grants and Global South Partnerships, Wikimedia Foundation, who rejected a request for funding a proposal from wikipedians from eowiki one year ago with the explanation the existence, cultivation, and growth of the Esperanto Wikipedia does not advance our educational mission. No one needs free knowledge in Esperanto. On meta there has also started a discussion about that decision. --Holder (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:MULTI, people. Discuss at Meta please.

I am minded to agree. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Yes, Esperanto truly is the Power Glove of languages. Reyk YO! 11:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Inasmuch as Esperanto is no-one's native language (and the same applies to the various 'dead' languages that also have Wikipedias), I can see a point. Any Esperanto speaker will have another language in which they are more fluent already. These non-native language Wikipedias are fun projects or academic projects. They are not necessary for spreading the availability of knowledge. Peridon (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Actually there are native Esperanto speakers. --cyclopiaspeak! 17:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Mobile site strapline

Hi. I've started a request for comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mobile site strapline. Any and all are welcome to participate. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Current consensus for a specific infobox, might affect all infoboxes

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Village pump § Current consensus for a specific infobox, might affect all infoboxes

 – Redrose64 (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Theres currently a discussion for change for infobox to use template:ubl and/or template:flatlist at template:Infobox album for the issues of WP:ACCESS and MOS:LIST shown here at Template talk:Infobox album#Consistency. Since this reasoning doesn't apply to specific infoboxes but "ALL" of them, i thought it was best to bring it here for not only a wider consensus, but if it passes or fail, the consensus will optimize wikipedia. Lucia Black (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for temp sysop, but more specific a new special user right

I am requesting a new special user right be established for the right to view and restore deleted material. I am active on DRV and see many articles whose decision can be reverse. It would be easier for me if I am able to see articles beforehand to make an assessment. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Back in the old day, the need for accessing deleted material was my primary motivation for seeking adminship, this was when becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*., not sure if that is still the case though. Have you considered undertaking the journey to adminship? Can you expand on why a new special user right for non-admins is a better choice then only giving the right to admins? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping that the permission (for example be called WP:RETRIVER) requires nomination as well, but less strict than that required for adminship. There are many inclusionists and major article creators that could benefit seeing prior versions of articles. Wikipedia is collaborative environment and we can all perform better when standing on the shoulder of giants. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The WMF legal team has warned against providing wider access to deleted content: see Wikipedia:Viewing deleted content for the summary. Viewing deleted content is such a specialized task that the usefulness of packaging it up on its own is limited. If you're significantly involved in DRV, that's not a bad reason to seek adminship. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Although, given the fact that rev deletion is much more easily done these days for material that is libellous, obscene, derogatory, etc., which could be easily extended (where it isn't already) to copyright materials, is viewing the remaining non-rev deleted pages (ie through afd/csd/prod) really that big of a deal? Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's still a big deal until you can convince WMF lawyers to drop their oposition.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not done too much work in ANI or patrolling would you support me if I chose to become an admin? If someone chooses to nominate me I'll give it a shot. I slightly over 4700 edits since 2006. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If that's directed at me, I'm probably the wrong person to ask. My views on the admin system make my personal standards a bit higher than the community average. Someone else is probably better suited to tell you what your chances are.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Before we read too much into the lawyers position, it might be helpful to review it. That said, I'm going to offer my recollection, rather than search for the exact wording. My recollection isn't that legal isn't fundamentally opposed to allowing any non-admins to see deleted material. Instead, they get concerned when someone invokes Jimbo's famous statement about adminship not being a big deal, and making a proposal that would have the effect of allowing a material number of editors that ability. They don't (AFAIK) think there is something inherently special about being an admin, but they do want there to be a comprehensive review of the editor before granting such rights and we generally don't have any mechanism in place for a comprehensive review of editors other than RfA (no cracks please.) In other words, if someone wanted to develop a user right, decoupled form admin, which would allow access to deleted material, they would want to be sure that a sufficiently robust review of the editor were part of the process. This is not a minor point, as one of the main rationales for carving out a separate user right is to avoid the gauntlet of RfA. However, it is not inconceivable that a case could be made for a limited user right, with a community review process which would look carefully at trust and related issues, but would not need to delve into, say do they know the difference between a ban and a block.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: What is the most efficient way for me to get this discussion going? Who do I talk to and where do I go? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that there is "prior art" for an editor seeking adminship solely to look at deleted material, and it didn't end well. Not saying the context or circumstances are the same, just something to think about. I don't know if that resulted in a wider discussion about a special permission like the one you're seeking. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that request. You are entirely correct that it did not go well, but I note some of the opposes were specifically opposition to the fact that the requestor would have access to other rights besides the view deleted right. I'll also note that the requestor had some other issues, so I would not view that request as a referendum on whether an unbundled viewed deleted right would be acceptable to the community. That said, it is a cautionary tale, and should be reviewed by anyone thinking about proposing an unbundled option.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Valoem, speaking generically, I like the model of starting out at the Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) to work out the details of a proposal, then, if preliminary feedback is positive, moving to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals) to get actual community support for the proposal. As has been hinted, this is not sufficient, legal will have to get involved, even if the community blessed the idea, legal might quash it. I think a well-designed proposal might get support from legal, but that's a personal opinion, I haven't discussed it with them. In addition, the developers will need to be involved, to help think through how to actually implement it. One other thing you should research is the template editor right. That's a relatively recent example of an unbundled user right created by the community. Many, many proposals have been floated for unbundled rights, and the template editor right is one of the few to succeed, so it would be worth researching the history of how that came about. I supported it, but was not closely involved in the development. Check with one of the active template editors for pointers to the history.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I shall look into that, thanks for all the help. Hopefully I can get some momentum going. In terms of Carrite I do not have those issues with trolling and would be more than happy to participate on a grand scale. However, I have 8 times less edits than he did, which may be an issue. I'll see how the proposal goes first. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think a temporary sysop permission could be a good idea, implemented something like the following:

1. Limited duration (eg, no more than a few days to a week)
2. Includes all admin functions except user permissions, block/unblock, and other tools for managing editors
3. Minimum edit count and account age
4. Clean block log
5. Consensus from WP:AN or WP:ANI, with mandatory reporting requirement to the authorizing noticeboard after the temporary permission.

Instead of viewing deleted content, I would use something like this for moves over redirects and other housekeeping type speedy deletions (I manage several large collections of related articles that may require around a hundred page moves against redirects if article naming guidelines were to be changed) and I'm sure there are many other legitimate reasons why it would be good practice for an experienced editor to have access to some of the sysop permissions. VanIsaac_WS^cont 21:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think the WP:RESEARCHER usergroup could satisfy the tenets of Valoem's request if there was a mechanism in place to add this permission to a wider group of users.—John Cline (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Viewing deleted material also covers privacy-breaching stuff like "editing while logged out revealing IP", or accidental outing from an acquaintance who does not understand that off-wiki stuff should not be put into comments. Perhaps all that should be oversighted, but I imagine that it is not, and it is also likely that oversighters should not be burdened with undue work. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, removal of non-public personal info is explicitly listed as a reason to use suppression, and I've submitted a couple such cases to the oversighters in the past. Novusuna ^talk 00:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: An arbitration log

I was just reading over an ArbCom case related to an article I was examining and I realized that there is no way whatsoever to know when an editor has been somehow restricted from making certain types of edits or editing within certain topics, interacting with other editors, taking certain contextually-sensitive administrative actions (in the case of sysops), etc. "Soft" sanctions that can be imposed by ArbCom and don't involve blocks, permission changes or other things that do show up in public logs are essentially known only to the people who are familiar with the editor(s) or the arbitration case. This makes it difficult for other editors to evaluate and act upon the user's actions in the long term. This for example shows up in the user rights log, since it involves a logged permission change where someone was desysopped:

• 12:12, August 30, 2010 SysopOne (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:SysopTwo from administrator to (none) (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SomeCaseInvolvingSysopTwo)

But what I would like to see is an Arbitration log that contains entries like these:

• 12:12, August 30, 2010 SysopOne (talk | contribs | block) User:Someone subject to arbitration restrictions (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SomeCaseInvolvingSomeone)

Perhaps followed some time later by:

• 14:14, February 1, 2011 SysopThree (talk | contribs | block) User:Someone no longer subject to arbitration restrictions (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SomeCaseInvolvingSomeone/Appeal)

Given a successful appeal. It seems to me this would help a lot. It's very difficult to manually dig up arbitration cases that directly affect editors. Perhaps the subject to arbitration restrictions part could include more information as to what the restriction is as well.

I realize this might be construed as a sort of scarlet letter situation, but then so is the block log. Maybe it's been contemplated before and rejected for good reasons. And it would require changes in the MediaWiki core, plus amendment of some of ArbCom's procedures, especially for case closure (among other things). But I'm curious as to what the community might think about this. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

User:FreeRangeFrog Does Wikipedia:Edit_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Arbitration_Committee and Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#Banned_by_the_Arbitration_Committee meet your needs or did I read too quickly?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Yeah, kinda sorta. I still think it would be more "official" to have a log, but I recognize those lists address my concern. Thanks :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I think those are more official than you realize. It isn't like a list maintained by random editors, additions to the edit restriction list are mandated in the ArbCom procedures. For example, a new or changed edit restriction is mentioned in step 16 of Closing a case. That said, those rules apply to ArbCom - and some editor are banned by community action at WP:AN. I do not know what processes are in place to ensure that nothing gets missed, but I can assure you that multiple people are watching to make sure edit restrictions get logged.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Good practice for an RfC about a policy

WT:Banning_policy#Banning_enforcement proposes an RfC to re-validate WP:Banning policy.  I think that such an RfC would normally go on the talk page of the policy, as was done at [13].  The plan is to post the RfC at WT:Banning policy, with notices here on this page, and at WP:Centralized discussion.  Using the RfC tag {{RfC|policy}} would list the RfC on WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note that Legobot edited through <nowiki> and </nowiki> tags here and added an RfC ID.  I've removed the RfC ID and changed the "{{" to "{ {".  Unscintillating (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The better way is to use {{tlx}} as that keeps the braces together, allowing copypaste. Similarly {{tag}} simplifies demonstration markup. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Surely it's not necessary to get consensus to propose the posting of an RfC to re-validate policy??

I suggest just posting the RfC already, per WP:KUDZU. People either agree or they don't.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC to re-validate WP:Banning policy

• See WT:Banning policy#RfC to re-validate WP:Banning policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • RFC has been closed, for reasons described there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

People who are only known for having a rare skill

I'm trying to determine how viable it is for someone to be considered notable if they're only known for having a rare skill. This is in relation to an AfD in which the person in question has many independent secondary sources written about him, but the sources all feel sensationalist in nature and give no indication of importance to the subject other than the rare skill. My feeling is that Wikipedia is not the place for sensationalist articles, even if the usually-reliable secondary sources choose to publish them. I can't find any policies, guidelines or articles that cover this. The AfD in question is here. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about Uri Geller? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think he is "well known internationally as a magician, television personality". He made a public career out of his skill and became a notable entertainer. None of that is true in this case. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The key to understanding Notability is this... Notability isn't really about what someone does ... its about how many other people (ie sources) have noticed and commented on it. Two people may have the same skill... if person A gets good coverage in sources, and person B does not... then person A is notable while person B is not. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps. I used to believe that as well, but a closer inspection of the GNG suggests otherwise. See my comments on the AfD in question. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're looking for an unambiguously notable example, Kim Peek rightly has an article due to his rare talent for memorizing things. I don't have a strong opinion about the article currently at AfD, but at first glance that guy clearly isn't as notable as Kim Peek. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

How to propose a VP ban

How and where would one go about proposing the banning of a specific editor from Village Pump? For obvious reasons, I will not provide details for now, so don't bother asking and please don't bother commenting if you can't accept that. What venue would be the correct one if the problem isn't related to blatantly obvious policy violations? --89.0.229.165 (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Start by creating a policy that makes it a blatantly obvious policy violation. Than get the policy approved. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The only reason to ban someone from the pump is if they are being routinely disruptive to the various discussions that take place here... and we already have plenty of policies against being disruptive (no need to write a new one). The correct action is to bring the disruptive behavior to the attention of administrators by outlining the problem at WP:ANI. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably a topic ban discussion should be raised at WP:AN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Genealogical symbols at German Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, yesterday I've tried to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Genealogical star and cross in biography articles of the German Wikipedia, concerning the German Wikipedia, and whether wmf:Non discrimination policy applies to the case of using genealogical symbols. Since I think the topic requires a broader audience from outside the German project, but the WikiProject talk apparently is not very active, I wanted to mention the discussion here too, and ask for comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, Rosenkohl (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

German Wikipedia is full of good faith editors who can figure these things out for themselves. If there is a legitimate legal issue involved, which you seem to be implying, then the proper thing to do is contact the WMF, but English Wikipedia has no business telling German Wikipedia what their policies should be, least of all telling them that what may be a traditional and culturally innocuous practice in German practice (cf swastikas in a Chinese WP Buddhism article) is actually discrimination. VanIsaac_WS^cont 19:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you have lost a vote on your home wiki and now you try to get support for your point of view here? Sorry, your are not getting support from me. If have seen these symbols in use in several Dutch genealogical magazines for families of all religions, even Jewish and Muslim. I really do not see what the fuzz is about. The Banner talk 19:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I do see what the fuss is about; but, in the past, I have found it fairly annoying when editors from the German Wikipedia have come here and vocally participated in discussions about our practices. It would be hypocritical to turn around and offer my opinion in one of their discussions. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Aren't you legitimate user in another Wiki if you comment in its own language? As far as I am aware anyone can tell his/her own view in German Wikipedia in German. If you don't know German the problem just doesn't touch you and you don't have a reason to have an opinion about the topic. Fairly simple. --Gwafton (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not enough to simply be able to write in a language. Unless you are a vested contributor, you shouldn't be flitting over to other wikis to tell them how they should do things. German Wikipedia is a community of its own, and going over there because of canvassing on English Wikipedia is equivalent to anonymous IPs responding to a 4chan or Reddit appeal for intervention here. VanIsaac_WS^cont 21:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, where did I imply "legitimate legal issue involved"? I'm not "canvassing" but inviting You to participate in a discussion.

No, I have not lost a vote. On the contrary, I've actively tried to stop and prevent each of the last three polls in 2010 and 2014.

Anyway, the point of any non discrimination measure in a democracy would be to protect the interests of a quantitative minority against the vote of a quantitative majority.

It is not just a problem of the German Wikipedia, but a problem between the German Wikipedia and certain real living people, often either church critics or Jews. A problem in e.g. China does disappear just because you don't know Chinese. The problem of genealogical symbols does not disappear just because You don't know German. If You did not learn to understand German, it does not mean that problems in German speaking countries like Germany, Austria and Switzerland do not exist for You, and that You can't have an opinion about it.

If someone expressly says that he wants no cross symbol in the biography of himself, his family or religious relatives, it is no "traditional and culturally innocuous practice" to put in a cross nevertheless, Rosenkohl (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Rosenkohl The symbol † is not a cross, but a dagger. There is a distinct Christian cross glyph ✝ for those wondering. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

The dagger is also called an obelisk; and since the "star" mentioned in the first sentence is properly called an asterisk, what we have are asterisk and obelisk. Sounds familiar? That was the inspiration for the names of the characters created by French writers Goscinny et Uderzo. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough, of course the genealogical cross is a cross, and it is not christian; and I have explained the origin and use of the genealogical cross extensively, Rosenkohl (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Capitalization of titles

I recently moved a couple of articles Security Token Service Credential Service Provider to correct the capitalization of their titles, per WP:NCCAPS. I noticed that almost every article shown on Template:IPstack is non-compliant, and was wondering if there is an exception for technical articles which are more commonly referred to using their acronyms. Or am I possibly interpreting the guideline incorrectly?Timtempleton (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The reason is that the defining documents (RFCs) capitalise the protocol names. Whether this is sufficient reason, I am not decided, but it is not a conflict I wished to engage in when I noticed the same thing a few years ago. If you want more clarity, or to start a decent discussion, you could try the talk page of WP:MOSCAPS I think it is. They may still be punch-drunk from finally resolving the bird common name capitalisation though. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC).

Not intending to sound like the bird people, a named protocol is an obvious proper noun, isn't it? The difference between an internet protocol and the Internet Protocol is as big as the difference between an epic movie and Epic Movie. 67.165.188.96 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The concept of a proper noun, which we all learned at our teacher's knee, turns out to be as slippery and elusive as an eel coated in vaseline to flock of penguins wearing teflon coated mittens. ( "Vaseline"? "Teflon"?) We (English Wikipedia) have, for example, always said "Internet" when referring to the Internet. Common usage seems to be changing to "internet". But you are absolutely right, the protocols are viewed (maybe correctly) as proper nouns and I should have said so - my take on it is still that I am not convinced either way and it is probably best not to worry about it. Another example is Demand Note - I still don't think this is a proper noun but having raised it at the talk page, it did not seem worth pursuing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

The RFC are proper nouns, so they should be capitalized. Now, it may happen that a certain RFC name is also used in other propocols. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the names of the RFCs should be treated as we treat all titles. Just as unambiguously we refer to The Lord of the Rings or in running text about the work the Lord of the Rings, but talking about Sauron we may say "he is the lord of the rings". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

I wasn't aware of the RFC connection. That would explain it, except (that I'm aware of) for the DSL articles such as Asymmetric digital subscriber line, all spelled with title caps on the RFC [[14]], but spelled using sentence case on the Wikipedia articles (at least on the US versions of the articles). Sounds like the first step would be to modify WP:NCCAPS to explain the exception, and then attack and move all the DSL articles? And while we're traveling down this hyperlinked rabbit hole, why not merge WP:NCCAPS and WP:MOSCAPS? Anyone ever succeed in reducing rather than expanding the number of different style guideline articles?Timtempleton (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Changes to template {{policy}}

An RFC has been started at Template talk:Policy#RFC for change to this page regarding changes to a widely-used template. Please contribute if you have an opinion. --Jayron32 12:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee review of procedures (CU & OS)

By resolution of the committee, our rules and internal procedures are currently being reviewed with the community. You are very welcome to participate at WT:AC/PRR. Information on the review is at WP:AC/PRR. The current phase of the review is examining the committee's procedures concerning advanced permissions (and the appointment and regulation of permissions holders). AGK [•] 11:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Participate in this review

Getting rid of mispelling redirects

Several recent RfD discussions, and the research surrounding them, have brought me to the conclusion that redirects of misspellings no longer serve a purpose. The major search engines have gotten so aggressive about "do you mean..." searching that it can be hard to search specifically for the misspelled text. Therefore these redirects are producing a lot of clutter in the system which in practice is making even very unlikely redirects hard to clean up because they are supposedly "cheap" and therefore we get a lot of WP:USEFUL arguments if anyone makes any attempt to get rid of them. They aren't cheap in terms of time needed to deal with them, and in any case "cheap" is not "free".

I would like to propose that specifically discourage misspelling redirects, and that ideally it would be good to have a bot or some other cheap process to delete those that exist now. Mangoe (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

What about when I type an something in the search bar? Mediawiki's built in did you mean really sucks. Werieth (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I don't use it except for certain specialized administrative searches. And these redirects only help if you happen to do the right sort of typos, which I as a rule don't— and my typing is terrible. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

So because it doesnt affect you it should be deleted? Rubbish. Werieth (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The point is that there will always be orders more incorrect spelling variants than could ever be "covered" by redirects - and if someone would try to add them all, it would mess up the whole system. The whole idea of trying to catch misspellings via redirects is an exercise in futility. From the viewpoint of a system's architect, redirects are not the proper tool for this purpose - a proximity-based pattern matching algorithm for the search box would be. Just because some random editor unsystematically misspelled a title when he created an article without much thought should not put the burden on us to maintain a silly redirect forever as it unfortunately happens in many cases. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A good "proximity-based pattern matching algorithm" is cpu-intensive, and can only be an improved "DYM" engine. If people create redirects when they make a typo, the CPU impact is effectively zero the maintenance impact is almost zero, and the effectiveness is extremely high, because people tend to make the same typos other people make. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

What about customer care? Those redirects are there to help visitors. The Banner talk 21:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And they don't: that's my point. What helps is the use of external search engines, which do a better job with no overhead on our part. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

So I should use a third party resource that tracks my movement and records everything and then sells it to the highest bidder? Again rubbish. I shouldnt have to rely on third party tools to use wikipedia. The use of a known third party that treats privacy as a joke is not something Im willing to do. There are times when I want to read up on a topic without big bother recording what I search for and what pages I visit. Werieth (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No, relying on a third-party resource would not be the right solution to the problem, either. Instead, we should improve the implementation of the search box and its "Do you mean" feature rather than trying to misuse redirects to cover up the problem - which simply can never succeed, unless we would add dozens or even hundreds of redirects from misspellings to each article. The point here is, let's not try to ad-hoc work around a problem manually, which a computer can be programmed to do automatically and much better and more systematically, while remaining easier to maintain and improve upon in the future at the same time. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. You should improve the implementation of the search box and its "Do you mean" feature. But until then let's keep redirects. 97.94.188.47 (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In most cases, they don't help, but have no positive effect at all, because the probability of someone else misspelling a title in exactly the same way is small - redirects from misspellings exist only for a very low percentage of possible misspellings.

There may be a few very common misspellings (ranking close to WP:ENGVAR), where a redirect from a misspelling may help, but these obvious cases are typically also covered by "Did you mean", already.

Also, it is never good to keep people uneducated about their errors, because thereby they will continue to repeat their errors and even spread them around more. External search engines may pick up such redirects from misspellings as well, multiplying the damage by increasing the number of hits for misspellings in the net. As a result, people seeing those misspellings everywhere, may develop problems to tell correct from incorrect apart. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirects aren't just for searches. They are also there for misspelled wikilinks. While it would be interesting if misspellings ended up as redlinks, it makes for a bad experience on wiki. Having redirects for misspellings, and a template to tag them with, enables bots to go around a fix those misspellings. So having these redirects, and having them properly tagged, actually helps to fix the only problem here, while deleting redirects from misspellings actively thwarts the processes that we have on this wiki for mitigating the problem. VanIsaac_WS^cont 21:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, those misspelling redirects also exacerbate the problem, because they discourage fixing certain typos by not redlinking them. In any case, if there is a bot which removes these redirects, it can also correct the references as well. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If the redirects are correctly categorized as {{R from misspelling}}, that should make it easier to fix mistaken links. Removing the redirects seems unhelpful. older ≠ wiser 14:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. And if I knew how to write a bot, there would soon be one going around and fixing them. As it is, we are waiting around for one to appear. But removing the redirects only prevents this solution from ever becoming reality. VanIsaac_WS^cont 21:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• "producing a lot of clutter in the system" – Deleting them will actually add to the amount of "clutter" in the system, because "deleted" pages aren't really removed. They're just made invisible to normal users.
• "They aren't cheap in terms of time needed to deal with them" – What time? You shouldn't have to do anything at all with them. You ought to be able to ignore them completely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You have to deal with them whenever you check and organize incoming links into an article. They are an annoyance, and they do cost time and energy for maintenance - forever - until they get deleted. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the maintenance argument. In the last few weeks redirects with no edits in 8 or 9 years have been listed for deletion. It would be useful, perhaps, to generate some statistics in this regard. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

• I support the idea of deleting them and instead more systematically create redirects with valid and likely spelling and capitalization variants even an improved search-box pattern matching system may not be able to come up with by itself. Encourage the good, suppress wrongs.

Perhaps we should distinguish between likely and unlikely misspellings. At least all redirects for unlikely misspellings and miscapitalizations should be deleted, whereas those from likely misspellings (that is, which are really entered by a significant portion of the target audience) could be replaced by a soft redirect - like in the German Wikipedia, where a message on the soft-redirect page tells the user that he made an error and suggests an alternative. The user can then choose to click the given link or enter the title again. A deliberate, but mild inconvenience, but it helps people to become aware of their mistakes and thereby reduces the likelihood that they will repeat their error. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's already the case that unlikely misspellings are distinguished from likely ones - there's a whole speedy deletion reason for implausible typos (WP:R3). I'm all for improving the search function but I share the sentiments of the editors above who see no need for such a 'clean up'. Sam Walton (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I have long been of the opinion that the {{Redirect from misspelling}} or the Category:Unprintworthy redirects offers the possibility to significantly improve the user interface with respect to redirects. Matthiuspaul's comments above suggest an additional way to utilise this, by suppressing them on "whatlinkshere" listings as a default. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

CU bot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For the beginnings of this conversation see Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive14#How about a regular IP audit?

I think a check user bot would help combat socking while increasing privacy protection.

• Privacy - A check user performed by a human compromises the privacy of the account holder because the geographical location of the user is revealed to the CU. An automated CU bot would check an account or accounts for technical similarities while protecting the privacy of the checked individuals. If the CU bot fails to identify the same IP address editing the same page with more than one account no indication of socking will be made, but if the CU bot finds that an IP address is editing the same page with more than one account a red flag will be sent to CU. A CU then decides whether to look further for behavioral evidence.

• Socking - An automated bot would regularly search for violations of WP:MULTIPLE and alert a CU only when necessary while never revealing any IP information to any humans other than CUs who specifically ask for it, thus protecting the privacy of the checked accounts. An alternative to an automated bot that checks all accounts randomly would be to only use it at the discretion of an SPI clerk.

Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• It is interesting, but this requires a bot with the CU bit, something that the community has never contemplated before. Granting a bot CU isn't a trivial thing and may require Foundation approval. Also, it can only maintained (and likely written) by someone with the CU bit, else they wouldn't have the access and experience. Who did you have in mind to do the heavy lifting? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure who would write it – I certainly can't, but if will help save time and protect privacy then it might be worth pursuing. Why does anyone put hours of their free-time into the project? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The main problem I can see is that for this to be useful, it would need to have far more false positives than false negatives (or be perfect). False positives can easily be ruled out when the result is double checked by a human CU. But if there's a high rate of false negatives, then human CUs would have to double-check most of the positive and negative results (i.e. all of the results), which kind of defeats the purpose. Of course, a high rate of false positives would be a bad thing for the second part (routine checks). It would probably need to have 2 different detection routines: A more conservative approach (looking for exact matches) for routine scans and a more complex one (looking for similarities) for targeted scans. The latter would be a lot harder to program as it would probably need to account for things like IP ranges, looking at WHOIS data to determine ISPs, comparing user-agents, open proxy scans, and looking up geographical locations. Mr.Z-man 22:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think having two "gears" is an inspired idea! The general (1st) for automated scans and the specific (2nd) that would be authorized by an SPI clerk or a CU. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• @GorillaWarfare, Stwalkerster, FunPika, and Cyberpower678: do any of you think you could write such a bot, and if such a bot was written, is there anyway that the ACC process could make use of it to allow non-CU tool users to run CU type checks without the CU bit and without releasing any private information to the user? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Forget it. The foundation has already shot down CU bots. I recently had a discussion with the foundation about the idea of giving a bot CU.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to bar IPs and newly created accounts from restarting contentious discussions

There are certain controversies on Wikipedia that invariably spark heated discussion - for example, the multiple proposed moves for Sarah Jane Brown and most recently for Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the neutrality of the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Because of the volatility of these issues, they are fertile ground for anonymous trolls to cause trouble merely by proposing a move. For example, User:71.59.58.63 proposed moves at a number of pages that had already been the locus of contentious discussions (Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chelsea Manning, Chad Johnson (American football), State of Florida v. George Zimmerman). I therefore propose that: if a topic has previously been the subject of two or more move requests, deletion discussions, or other such process, then no IP or newly created account shall be permitted to initiate a new effort to carry out such a process. This will not bar an IP from participating in such discussions, or from proposing on the appropriate talk page that someone else initiate the process, but the IP editor would not be able to initiate the process of their own accord. bd2412 T 19:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly support. Something like this is clearly needed. At the Hillary Rodham Clinton talk page, four move requests were launched this year, all by IPs, three of them known sockpuppeteers. Three of the four proposals were frivolous and were closed fairly quickly; the fourth became a full-fledged discussion that has taken up many hours of Wikipedian time that could be better spent elsewhere. Serial trolling, like that which BD2412 describes above, is all too easy when the proposer can conceal his/her identity behind an IP. IMO a move proposal by an IP is very unlikely to be made in good faith; it is simply not credible that an unregistered user would know enough about Wikipedia to launch a move request, as these IPs regularly do. One thought: Perhaps rather than targeting IPs, we should make it a requirement that only autoconfirmed users can launch move requests, at least for articles whose title has been controversial. (Note that this restriction is already in place for AfD nominations.) BD2412, would you consider modifying your proposal to that language? --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. It is trivially easy to create an account for the purpose of doing the same trolling one might do as an IP. bd2412 T 20:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• comment Note that the user behind 71.59.58.63 was also using 76.105.96.92, and is now blocked for sock-puppetry, block evasion, and the behavior discussed in this thread. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose unless significantly modified. One of the principles of consensus is that consensus can change. We should not be allowing one consensus to prevent future discussion. Rather, we should be making clear that reiterating contentious discussions is often unhelpful unless new arguments, sources, etc. are brought to light. This might be done by visibly summarizing the contentious arguments involved—perhaps with a talk page template and a talk subpage summarizing the decision? If users attempt to revive a debate, the unproductive discussions can be informally closed as redundant unless there's new material to discuss. I can't more strongly oppose the "IP or newly created account" part, though: the purpose here is to regulate behaviour (promoting the good, discouraging the bad) and not to filter by identity. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 21:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • In the case of IPs and newly created accounts (particularly newly created accounts that immediately launch into the re-initiation of past contentious discussions), there is no identity to filter; there is only a well-known vulnerability to trolling. Note that an IP/new account can always express their opinion on the matter, and if they have some previously unconsidered evidence or argument to present, they should have little trouble finding an editor to make the actual proposal on that basis. bd2412 T 21:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • bd2412: The idea that "In the case of IPs and newly created accounts […] there is no identity to filter […]" misconstrues my comment. They have an identity as an IP/new editor, or as an established editor. Requiring some users to jump through an extra hoop to propose something is not only needlessly discriminatory (behaviour is bad or good independent of identity), but also instruction creep. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 21:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral. It might be a good idea to restrict the re-opening of contentious issues to editors who have built up a bit of experience with the community, and this could help a little bit. However, it still wouldn't prevent a registered editor coming along and starting a new discussion with a trivial rationale, such as "this is a no-brainer", so I don't think it's the best approach.
  I think that we need a more comprehensive solution solution to the management of perennial debates, and this little step might be redundant if the bigger package was in place. Some of the ideas I think worth considering are

1. moratoriums, as implemented on some recent perennial discussions such as Genesis creation narrative
2. a pre-qualification system for re-opening such issues. For example, a nom may need to be endorsed by a given number of editors, or by some approval venue
3. Explicit warning that new nominations may be speedily closed unless they provide very clear grounds for re-opening a perennial discussion

If some combination of that sort of idea is in place, then IPs can be treated just like other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the "explicit warning" (#3) among those options and would probably strongly support it, pending details. The first two options seem like they would result in instruction creep (How ought a moratorium be implemented? What requirements would pre-qualify a discussion?), while the third option seems to focus on making the process simpler by advertising and solidifying what's mostly existing practice. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 22:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support Agree with BHG, but as a preventative measure this is a valuable suggestion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 22:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Hesitant support Nihiltres' objection, that this goes against the principle that consensus can change, is off the mark here. This isn't preventing consensus from changing, it is presenting new accounts from rebooting contentious discussions. Once an account has been around long enough that we can tell that a) they understand how the consensus system works, and b) that they're not a drive by troll or sock, there's no need for the restriction. I do have concerns about how this would be enforced, and what constitutes an account that is no longer new though. Should the barrier be autoconfirmed? Something greater? This is difficult to figure. Either way, brand new accounts have no business reopening perennial discussions, as they either don't understand how the status quo came to be as it is, or aren't really new to Wikipedia at all. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • MelanieN suggested autoconfirmed, which is easy enough to police, and with which I agree. bd2412 T 23:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support - good idea, and the suggestion of making "autoconfirmed" the threshold is a practical one as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Thinking about this, and reading the comments, I think we can make this a lot simpler and more specific. Say "autoconfirmed". Eliminate "deletion discussions" because AfD nominations are already restricted to autoconfirmed users. Eliminate "other such process" as vague/blank check. Eliminate the requirement that the title be "contentious", which is not obvious (previous discussions may be archived). How about a simple parallel to the requirement for AfD nominations: "Only autoconfirmed users may initiate move requests". I'll put that into a separate heading so that people can comment on it separately and we will know which wording they are talking about. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose leaning neutral per WP:IPs are people too. Though IPs and socks can cause disruption, and have undoubtedly caused disruption in the cases mentioned above, I believe that they should still have the same rights as other editors when it comes to proposing changes on talk pages. Though the proposed rule would solve the problems listed above, I'm not 100% convinced that it would be a net positive overall. Socks and trolls are easy to spot, especially when they're not autoconfirmed, so it might be better to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. I do agree with the premise that trolls should not be re-opening controversial discussions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd like to support, but this seems like the wrong solution to the problem. Socking already covers users hiding behind IPs or new socks to repetitively reopen discussions. By disallowing IPs from reopening perennial discussions, I worry if it will encourage a quick slap on the likely sock instead of investigating for a sock master. It also biases against IP editors. It seems to me a better / more general solution would to consider limiting the frequency of new discussions on failed proposals, especially in cases where either result does not "harm" wikipedia. Closers of repeated failed attempts so be able to request either a time limit for new attempts or better require new attempts to include a novel point, shift in external sources, a policy/guideline change, visible shift of consensus seen in other areas, or the like. With the ability for such discussions that do not clearly feature such a point to be speedily closed. PaleAqua (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A fantastically bad idea that is so self-evidently bad that it argues against itself without me adding anything to it. --Jayron32 01:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • We don't allow IPs to conduct page moves precisely because of our experience with IP trolling/vandalism. Why should this be any different? bd2412 T 16:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Because a discussion is not in and of itself the same as move vandalism? IP editors are allowed to edit and they are allowed to become involved in discussions. That one IP editor has made a habit of starting tedious move requests is an issue with that one editor, not with IP editors as a class. Resolute 16:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Although we can characterize such issues as being issues with "one editor", with IP editors you really can't tell if one IP is really a dozen people, or if a dozen IP addresses are really one person. bd2412 T 16:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
        • A dozen user accounts could also be the same person. Resolute 16:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Weak support When I pointed out that editors of the Hillary Clinton article had no authority to ban IP editors from starting discussions at a specific article, I noted that I would likely support it as a site-wide policy. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see no reason to think that this will do anything except reinforce the general impression that Wikipedia considers IP's to be inferior contributors. If people are deliberately making contentious move proposals with the intention of stirring up trouble, they aren't going to be deterred from doing so by the minimalist requirements of autoconfirming an account. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose If someone abuses IPs or sock puppets to open a controversial discussion several times, the available policies are enough to deal with it. It is also possible that several genuine new users may open a common topic of discussion about an article that is in the news or highly popular and has two or more names, or whose name in wikipedia is not the name they may expect because of some other rule (for example, "Pope Francis" and not "Pope Francis I"; or "Nirvana (band)" and not just "Nirvana" for the band). In those cases, we would likely keep the consensus of a discussion which has already been held, but a new user would likely not know about such previous discussions. It may be better to place a banner in the talk page about the perennial discussion, the current consensus and a link to the discussion; as it won't sound as if "you are a lower editor and have no right to even voice your concern". Note as well that talk page discussions and article moves do not have the same potential for harm. If I moved "Barack Obama" to "abcdefghijklm", it would be a huge vandalism to the article, but if I open a move discussion proposing that, it would be silently removed and the article would remain unmodified the whole time. Cambalachero (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Either a proposal is appropriate or it is not. Who makes the proposal should not matter at all. --В²C ☎ 18:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nihiltres and AndytheGrump. Neljack (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal alt.1

As a parallel to the current rule that only autoconfirmed users can make AfD nominations, I propose Only autoconfirmed users may initiate move requests. For reasons detailed above. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note: There is currently no rule that only autoconfirmed users can make AFD nominations. The paragraph in WP:AFDHOW starting with "Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III." explains the steps that even unregistered users can use to nominate an article at AFD. GB fan 01:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Not exactly true. Anyone can start an AFD, even IPs. They need to request that someone create the page for them, but that is a technical restriction merely because they cannot create pages. Once created (which is usually granted automatically) they initiate the discussion and make the rationale like anyone else. IPs are not restricted from starting AFDs by rule. Regardless, any restrictions on who (IPs or user accounts) can initiate a discussion of any sort at Wikipedia is a fantastically bad idea and runs counter to the very core of Wikipedia's ethos, and for that reason I oppose on that grounds, even ignoring the false premise in the proposal. --Jayron32 01:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal alt.2

Closers are permitted to place limitations on reopening repeated discussions requiring that future discussions include a novel point, shift in external sources, a policy/guideline change, visible shift of consensus seen in other areas, or the like. Attempts to reopen the discussion without such reasoning may be speedily closed, and repeated attempts are to be considered disruptive editing. PaleAqua (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• That's reasonable, so long as the limitations are not confined to any one class of user. Blanket moratoria on reopening discussions for a defined period of time is perhaps the best way to decide this, so long as it's neutral in enforcement (not singling out IPs). support --Jayron32 01:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Closers are already doing this, at their discretion. I like this proposal in that it does not attempt to impose any specific time limits or other requirements, just trusts the closer - and trusts the watchers of the article to enforce it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, and then some. Jayron's "fantastically bad idea" comment is quite appropriate here. Closers being given the authority to cement a supervote with an ex cathedra "case closed"? No thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This doesn't prevent closure reviews such as move reviews which would be one of the places to handle super vote abuse, and nothing here blocks other levels of escalation. Normally it is pretty obvious when a topic has reached the state where it has been raised a bit too often, and there will be plenty of comments to assert that that a closer can use to support such a limitation. The other thing is this is actually the defacto practice. I've seen several discussions closed with a moratorium, and attempts to bypass without a good reason results in snow closes. PaleAqua (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
    • In any case, closers generally impose this kind of moratorium in response to comment/consensus in the move discussion - not out of the blue. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Conditionally support. Sometimes the passage of time itself can lead to changing views, without any tangible change in circumstances that a nominator might put his or her finger on. Furthermore, with hot topics and BLP subjects (for whom this seems to crop up more often), there will always be something new coming out in the news or in print that a nominator could point to as the shift or the novel point. I think that this is a good general limitation so long as it is understood that after some period of months or years, it evaporates. bd2412 T 16:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. In the rare extreme cases where repeated pointless proposals are actually a problem, the situation is handled by consensus. See Talk:Sega Genesis for one example of this. But a proposal like this would allow for muting proposals even when that's not supported by consensus. If this was in place a few years ago, Yogurt would still be at Yoghurt and they would still be bickering about it instead of it being at the stable undisputed title Yogurt, as it now is. --В²C ☎ 22:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Consensus, even when clear, may be persistently ignored: see Talk:Daybreak (2010 TV programme)#Page Name and the five threads following that. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I can't believe it - yogurt again! Yogurt always and forever in every discussion! I guess "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." --MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Joefromrandb. Closing a discussion is merely an act of assessing consensus within the current discussion. It's not a supervote, and should never be allowed to overrule the concept that consensus can change. What special authority does the closing admin have that would allow them to make such a decision? We even allow non-admin closures in many cases, so it totally wouldn't work. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-admin closures are irrelevant; NACs should not be happening for controversial proposals that have been through multiple discussions, and that is what this proposal is about. Generally this kind of moratorium is imposed only in response to consensus at the discussion. Sometimes in the course of one of these long-drawn-out, nothing-new-to-say-but-we'll-say-it-anyhow discussions about a title, people will comment or actually propose within the discussion that "some time should pass before we have to go through all this again." And that consensus is what the closing administrator is honoring when they add a moratorium to their closure. Always with an exception for new information or a new (not made at previous discussions) argument. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Conditional support Allowing a time break after a discussion is closed is not inconsistent with consensus can change. Indeed, that policy says "On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive." I would like a defined and escalating interval between the same proposal being reopened, say starting with 3 months, and adding 3 months each time the same proposal fails. Admins might be given leeway to wave the interval if significant new circumstances are brought forward, e.g. the subject has changed their name to the previously rejected move's version. But individuals whose proposal has not been accepted should not be permitted to try to wear their opponents down by constantly bringing up the same proposal with the same arguments.--agr (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose too much power to closers, consensus & snowball keeps work. 75* 21:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Joe, this would essentially make a closer a sort of topic czar that would have continued authority on the development of the article in violation of WP:OWN. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose If such restrictions are to be imposed, they must be done through consensus, not the unilateral action of an admin, who should be there to assess consensus. Neljack (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"create an account" nag messages

I'm not sure if Policy is the right place for this and not proposals, but here goes. As someone who prefers editing as an IP, I find it very annoying that I'm now presented with a nag screen that suggests I create an account after each edit, blocking the view history button and search bar. Surely most people who can figure out how to click edit can see the create account button above it and are mature enough to make their own decision about creating an account without "helpful" prodding? 97.94.188.47 (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

My sympathy. I think there is some kind of experiment going on to measure how "effective" nagging is, and a bug of some kind might have been fixed. See WP:VPT#Prompt to create an account whenever I make an edit. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Nagging gets you anywhere, mostly. They should have it flood the screen to make it even more effective. >:D—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Combining WP:AT and WP:BLP

Principle 12.1 of the Manning ArbCom case reads:

The biographies of living persons policy does not expressly address whether, when an individual has changed his or her name (for reasons of gender identity or any other reason), the article should be titled under the name by which the subject currently self-identifies or under the former or repudiated version of the individual's name. It may be desirable for the community to clarify the BLP policy or the article title policy to expressly address this issue, such as by identifying factors relevant to making this decision. In the interim, such issues are subject to resolution through ordinary Wikipedia processes, taking into account all relevant considerations. (Passed 8 to 0, 00:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

Taking the challenge, I put a proposal up for community discussion at WT:NCP#Subject preference proposal: the slim (policy level) version (that's also where I would group the discussion):

---

When the subject of a biography on living people prefers to be named differently from what would usually follow from Wikipedia's article titling policy, his or her biographic article can be renamed accordingly, so long as:

1. There is no ambiguity with regard to the name the subject prefers for his or her public persona
2. The name preferred by the subject is not unduly self-serving
3. The name preferred by the subject is generally recognisable, which usually entails sufficient media coverage
4. The name preferred by the subject results from an event that is deemed irreversible (at least, can't be reverted by the subject without the active participation of others) or, alternatively, is the name the subject received at birth.

---

I have no preference as to which policy page could be affected. WP:V is also a distinct possibility, as the current approach is much indebted to WP:ABOUTSELF --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#User:DVMt/sandbox

Dear policy experts: There is a disagreement about the application of policy as it affects sandbox contents on the above page. The MfD has been open for at least two weeks. Nothing has been written for several days. Can editors who are experienced with this please comment there? I asked about this at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 May 20#Acceptable sandbox use and received an answer which clarified my own view, but hasn't lead to consensus/closure at the MfD. Thank you. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I blanked the sandbox because it clearly is a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Wikipedia is not a hosting service where alternative views can be kept indefinitely. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Admins are special

"If you suspect sock puppetry by an administrator, or if you need to submit off-wiki evidence for some other reason, you must email the CheckUser team or the Arbitration Committee to open an investigation."

This text is in the header at WP:SPI, it is not something I was previously aware of. Is it now policy that all admin sock-puppetry is the domain only of the arbitration committee? And if so why?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC).

It looks like that language dates back to 2009, from this edit by MuZemike (talk · contribs). Looking at the talk page for around that time, I do not see any specific discussion about incorporation of this note into the instructions. From a practical standpoint is might be a good idea, given the seriousness of the charge (does SPI have the authority to desysop?) and the potentially disruptive nature of admin tool misuse. VQuakr (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The idea is that if there's shenanigans by admins, you need to fast-track the investigation, and not let it sit around on a noticeboard for someone to come along and decide to deal with. --Jayron32 02:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, those are good points. I'm not sure they carry the day for me. Another point superficially in favour is ArbCom's supposed knowledge of legitimate admin socks, and of clean start accounts. On the flip side combining the words "fast" and "ArbCom" with a straight face is rather difficult. Secondly in the only socking case I have seen them handle they revealed the private information that they had been given, and took no action - turning a potential WP:clean start into a WP:Outing - (a case, though, which handled correctly would have supported the change). Thirdly there are governance issues with the "judicial branch" being the "investigative branch". Fourthly transparency is good - if someone makes a socking claim against me, I would like it to be in the open, so that if it forms a pattern of claims it is documented. Possibly it is reasonable that any sensitive socking case can be submitted to arbcom instead of at WP:SPI, who should then instruct a volunteer SPI/Checkuser to investigate privately.(already says that can be done) Any more thoughts? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC).

To answer every one of your questions, there's a distinction to be made with the plain intent of a particular procedure, and the individual people who are tasked with undertaking it. The best intended procedure is not at fault if you have a beef with the individual people who do something you don't like. If your problem is with a person, take it up with the person. Don't argue with the plain intent of any particular procedure or institution. In other words: If you don't like what a person did, tell them. Calling a common sense rule "unjust" is a pointless thing. The rule is intended to handle the problem of admin abuse expediently and quickly by referring it to people who have the tools to deal with it quickly. If you found someone did something you don't like, don't waste your time finding fault with good procedures, instead, take it up with the person who did the thing you didn't like. --Jayron32 23:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's say that it is confirmed that some admin has used sock puppets. Does it automatically mean that the admin must cease being an admin, or does it depend on how grave was the fault? Cambalachero (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Several admins - myself included - have more than one account. In the case of Redrose64a (talk · contribs) it's so that I can make tests from the point of view of a registered but not autoconfirmed user - the minimum privileges without actually being logged out. You may notice that Redrose64a has only one edit recorded - I do what testing I can without actually clicking "Save page", in order to avoid becoming autoconfirmed. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Cambalachero - no, there are legitimate uses for sock puppets (and multiple accounts). Secondly there are uses that are not specifically listed as legitimate but are not abusive. Thirdly even technically abusive socking might be ignored under WP:IAR. And finally "how grave the fault" might apply. Nonetheless I doubt a significantly abusive admin sockmeister would keep their bit, once discovered.

Jayron32 I have not found a socking admin. I agree it is far better to query "rules" when one is not using them, as one is not perceived as having an axe to grind. This is a council of perfection, of course.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

Another reason the existing text may have been worded that way is for users who believe they have been blocked by an admin pursuant to a dispute with a sock of that admin. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

I propose changing the text to ""If you need to submit off-wiki evidence you may email the CheckUser team or the Arbitration Committee to open an investigation." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

I don't understand your complaint. It says, "you must email the CheckUser team or the Arbitration Committee to open an investigation" (emphasis added). Your complaint says, "Is it now policy that all admin sock-puppetry is the domain only of the arbitration committee?" The words "the CheckUser team or the Arbitration Committee" do not mean "only ArbCom". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm slightly baffled too. The 'or' says that either body may be mailed. Personally, I'd think it best to mail the CU team in the event of suspicion, and would suggest that that wording be left in place. I assume that 'off-wiki evidence' refers to stuff you wouldn't want all and sundry to read concerning goings-on here rather than what Fred said to Dinah on IRC or Facebook. Peridon (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing and Peridon:

• You are absolutely right about the "or" - though bear in mind CheckUser is wholly or substantially (I forget) in the gift of ArbCom.
• It's not a complaint, its a query. Note that I have advanced several reasons in support of the wording.
• Yes I read "off wiki evidence" the same way, but you are right it's ambiguous and "evidence off-wiki" would be far better. I'll change my proposal. Any other improvements welcome.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

Your characterization of the relationship between Arbs & CUs is incorrect. While Arbs are generally made CUs - unless they ask not to be - there are more CUs that aren't Arbs than there are who are Arbs. So whatever your rather obscure language "in the gift of ArbCom" is meant to insinuate, it ain't so. BMK (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe he means it the other way around: you cannot become a CU, or remain a CU, unless ArbCom agrees to your appointment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose changing the text to ""If you need to submit evidence off-wiki you may email the CheckUser team or the Arbitration Committee to open an investigation." This is simpler, clearer and doesn't discriminate between "admins" and "muggles". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

• Support This sort of distinction should not exist. I think the rule was in place on the presumption that admins have a conflict of interest to protect other admins. If that happens it is nice to have another channel, but when that is not a concern, I think making the regular channels is the natural choice. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by your comment, Bluerasberry. Sockpuppetry investigations involving administrator accounts have to also take into account whether or not, if there is socking, there is also tool abuse (e.g., closing AfDs while using socks to comment, blocking of users who had a negative interaction with a sock account, etc.), and a prompt decision whether or not tools need to be removed. Abusive socking by administrators is potentially far more problematic than the run-of-the-mill socking that is usually discussed at WP:SPI because those socks can't block people or delete material, etc. The idea is to get these ones to the highest level of attention immediately rather than having them sit in a queue. That is why the rule was put in place, not because of conflict of interest or any other stuff like this. Times when this has been invoked: example 1, example 2, and there are others. Risker (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I want the proposed outcome but not by means of the proposed procedure Risker What you say is correct and what I said was unclear. I agree that the highest level of attention is best in these cases. However, if for whatever reason the concern went into a different queue I still would like it processed and not dismissed, which I thought was the original concern. Perhaps the rule should be that anyone can raise a concern anywhere, but ultimately when the concern is identified then it should be immediately escalated to the highest queue, which I think was always the intent. The rule should be something like "Everyone has to follow the same rules, but anyone seeing a problem with an admin should escalate the concern to the highest authority for immediate resolution. All community processes still apply." Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Prompt decision about tool removal - notable by its absence I would say. Note that the proposed wording still permits submission by email, if the submitter believes the case should be submitted off-wiki.

Everyone should have the right to reply publicly (Risker - you are arguing this yourself in another place) and no socking case need be hidden.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC).

• Support - The distinction can be construed as affording unequal protection. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Rich, stop screwing around and go back to productive editing. Just because you can't use automation doesn't mean you can't help build the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  And do you have any actual reason to oppose? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC).
  

• Support There is an increasing tendency for admins to act, and to be accepted as, 'super editors' who are no longer subject to rules on socking or edit-warring and who can threaten blocks to push content disputes the 'correct' way. Editors aren't merely non-magical broomless muggles, they're now becoming feudal peasants who only exist at the whim of their tied feudal lords. This needs to stop. Anything that supports the view that admins are in any way special, beyond having a few admin tasks, needs to go. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

About the sources used in articles about countries

I come here to ask for opinions (sorry if it's not the proper noticeboard) about the sources used in ethnic groups in articles of various countries (mainly Mexico) because it will be easier to make the changes if i have the opinion of more experienced editors and administrators. My question is wheter official sources regarding ethnic groups (Mexican government officially recognizes only two national ethnic groups: "Mexicans" and "Amerindian tribes") should be favored over third party sources, many Latin American countries don't have official racial census, so often the size of their ethnic groups is open to massive speculation and variation depending of the source used, the CIA world factbook, Encyclopaedia Britanica, and various surveys done in Latin America all report different results for each country. I believe that for that reason is better to favor official sources, like in the article for Sweden, on it the ethnic group section in the infobox specifies that "no official statistics exist", or the article for the United States, which omits the section from the main infobox, and if needed mention the third party sources in the section for demograhics. Aergas (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

For a start, I'd avoid citing the CIA World Factbook for such matters - they give no indication of where they get the data, it is totally inconsistent in its terminology from one country to the next, and gives a strong impression of being cobbled together from outdated and unreliable sources. Certainly census data is preferable where it is available, and generally tends to cover questions of ethnicity in local terms, rather than importing often misleading terminology from elsewhere. There are also a few academic studies of the issue available, which may be worth looking at. You need to remember though that ethnicity is a fluid concept, and people's self-definition may vary depending on context - such data is never 'definitive' and shouldn't be presented as simple incontrovertible 'fact' - if two reliable sources give differing data, you should present both, rather than trying to pick the 'best'. Finally, you should avoid any confusion between 'race' and ethnicity - both concepts are essentially arbitrary, but they tend to be understood to mean different things, and are rarely interchangeable in such contexts. If you have further questions regarding the reliability of particular sources, I suggest you ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

So census data is the way to go, i thought that from the beggining but wasn't sure, thank you. Aergas (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. Reliable sources are the way to go. That may or may not include census data. If several apparently good sources disagree, then present them all, e.g., "The Mexican government census says X, this book says Y, this scholar says Z". In some cases, even the CIA Factbook (which is probably middling quality at best) may be better than a politically manipulated official census, and it is definitely better than a non-existent official census. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There are no circumstances where the CIA factbook would be better than an official census. It is not a reliable source for such data, as even a cursory look should make clear - see this past discussion at WP:RSN. [15] And we don't reject official census data as 'politically manipulated' unless we have clear and unequivocal evidence to support this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING

I have proposed a change to WP:BLANKING, regarding which notices a user under sanction (topic or other ban, block, etc.) is or is not allowed to remove from his or her user talk page.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:User pages#Current wording of the first bullet does not reflect actual practice TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of the contents

L.S., Recently more criticism has been published about the reliability of the content of your web pages; would it be an option to change the color of the text (e.g., from black, over brown, to red) depending on the trustworthiness of the published paragraph? Keep up the good work, Urbain Exelmans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.98.14.41 (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Who are you proposing would assess 'trustworthiness'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Specific-source templates and WP:T3

I can't figure out how to fit Category:Specific-source templates with WP:T3 against hardcoded templates. These templates create hundreds and hundreds of unique citations and any changes to cite news or other citation templates would cause an epic disaster. If someone is legitimately reviewing and citing the same book hundreds of time (and few of them are used even a dozen times) it doesn't seem like creating a unique syntax for that source makes it easier in any manner. I brought this up years ago but I don't see where the policy has changed on the idea. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I similarly question the need for most of Category:Attribution templates templates, such as Template:Boutell 1914 which is used precisely three times (and badly here). Is this really the best policy method for avoiding plagiarism? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ricky81682 there is no reason that a specific source template cannot use, say, {{Cite book}} with most of the fields pre-filled. The potential utility where only a page number is needed rather than the full panoply of details, including chapter name and chapter authors is quite large. Also with {{Cite web}} based templates, often only one edit needs to be made if the site changes its domain name or URl scheme, rahter than hundreds or in some cases thousands. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

I get that but I don't see why it shouldn't be substed under T3. The ones are basically hard-coded handouts of books I think I'll review and consider listing. Thanks -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The level of detail in spinout biographical articles (particularly sportsfigures)

A recent AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career (2nd nomination) brought to light that it seems on WP we do not want super detailed coverage of a person's life. In this case, a 40k article was broken out about the high school career of a still-in-college basketball player. There's no question there was a high degree of interest in the high school career of this player, and the question on its notability is certainly answered by >100 sources that it sports. But at the same time, the article went into extreme detail (consider the High School Career on the present version and double or triple its length, that's what this spun-out was like). As can be seen by the two AFDs, it's clear that we as a whole do not want articles that detailed.

However, there exists a strange precedence existing at all the articles listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, about 20-some articles like Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 documenting the performance of each player on that team for the 50-odd games played during that season. Note that I'm aware the players are individually notable, as well as the "Invincibles" as a team, no question that we should have cover of this. But at the level of how each player performed during that year, particularly when, in the above example "McCool was not prominent in the team's success" and yet we have 33k of details on this player's participation in this year. This issue was a point brought before in the linked AFD, and while it closed as keep, the closing admin did note that merging would be a more sensible option for the span of articles. Unfortunately, they are all a Featured Topic with many as FA and the rest GA.

One of the arguments at the AFD for the individual Invinibles articles was the claim that we incorporate other types of works like alamanacs and specialized encyclopedias. That's completely a fair claim but at the same time we have to keep in mind that whatever elements with include, our goal is still to remain a tertiary source and summarizing to generalize and avoid excessive details that these articles, as well as the Parker article, could otherwise present. This is particularly true with sports, which has a systematic bias that coverage of sports by third parties is disproportionate to most other topics. These articles, from the standpoint of an encyclopedia, simply do not work as being a summary of sources. There is very little reason, in the case of the Invincibles, that individual contributions from the teammates cannot be described on Australian cricket team in England in 1948 or even a list that devotes a paragraph or two to each player. These are all cases of, just because you can document it doesn't mean it has to be documented; articles are meant to be starting points to give the reader enough information to understand the topic and its significance to the world at large, and to provide pointers to references where they can learn more if they want/need to. Instead, articles like Parker's high school career or the individual cricketers attempt to be a complete catch-all of information.

I do note that I am singling out sports, but only because this is where the problem primarily exists, simply because that field tends to have plethera of sources that could allow that much detail. I'm sure there are other areas where the same problem could exist as well but I run into the problem nearly all the time on sports pages.

Do we need more specific advice on to what level of detail we should go into? WP:NOT particularly WP:NOT#IINFO are the closest that address excessive detail but really don't get into that facet. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe some of that should be transwiki'd to Wikibooks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I am quite baffled by the delete comments there. Why such an opposition to these articles? Why should we limit spin off articles on every topic? If there is sources coverage, and it can be done, and someone does it, there is no reason not to have an article. All the arguments were just variants of "this is too much coverage". Why should it be? Why should we actually refuse to cover something which is clearly notable and well sourced in a spin off article? This is really a failure. I am saddened by how the community seems to feel about this. --cyclopia^speak! 17:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What's baffling about deciding that there is some kind of appropriate coverage level and trying to enforce it? With the level of specialist sources out there, I could probably build an individual article about each and every dress Lady Gaga has worn in every concert she has ever performed in, down to the manufacturer of every fastener. It wouldn't benefit the encyclopedia to write such articles. While the framing of WP:NOT#IINFO has always been argued, the concept is reasonable: some things are beneath our notice, and the high school career of an athlete is one of those things.—Kww(talk) 17:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What's baffling about deciding that there is some kind of appropriate coverage level and trying to enforce it? - That I see no possible value in the concept of "appropriate coverage level". What benefit would such a cut-off provide? Giving our readers less information about notable subjects? Doing less of our mission? I understand individual articles must have reasonable size limits. That is why spin off articles exist, to provide deeper coverage of subtopics. But why limiting arbitrarily that? Where? What is for me ridicolous detail can be essential information for someone else. I couldn't care less of the high school career of a sportsman, but apparently sources did. This means that it is, indeed, notable.

With the level of specialist sources out there, I could probably build an individual article about each and every dress Lady Gaga has worn in every concert she has ever performed in, down to the manufacturer of every fastener. It wouldn't benefit the encyclopedia to write such articles - Why wouldn't it benefit the 'pedia? Just because you don't like them? Then don't read them. We are not made of paper. Again, do I care about Lady Gaga dress? Not at all. But why should I actively refuse people to get such information, if they instead care? What benefit do we have from such an entirely arbitrary limitation?

the concept is reasonable: some things are beneath our notice - Sure thing. What does not meet the minimum notability guidelines, for example. But once it meets them, unless there is some clear policy violation (e.g. WP:BLP1E), or a merge target, there is no reason to limit that, apart from our personal biases and our preconceptions of what an encyclopedia should be. Just because we're used to the old, short paper ones, doesn't mean we should be like them. We can be better, which also mean, more comprehensive. --cyclopia^speak! 18:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

We've had 10 years to figure out where our place is as an online encyclopedia, and unless there's a massive sea change, we still see ourselves as writing articles that succinctly cover a topic and direct users were to learn more, just as Britannica does. We just have the ability to include a broader range of topics, as well as keep up to date on topics, but we need strong editorial control to keep our work as a summary of information. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Such articles were summaries of information. It appears they just are summaries of disliked information. Masem, I understand you are in perfect good faith, but we should be careful in letting our biases creep in. I still see no practical reason that makes this encyclopedia better and more useful to readers by removing such information. We're here for the readers, let us remember that. --cyclopia^speak! 18:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

They are not summaries appropriate for an encyclopedia. They go into game-by-game descriptions, which is far too detailed for an encyclopedia. And the details are only useful for people interested in that person, and not the general readership that we serve. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Closer to the original topic, looked at Category:Serena Williams tennis seasons lately?—Kww(talk) 18:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

My goodness, that is an excruciating amount of detail. I see that WP:NOTEVERYTHING already exists, but it could be expanded, e.g. something like WP:NOTEXHAUSTIVE; "The Wikipedia is not a comprehensive catalog of everything that has ever been covered by a reliable source. Summarize a topic, don't saturate it." (which reminds me of the old Saturday morning Don't Drown your Food ad). Tarc (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"The Wikipedia is not a comprehensive catalog of everything that has ever been covered by a reliable source. - That's actually exactly what WP should aim to be: a structured, condensed compendium of everything that has been covered by a reliable source. An impossible goal, of course, but that's the expected direction of our endless walk. Also, what would "summarize" mean? What "saturate" does? Our policies are already vague and open to vastly different interpretations: do we need more vagueness? At least let's make it clear cut. --cyclopia^speak! 18:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in a debate over Article Rescue Squad dogma, it's been had too many times. Your opinion is noted, but that is the extent of it. We differ. Greatly. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No, we've already set out that it's not "everything". Notability is in place to prevent coverage of things that, even if they can be documented per WP:V, would otherwise be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. We have things like WP:NOT#PLOT to prevent excessive coverage of the world of a fictional work. There should be practical limits to how deep coverage should go for an individual topic, recognizing the goal of WP wasn't to be a singular source but an encyclopedia reference, the first point to look at if looking up information about a new topic. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

And what worries me is that every example of this issue is from sports, again, stressing that there is well-established systematic bias that sports have a bias in reliable coverage from most major sources. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability is in place - Exactly. I remarked it above, also considering further restrictions like BLP1E. We already have notability in place. But here we are talking of restricting notable topics because, well, they feel "too much" to some editors. This is nonsense. I agree that the goal is to be "an encyclopedia reference, the first point to look at if..." -and how on earth should limiting topic help us being a reference? If anything, it makes us fail being a reference. I understand that there is a bias in RS about sports, and really, I don't care about sport at all, but what do we have to do with that? Should we fix that? It happens that is something that has more coverage than other; we should be happy that at least something has detailed coverage, not making it poorly covered in the name of some artificial equality between topics. --cyclopia^speak! 18:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

We aren't talking about removing all the coverage of, in these cases, the sports figures. They have appropriate bio articles, they have (in most cases) a page summarizing their career stats. We aren't eliminating core knowledge about the person. We are on the other hand talking about mundane coverage at a game-by-game level detail, for example, which I know readily exists in modern sports coverage, which a general reader (our audience) is not going to find useful. We want to provide enough details so a reader can understand the topic, and if they need to know more, where to seek out that information. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)which a general reader (our audience) is not going to find useful. - This. This is the kind of arbitrary assumptions that should be squashed from start. WP:ITSUSELESS is not a deletion rationale (just like WP:ITSUSEFUL). And for good reason: we are in no position to decide what readers find useful or useless. What is absurd level of coverage for me can be an absolutely reasonable level of coverage for you. I am sure many people feel that us dedicating articles to (say) a whole lot of extinct invertebrates is absolutely too detailed, while for others our coverage on the topic is scant and full of holes. "Enough details" is in the eye of the beholder. That is why our notability guidelines ask for us to consider the sources coverage, not personal considerations on what we feel important or not. If we begin to reason like "if they need to know more, then..." , then we don't need to write articles at all: let's just build bibliographies. Or just erase this site, and let people use Google. --cyclopia^speak! 19:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually we are in the business of setting a level of detail and to decide what readers will be getting from us. This is given in WP:NOT. There has been lots of stuff that has been deleted that I'm sure, when they were available, ranked high on the page view counts, such as when we used to cover every Pokemon on its own article. But consensus of editors agreed that we instead should summarize them, only leaving those that met notability guidelines as separate articles. And that's a key point, we are not saying that we should never mention Parker's high school career , but instead it simply shouldn't be going into the level of detail it was given at. So the ITSUESLESS argument fails, because we aren't talking about deletion but cleanup (and then removing excessive spinout articles). Our purpose is to provide a comprehensive introduction to a topic, enough so that a reader can be familiar with the various facets as to know how to look for more information, and a variety of sources, external links, and related articles that will have more detail than we can provide in what should be brief overviews. If you want to write book-length coverage of topics, that's what Wikisource is for; en.wiki is not in the business. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait, this is disingenous. I said twice that following notability guidelines is our criteria for coverage. That is the point. Making an example where we were "only leaving those that met notability guidelines as separate articles." is irrelevant -this is exactly what should happen and I agree. I object to deletion of stuff which clearly meets the notability guidelines.

About Our purpose is to provide a comprehensive introduction to a topic, I agree. The point is, what is a topic? Jabari Parker's high school career was a topic, absolutely. And it was a notable one, apparently no one questioned this. The clash arises if you de-legitimate "high school career" as a topic and you only consider Jabari Parker as a topic. When you say They go into game-by-game descriptions, which is far too detailed for an encyclopedia. -says who? Why "far too detailed"? What is far too detailed for you might be absolutely expected detail for someone else. Now, once we remove the GNG as a standard and we arbitrarily define topics of being "unworthy" because of an entirely arbitrary "level of coverage" threshold, we can apply this reasoning everywhere. Should we cover all notable species in a genus of fish? Or remove individual articles and only have a general one on the genus? Do we need an African elephant and Asian elephant couple of articles, if Elephant suffices? And why having Elephant, cat, dog and pig articles, if we can just have Mammals? I don't think of course WP will eliminate the dog article. However for many other more obscure subjects it is not clear at all what is a "reasonable" threshold.

Notability criteria have the advantage of being more or less objective. Here we're giving space to editors' bias to decide what comes in and what not. This is dangerous -it impoverishes the project, legitimizes systemic bias, and (a side effect but notable nonetheless) probably will drive more editors away. All for no benefit at all to readers.--cyclopia^speak! 21:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The point is not that it was a notable topic, but that the detail of coverage, as to try to treat it as a separate topic from Parker himself, particularly at this point of his career, is far from being encyclopedic. Notability does not require every notable topic to have an article. But to the point, while "Parker's high school career" may have been a topic, the level of detail it had (and the section in his present article has) is far too excessive for an encyclopedia. Of course we want to cover his high school career, but at a weight that we consider appropriate for being a topical introduction. What was there, and what is still there, is not. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

One point that is so frequently missed in these discussions is that the GNG does not say that every topic for which sources can be found should have a topic. It establishes a minimum threshold, saying that a certain level of sourcing has to be found before an article for a topic can be considered.—Kww(talk) 21:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Masem:, it would help if you would write statements as is far too excessive for an encyclopedia. with a "in my personal opinion" qualifier. In my opinion it is not far too excessive at all for an encyclopedia, and no, that other encyclopedias don't do that is not a cogent argument -while being often worse than "official" encyclopedias, sometimes we can do better than them, and in my opinion having such a detailed coverage is something where we can afford to be better than other encyclopedias.

@Kww:, I did not miss that. I stated explicitly that sometimes an article can for example violate WP:BLP1E, or that it can be fully merged within another one. But spinoff articles exist exactly for when you have a notable topic that is too long to be merged elsewhere. What is instead missed in this discussion is: what is the benefit to the reader? More often than not we seem to consider WP for WP's sake, deciding to have it to conform to some abstract ideal instead of remembering it is a service for other people. What is then the benefit of having a "threshold" policy? I still have seen none; at the very worst having such articles is neutral with respect to readers. --cyclopia^speak! 14:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No, having detailed coverage when it is possible to do so is not good. This is where the systematic bias comes into play; we need to recognize to temper topics that would otherwise be vastly covered into nice, short articles that give the general reader enough to either understand the topic and its context, or where to look for more information. Incredibly detailed articles do not serve the general readership well. Take the individual Invincible team player articles. If you do not know cricket, 90% of the article is lost because it goes into the nitty-gritty of cricket plays and thus useless for the general reader. Trimming out the excessive cricket terminology would make it more general, but leave it at a few paragraphs that is better served in the person's bio article or a list article, making the entire need for that spinout unnecessary. Same for the Parker article - if you have no idea about basketball or the local teams, its useless at that level of detail. The general reader is our audience, and we have to be fully cognizant that there are plenty of other sources out there that do a better job writing towards the more specific reader than we can do while still serving the general public. That's a big issue here. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is where the systematic bias comes into play; we need to recognize to temper topics that would otherwise be vastly covered - That's an absurdly backwards way of thinking about systemic bias. Systemic bias means that there are topics we need to cover better than we do now, not that we should cover everything equally worse.

Take the individual Invincible team player articles. If you do not know cricket, 90% of the article is lost because it goes into the nitty-gritty of cricket plays and thus useless for the general reader. If you do not know math, octonion is probably a lost article. If you do not know some molecular biology, G protein coupled receptor is also a lost article. Et cetera. Unless you are now rushing to AfD for both articles (don't), your "general reader" argument thus already fails everyday. This is the crux of the misconception. There is no "general reader" as a single average figure; everyone of us knows something deeply that others don't. There is instead a general audience. Meaning that we cater to a vast number of readers who may be more or less specialized in different things. I do not know anything about cricket or basket, so yes, the articles may be lost for me, but many people instead do. Especially maybe a reader knows some cricket, but nothing about the player, and reading the article they can learn stuff. About the "better job" argument, I am sure there is plenty of sources doing always a better job than us. But if the throw the towel everytime some source might be better than our coverage, we can close this website tomorrow. The point is that here we offer a compendium which is fully interconnected and consistent, while other works aren't: I cannot click on an encyclopedia of cricket and go to some city's article, if I want to know more about a city where some game has been played. Then yes, specialized encyclopedias and wikis have their place, but that is different, they will have different rules; and nothing prohibits an overlap. --cyclopia^speak! 14:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Systematic bias works both ways. Just as there will be topics that might lack sources in more commonly accepted works, we have to recognize that there are also topics that are over-covered in sources. That also ties in with IINFO. On other other articles: the problem is that those are not spinouts, those are notable topics on their own with no obvious merge target should that be done. They are also written in the best manner to keep the first paragraphs or so tuned for the general readers. These spinouts in sports immediately assume familiarity with the person, team, and sports event, and still go into far too much detail that is necessary for an encyclopedia. I'd expect that much detail in a dedicated book about the topic, not an encyclopedia. And that's why we have to go back and see what other encyclopedias do -- that tells us both a good idea of the minimum and maximum level of detail we want to have. We're a tertiary source, meant to be used in conjunction with other sources, and not a one-stop shop. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems there is also a misconception about systemic bias here. Systemic bias is about our editorial composition, not about the total bias of all sources on the planet. WP has a systemic bias meaning that its editors tend to have a very specific background. That the world has a systemic bias is instead not our problem. If some topics are on average better covered than others in RS, then we can and have to cover such topics better as well. We are not here to fix what the world thinks to cover better or worse -at least, we're not going to do it here.

the problem is that those are not spinouts, those are notable topics on their own with no obvious merge target should that be done. Yep, but the point is that your "general reader" argument fails already.

They are also written in the best manner to keep the first paragraphs or so tuned for the general readers. - I didn't know general readers knew about a normed division algebra (see octonion first sentence), for example. Anyway if the spinoff article wasn't presented for a general audience, simple editing would have done the trick of having a gentle introductiory paragraph.

and still go into far too much detail that is necessary for an encyclopedia. - You incessantly repeat that, and you do not do anything to demonstrate that. Repeating stuff over and over doesn't make it more sound. WP:UNENCYC is also a circular argument, remember.

I'd expect that much detail in a dedicated book about the topic, not an encyclopedia. - This. You would expect. But we're not here to do something you or I would expect. We are here to cover what sources write. What you and I "expect" is only about our cultural and personal bias -this time, really an issue of serious systemic bias. I would not expect it either, but it's not that, if it is unexpected, it is wrong. It is unexpected, and well, it is good. I don't know anything about cricket, but why should I cripple the understanding of who does?

that tells us both a good idea of the minimum and maximum level of detail we want to have. - It doesn't. It only tells us what kind of detail they decided to have, also keeping in mind they were often paper encyclopedias (we aren't) and/or made under very different time and financial constraints. Imposing on ourselves artificial constraints so that we can mimic works which had such constraints is ridicolous. It is crippling ourselves for no reason whatsoever.

We're a tertiary source, meant to be used in conjunction with other sources - And who makes it impossible to use it in conjunction with other sources? --cyclopia^speak! 15:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Our purpose is to be a tertiary encyclopedia. We are to be providing enough context on any notable topic to given enough of an overview that if you only had 5-10 minutes to read up on the topic, you will have a good comprehensive understand, while if you need to learn more, you have a roadmap of sources to dig into further. That means we need to leave things out to let more capable sources do their job, and we do ours, giving the nod to these sources. Going into so much detail makes it much more difficult to maintain and review, and heightens the systematic bias. (Remember, we are still seen by outside people as a laughing stock on the weight we give some contempory topics over more academic ones). There's also simply UNDUE factors when comparing these articles to bios on other famous people. The two AFDs on Parker's high school career are clear that consensus is towards avoiding this much detail on such articles, showing the intent of what consensus thinks the encyclopedia should be. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I will also point out that this is not a problem specific to sports figures. Many TV shows, for example, have articles about every single episode, which has always struck me as being equivalent to having an article about each individual page in a book.—Kww(talk) 18:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

In the case of the TV episode, if each episode has critical reception specific to the episode, that's certainly reasonable (we are showing notability for the specific topic of the episode). On the other hand, broken out episodes where there is no critical commentary is a failing of notability. Most shows fall into the latter. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

And to note, the comparison to sports here would be coverage of a specific game compared to a season. Even though every game get box score discussions, we've determined that that in general is mundane coverage. Rarely a specific game will be more notable than just that. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• No, we don't want or need any more gratuitous advice, thank you -- see WP:CREEP for more on that and WP:NOTPAPER for our policy. But if you want to marvel at our remarkable detail then music seems to be the place to go. For example, Lady Gaga is mentioned above. Notice that we have a project for this with the appropriate shortcut of WP:GAGA. And there's a portal too which lists hundreds of articles within its scope. And Lady Gaga is far from alone in having such compendious detail. There's Portal:Michael Jackson, Portal:Janet Jackson, Portal:The Jackson Family... it just goes on and on. It seems quite bizarre that sports should be singled out for punishment when popular music seems far more rampant. Andrew (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, to be fair to the music project, the number of articles is met for those artists due to the number of songs they have put out, with most of those songs ending up notable. Their bios are still contained to a single page (at least, for Lady Gaga and Janet Jackson), the volume of information is about the work they have created with those works being notable topics separate from the musicans themselves, which is different from the issue with sports. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Britannica just has one page for Lady Gaga and it's about 5% of the size of our page. So, we must have over 100 times more about Lady Gaga than they do and this is a good thing, not a bad one as this scale and detail is the reason that we are eating their lunch. Overall, the number of pages we have continues to climb inexorably:- it doesn't seem so long since we had our 4 millionth article and we have over 4.5 million now. See King Canute and the waves... Andrew (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
      • EB doesn't even have an article on Jaws, :) just some brief mentions in a history of film article and on Steven Spielberg. I'm a bit surprised Gaga's on there. Chris857 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Note importantly that while we might have 100x the detail Brittanica has on Gaga, our article (from a quick scan) is self-contained about both her career and her legacy/impact as a musical artist and the like. There's probably plenty of places where we could break out specific segments of her career into separate articles and go into even more great detail, but we don't, because what is there is a reasonably good overview and gives enough to anyone that needs more to want to find more, nor overwhelms a user just trying to understand who Gaga is. To contrast, we are pointing to sportsfigure articles that are breaking out small portions of their career and going into excruciating detail, which is the issue. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Equivalent breakout articles are the ones which cover her tours, such as The Monster Ball Tour. The equivalent for sports would be a season's play for a star such as 2008 Roger Federer tennis season. It is obviously our policy to have lots of detailed pages about the career of big stars, whether they are singers or sportsmen. Andrew (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, having been in discussions of tours before, not all musical tours immediately are notable, even if they are named. And the tour is not a bio breakout article, because it's talking about all the music, chronographers, musicians, behind-the-scenes operators, etc. It is more than just the singular person. But that reception has to be there to justify that amount of detail; otherwise, one sentence or line in a table to summarize a band's verified tour. The comparison would be like an article on the Invincibles, the singular instance of a team's season being worthwhile for a separate article. (and more than just summarizing the stats as often is done) --MASEM (t) 20:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
            • I am a bit perplexed by the fact that Masem, who is vociferously arguing here that we relly have to condense stuff and avoid breakout articles, then boasts on his userpage to have brought Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series to GA or List of songs in Guitar Hero: Aerosmith to featured list. Now, these are, for me, even more absurd spin-off articles than the ones we were discussing above. Yet apparently it isn't a too detailed level of coverage for him. Again: "too much detail" is only in the eye of the beholder. If the Guitar Hero series of games deserves so many spin off articles, I don't see why a sportsman or a singer don't. I don't care about cricket player nor about Lady Gaga nor about Guitar Hero, but I do not go around saying that we should shut off detailed coverage of these topics, just because I don't like them. --cyclopia^speak! 21:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Oh, and I didn't notice that Masem also was reminding us we are still seen by outside people as a laughing stock on the weight we give some contempory topics over more academic ones Where? By who? Even if someone did, many readers enjoy the "contemporary topics" (how many of us go on WP to look about a TV series? Most, I suppose), so if readers are happy with them, all the best. And in any case the solution would be to increase academic topics' coverage, not reduce the other topics coverage. But what is funniest, the editor reminding us of this is the one who brought twenty-two articles on the Guitar Hero franchise to GA,FA,FL. Oh the irony.--cyclopia^speak! 21:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
              • Thanks for personally attacking me.
              • As for the articles, a page that summarizes the stats of a long-term career player is certainly not out of the line. A page that summarizes the awards or filmography of an actor is not out of line. That's data, presented as concise data. What's not needed is a game-by-game prose-y breakout of a segment of a sportsman's career that these articles are becoming; the details can be summarized in abbreviated tables that can be included in their overall stats. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
              • Also remember the reason we're here: we have 2 AFDs that have clearly shown that consensus is strongly against a spinout article written to that much level of detail. This discussion is how to resolve that, given the propensity of sportsfigures to have an significant amount of detail that could be written about. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
                • Masem, I have no intent to personally attack you. I may disagree with you but you are someone I respect. I was only noticing that you yourself are an example of why your arguments are fallacious. On one hand you argue that we have a systemic bias towards popular culture/contemporary topics, and that we do not need spin off articles that go into too much detail; on the other you did a (very good!) work, that you are rightly proud of, on twenty-something spin off articles for the Guitar Hero franchise. You'll notice some lack of consistency. And I don't think you are an hypocrite. I simply think that you have a personal bias, like everyone of us, on what you feel more important, on what topics you love, and what ones you do not. Which is fine and good! What is not fine instead is attempting to cripple topics you do not care about. If you ask me what I feel personally about the sports coverage on WP, I'm the first to say that it is absurdly high. But well, that is just my own personal aesthetics. I do not have to care about it; when I expand the article on bowfin, I don't feel oppressed by the bazillion of articles on baseball players. We happily coexist. We can coexist with these articles, as long as they are about notable (sub)topics, referenced etc. Everything else is just a projection of our own personal little short-sighted bias on what we are used to think about an encyclopedia. --cyclopia^speak! 22:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
                  • First, you're far oversimplifying the situation with Guitar Hero, which is a game series that spans 9 different games that has generated over $1B in revenue. So no, it's 20-something spinout articles.
                  • But if you want to beg the issue, the difference between what there is for Guitar Hero, and what there is for Parker, is that the majority of the sources that are given for Parker are primary in nature - simply reiterate the performance without context. Same with the individual articles on the Invincible players - the bulk primary. We already have advice against weighting too much content on primary sources when it comes to fictional works, and I would hope the same applies to articles of fact. That's the common line that I can draw here - if you're just spinning out a topic to flood with primary sources, you're doing something wrong. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
                    • Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series has 98 sources but none of them are entitled "cultural impact" or anything like it and so that page is arguably OR/synthesis. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Andrew (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
                      • • And, your point is... ? This issue is not one of notability, but level of detail. That article does not go into any specific aspect of Guitar Hero's impact in exacting detail but offers a brief overview on each point where the series has impacted culture. In contrast the Parker spelled out the results of all the post season and many preseason games that he played in HS. The individual Invincibles articles do effectively the same. That's overly detailed for purposes of WP. --MASEM (t) 09:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
                          • you're far oversimplifying the situation with Guitar Hero - I am quite sure cricket fans will say the same about your discussion of their articles. See -if you don't know/don't like a topic it is quite easy to "far oversimplify". Personal bias, personal bias everywhere. --cyclopia^speak! 16:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
                            • Nope, it's not, and I had to go back to review my articles to make sure. Again, I stress how much these respective articles rely on secondary sources - or more specifically the ratio of primary to secondary - that I can see where a line of too much detail comes into play. The sportsfigures articles that are too detailed are simply drawing from game recaps for the most part - primary sources. There are a few paragraphs in each that explain the importance-at-large of the net sum of the individual player's performance, which is good information and should not be lost, but we don't need the highly detailed primary-sourced rundown of a player's performance at any level. In contrast, the bulk of information from the Cultural Impact of GH is from secondary sources and only handful of primary sources. As WP:NOR explains "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources", and as WP:NOT implies from NOT#PLOT, we avoid excessive primary-sourced articles, which is what these sportsfigures article are. Let other sources spell out the primary details in full; we should be sticking to being the summary based on secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
                            • Nope, it's not - Aw, c'mon, you can be smarter than this: don't be so blind to your own biases. You still keep repeating "we don't need", while you mean "I, Masem, do not need". Which doesn't mean others may not need it. Anyway if there is an issue of secondary reliable sourcing, then you could make a case of not meeting WP:GNG. Therefore the actual policies would already work, and we need no new one.--cyclopia^speak! 16:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Again you missed the point. There is GNG sourcing there that per WP:N a standalone article could be made for those. But the bulk of the article is primary sourcing. If you took out material sourced to the primary, you'd have a paragraph or two, a good sign that the spinout wasn't really necessary to start with. (This is a major point of consideration when WP:NOT#PLOT comes into play in assessing fiction works.) The whole issue made in the Parker AFDs was that if trimming was done to remove much of the game-by-game coverage (all primary-sourced), the applicable part of his high school career would comfortable remain within the main article on the Parker. Similar things can be done on the Invincible articles (also to remove all the duplication there is between those articles). Secondary sources are not just there to meet the GNG, but to make an actual encyclopedic article. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Then you just want to call WP:PRIMARY. We still do not need any new policy nor any arbitrary curbing of the level of detail.--cyclopia^speak! 16:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so much asking for new policy - as you just have show, policy exists - but looking for better guidance. We have it in place for fiction per WP:NOT#PLOT and WAF (and most projects that deal with fictional works have their own guidelines that runs along that), but not in general. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think part of the issue here is that sport is a topic area that tends to be heavily focused on statistics. Those who are interested in sport related topics tend to also be interested in sport related stats. It is natural for those editors to want lots of stats in their articles. However, there is a fine line between meaningful statistics and trivia. The difficult question is: where is that line? Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Policy on campaigns

Wiki Loves Pride 2014 is "a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects." Is this not WP:POV pushing? Most areas on Wikipedia just appear to have projects to do this, not campaigns and slogans. When does objective editing stop and using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX begin? Just asking for clarification. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

What POV is being pushed here? Their stated goal is simply to create or improve articles related to a particular topic, just like many other WikiProjects and edit-a-thons. Is your objection related to the use of the word "campaign" rather than "project"? Novusuna ^talk 19:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking a question, not raising an objection. I've participated in lots of projects, but haven't seen any of them "campaigning". In everyday life, campaign often implies pushing a particular viewpoint across. I'm asking whether this is normal Wiki policy. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

"Campaigning" just means doing something in pursuit of an objective. If the objective is just to make articles better, there should be no problem. Content improvement drives are quite normal for Wikipedia. Formerip (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for interpreting your question incorrectly, Bermicourt. As FormerIP said, content improvement drives are fairly common, so I don't think there's any issue here. Just another quirk of the English language. Novusuna ^talk 20:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Google defines campaign as work in an organized and active way toward a particular goal Often campaign's refer to political POV but it does have other meanings. I know Advertisers often use the term campaign in reference to a series of actions promoting an item. Werieth (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Got it - thanks folks. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I applaud any campaign to "create and improve" articles. That said... I do understand Bermicourt's concern... the word "campaign" has political overtones. We do need to remember that the topic area of this campaign is something of a POV magnet (in multiple ways). Our experienced editors will need to keep an eye on what is done. POV pushing (in any direction) under the guise of "Improvement" is not acceptable.
And that said... we are likely to get some new editors responding to the campaign... editors who are not familiar with our policies and guidelines. Try not to be confrontational when they do something wrong (and they will). Teach them, and help them learn how to do things right. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

New privacy policy, which does not mention browser fingerprinting

I'm troubled by the deceptive language in the Privacy Policy that was approved at the board meeting last week. I had pushed for and gained consensus for language in the new policy that made it clear that the privacy policy would not allow [clarifying edit: browser sniffing what I mean is browser fingerprinting, which enables persistent user tracking even when users try to stay pseudonymous, as described, e.g. here; it's a sort of extensive browser sniffing on steroids.] The language was added back in December when this was discussed AT LENGTH, HERE and stayed in the draft for weeks. Success! Then on the last day of the discussion period, it was removed by a staffer. Now we have a draft privacy policy that does NOT bar browser sniffing, does not indicate that browser sniffing may take place and yet claims to be maximally informative. That's an untenable situation. That's the bottom line. I've complained about this as Talk:Privacy_policy#Legally binding? when I noticed it, and was ignored. I have raised it with the board too [edit: and have support from Board Member Sj regarding the need for changes]. I hope the board adopts a new policy that is not misleadingly incomplete. I call on the community to pressure the board and WMF to approve a policy that is as honest as it claims to be. How invasive is browser sniffing/fingerprinting? Click here to see how trackable your browser becomes with browser sniffing techniques the privacy policy allows. --{{U|Elvey}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Browser sniffing is a big issue as it can lead to uniquely identifiable information. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 22:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Elvey: Please clarify the first link. The linked page has no mention of the word "sniffing". --Redrose64 (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't browser sniffing currently necessary on Wikipedia, to determine whether the software serves up the Visual Editor to individual users, and to let the devs know how many users are using VE-compatible systems so they know where to direct their efforts? Banning the WMF from keeping track of how many users are using which browser, or which fonts are in common use among readers of Wikipedia, would hobble development. 188.29.164.13 (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between using statistical information, from data mechanically collected, aggregated and then the individual details discarded, and keeping the same data in such a way that it can be used for identification purposes.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

See clarifying edit, above. Sorry for the slow responses.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 02:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think if we want to be a little more accurate, the complaint here is that the privacy policy does not directly and explicitly mention browser sniffing one way or the other. It does not say that it is permitted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What I wrote is: Now we have a draft privacy policy that does NOT bar browser sniffing, does not indicate that browser sniffing may take place and yet claims to be maximally informative. I did NOT claim that it says 'that it is permitted'. That's your straw man. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 02:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

What you wrote was "New privacy policy, which allows browser sniffing", in the section heading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

For both technical usability reasons, and CU, I think it is exceptionally unlikely that browser sniffing would be disallowed, but we should be saying what we collect and why. Due to CU, we are almost certainly storing the information at an individual level for some period of time. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of difference between what CU stores and what EFF's fingerprint demonstration extracts. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

Gaijin42:And yet it is something We will never use, according to the quote (normally displayed in blue) below. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 02:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough:Where is that difference documented?--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 02:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

For background on why we changed what we changed it may be helpful to read my original post discussing the situation. It is a bit long, but hopefully it will provide useful background. In a nutshell, when Verdy p asked "what about header X", we realized that the way we'd defined the problem was wrong: it was focused too much on one specific way of thinking about the problem, and didn't address the much broader set of information that could become problematic in the future. As a result, we broadened the definition of PII, so that it can include not just the four headers that we removed but other headers that might become problematic in the future. In other words, the complete set of changes made the document more protective of user privacy, not less.

More generally, we're well aware of the difficulties around sniffing, and have been working extensively with analytics and engineering to become much more aggressive in how we filter out some of the sort of information that makes EFF's demonstrations so effective. (For example, eventlogging and labs now automatically filter some of the most problematic fields from the user-agent string.) But because the term is ill-defined, and because it may change over time, the best way to address the problem is through training and an expansive definition of PII which can be made stronger in the future. Locking four fields into the definition, which may become obsolete, was not the right approach. Hope that helps clarify.

On a more personal note, Elvey, I just want to add that it isn't very helpful or motivating to call me "deceitful" (earlier discussion) or state that I and the WMF have not been "honest". I've given my entire professional career - basically my entire adult life - to free software and free culture; Michelle similarly. This does not mean our work shouldn't be questioned - we make mistakes like anyone else. (It was a question from a user that made us realize this mistake!) But evidence-free attacks on our motives and our integrity, or those of our coworkers, does not help you, us, or the movement. —Luis V. (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just added a inch of interleaved comments to reply to various discussion points above. In addition:

Luis Villa: I'm sorry. It was a shock to see the change I'd made reverted at the last minute. You are taking comments that were not meant to be personal or directed at you personally, because, well I was in shock and though I tried, I see that I failed to simply present the evidence and so was blown off. Again, I'm sorry. I can see how "With the changes LVilla has made, Wikimedia IS setTING a bad example and beING deceitful about what IT collectS" can most easily be seen as directed at people and not content, though I would hope you can see that it can be interpreted as about content, not people, too. Perhaps if I hadn't been blown off, and not given you the opportunity to take my use of the term "deceitful" to have been directed at you or the WMF, we'd be in a better place now. I should have spoken only of the text and the timing of the reverts, and, for example, left characterization of what that timing meant to the reader. That was my intention and was my recollection, though I have gone back and it looks like I did otherwise; I'm sorry. The resultant text does still seem deceitful to me. My claim that the text is deceitful was not presented evidence-free; I believe I've presented chains of evidence; I guess you think its chains all break down somewhere, but it's not fair to label it evidence-free. And it's not fair to accuse me of calling you or the WMF dishonest because I write, above, "I call on the community to pressure the board and WMF to be honest," because there's no accusation of dishonesty. There's no discussion of past behavior or actions of any kind. It's a plea to be careful regarding future action. If a policy that is deceitful goes into effect, then in a way I am being deceitful, because I'm a member of the community, and the policy is a statement by the community; that's true for all of us. Nonetheless, I've edited my language, above.

My first edit was a change that I made to the policy that was accepted and survives (diff). There are others. Please keep that in mind.

As I've said in other words before, if there's a case for this sort of browser-fingerprint-enabled invasive profiling, make it. If it's felt that the the views of the community on invasive profiling are less important than, and need for some reason to be weighed against the needs of the community to, for example, enforce consequences on policy violators, then the policy should say so. The policy shouldn't deceive users into thinking we don't and won't use this sort of invasive profiling. If it's only going to be for CU use, I would bet the community would be all for it. AFAICT, the Privacy Policy offers no such disclosure, no such case, and no such restriction.

Here's the CRUX of the matter: I was told by a WMF representative:

The EFF has a website called panopticlick that shows you how unique your browser is based on this technique.
This technique can be used to keep tracking people even when they clear their cookies after each session.
uffice to say, we will never employ this technique because it would violate our principle of collecting as little data as possible.
(source)

I edited the policy to reflect that statement: diff. That edit was reviewed by the staff, and remained 95% in place, through dozens of edits by WMF LCA staff, until the day before the comment period closed, when you removed it, without so much as aElvey to let me know!

If you've explained how the new policy reflects the statement quoted above, that We "will never employ this technique", I missed it or didn't comprehend it. Please try (again). If Drdee misspoke, say so. (Or speak up, Drdee.) Yes, I've read your "original post discussing the situation", Luis. You say that "the complete set of changes made the document more protective of user privacy, not less". I've taken another look to see if I can see what you mean this time. I see that you now use the term "user-agent information" and that you DO NOT DEFINE IT. It could be interpreted to include or exclude what panopticlick detects. I think a normal user would interpret it to refer to the user-agent string, but that's ONE of EIGHT browser characteristics that go into a panopticlick browser fingerprint. You say, "event logging and labs now automatically filter some of the most problematic fields from the user-agent string," (my emphasis) however https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52295 is still open. AND again, we're talking about far more than just the user-agent string. You said that some of it is currently collected, but apparently avoided stating what it's collected for. You said what it could be collected for. Yet the policy says "We are committed to: Describing how your information may be used".

Well, let me ask you, point blank, on behalf of all users, since the policy doesn't tell us. What are our plugin versions, fonts available, HTTP_ACCEPT headers, and color depth information collected for? LuisV (WMF)You say they are collected (Well, you say that my sentence which said they are not collected is inaccurate, which amounts to the same thing.) On behalf of all users: What are our plugin versions, fonts available, HTTP_ACCEPT headers, and color depth information collected for (I also wonder how long are they kept, and who has access to them.)

The draft policy states, twice!: "we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate..." Let me ask you point blank: Does that mean you don't collect this information from non-logged in users? That's how I read it, but if the info is purely for CU purposes, that seems nonsensical. You redefined personal information but did you look over the policy to see what the implications of that redefinition might be? For example:

The draft policy states: We collect very little personal information about you. How does collecting our plugin versions, fonts available, HTTP_ACCEPT headers, and color depth information square with that claim?

How does it square with the statement, also in the policy, that "Unless this Policy says otherwise, you should assume that information that you actively contribute to the Wikimedia Sites, including personal information, is publicly visible and can be found by search engines"? Can you define actively contribute so that it's clear whether it includes browser fingerprint data or not?

There's the statement, also in the policy, that We may "disclose your personal information if we reasonably believe it necessary to detect, prevent, or otherwise assess and address potential ... technical concerns" That's loophole big enough to make most potential uses of personal information permissible.

I see it as a conflicting definition of personal information when you say (in the policy): "No other personal information is required: no name, no email address, no date of birth, no credit card information." That's a profoundly different definition.

I see it as a conflicting definition of personal information when you say (in the policy): "personal information (like your IP address)" too. That's a drastically, profoundly different definition. Is using all these different definitions of "personal information" consistent with the statement in the policy that "we want to be as clear as we can"?

A good norm I see in legal documents is that once you define a term, you print it in bold type whenever you use it. Please consider adopting that norm, or better yet, link to the definition.

Speaking of terms, I see you are still editing the policy. Please define in the policy what you mean in the policy when you say "aggregated". E.g. is a list of all the IPs I've ever logged in from "aggregated'? Arguably it is. Hopefully you have a narrower, specific definition in mind. Maybe one of you doesn't. Please define nonpublic information too. include these definitions, as well as the definition of nonpublic information found here, which ought to be linked to from the Privacy Policy, Access to nonpublic information policy, and the Data retention guidelines, which all use the term, or perhaps the definition should be moved into the Privacy Policy, which already has a definition section. I think that's a better place for it.

Very well.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 02:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Two things: one, I'm about to leave on vacation for my brother's graduation, so I can't reply to this in the depth I'd like to. I will try to return to it when I get back.

Two: specifically (but briefly), in response to "here's the CRUX of the matter": as I've said above and in my original explanation, we (including DrDee, who you talked with) made a mistake. The language he talked about with you was not protective enough: it didn't define the term sniffing; it relied on a handful of specific cookies that might be obsolete/insufficient at any point; and it was redundant to promises we'd already made elsewhere about how we'd handle personally identifying information, including sniffing-like information. We should have caught and understood the mistake earlier; ideally before we put it into the policy. I'm sorry that didn't happen. But it was a mistake. The new language will protect users better, protect users longer, and protect them more consistently with the rest of the policy. —Luis V. (WMF) (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

LuisV (WMF): Congrats to you and your brother. I look forward to your return, and a fuller response because I feel your response doesn't put to bed the issues I raise. The word cookies doesn't mean what you think it means. You claim it "was redundant to promises we'd already made elsewhere about how we'd handle personally identifying information", and other positive stuff about the policy, but I do NOT see where you quote from anything to support your claims and don't see where you address the negative parts of the policy that I DO quote. Please provide a fuller response, preferably before it's archived. Are you unwilling to see any language added to the policy to make it clearer? I don't think so, so please work with me on developing and agreeing on new language, instead of insisting it's not needed. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 02:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hope to hear from the WMF at some point. Don't know when @LuisV (WMF): returns.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 22:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone know when @LuisV (WMF): returns?--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 18:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe that he's in the office today, but I'm not sure how soon someone on the legal team will be able to look at your question. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Keeping this alive for @LuisV (WMF):.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 07:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Spouse(s) — Should we indicate “spouse=None” or just omit

Noticed an IP editor made this edit changing “spouse=Single” to “spouse=None” — no big deal, but it got me thinking, and looking for policy regarding, (in general) should InfoBoxes indicate ‘no spouse’ or should that just be omitted?  Is there any agreement as to what we should be doing… my sense is that we should probably just leave that out of the Infobox if they're single; if their marital status (or particularly their lack thereof) is important (such as for a star of The Bachelor or something), then it can be included in the article somewhere, but otherwise trivial information about what isn't doesn't seem appropriate for the InfoBox.  Cheers — Who R you? Talk 03:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In principle this should be discussed at Template talk:Infobox person. The documentation shown on the template page is silent on the matter, but I like Guy Macon's approach (diff) which is applicable here: Atheism is not a religion. Bald is not a hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Silence is not a sound. Never is not a date or a time. Clear is not a color. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, both for pointing me to the right page to ask the question and for your response! Cheers — Who R you? Talk 04:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion moved to → Template talk:Infobox person

Third-party-references on Youtube-celebrities

See the article of internet celebrity Laci Green. For mentioning the number of her subscribers and views, I used third-party-references of The Atlantic of last February and a two-year-old edition of The Highlander, the student newspaper of the University of California, Riverside. Although they might have been outdated, it fitted WP:RS, and it showed the notability of this person. However, since 2 June an anonymous user replaced the sources with Laci Green's Youtube profile. It is more up-to-date, but it is not a third party source. The question is now: which is preferable: somewhat outdated third-party sources, or up-to-date sources which are not a third-party-source? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I would think that "as of X she had Y views" is probably the best way to go, otherwise we can't distinguish what a notable view count is. Sourcing a view count to a reliable source proves that the view count was notable, sourcing it to the video/user doesn't convey any importance. Sam Walton (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You could consider citing both sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Assuming this person actually meets notability criteria (which seems doubtful at first glance), surely youtube can be considered a reliable primary source for verifying view count. Youtube is, after all, the only authority on youtube video view counts. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

See also section

Was here (on enwiki) somewhere a discussion why ”see also” section must be before references, notes and external links? XXN (talk) 10:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The guideline is WP:ORDER and it includes a footnote with some information. There is probably more in the archives of its talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:Perennial proposals for a brief summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Relevance in biography

In a biography article, is there a requirement that any individual matter reported in the biography must be relevant to the reason for the subject's notability? Or is a biography a study of a whole life in which all properly sourced information can be included even if taken separately it would not be significant? This issue has come up in relation to Richard Huggett, a minor election candidate, but is a policy matter of general application. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• This is a question of due weight... obviously a lot more weight (ie article space) should be given to information that is significant to the subject's notability, and very little weight (or no weight at all) should be given to information that amounts to mere trivia. However, between "significant information" and "trivia", there lies a wide range of information that can be considered "interesting to note, but not crucial to include". Whether to include something that falls into this category is really an editorial judgement call, and not something we can make "rules" about. We have to take into account a host of factors... and a lot depends on how long the article is (if the article getting overly long, some of the "interesting but not crucial" information should probably be omitted). Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• It's definitely not the case that material not related to a person's notability must be excluded from the article. We nearly always include, as long as sourced reliable, details of parents and family even if they are in the shadows of the person's notability, simply because for bios, such material is include in the status quo. But as Blueboar said, the article should not get too weighted down on the facets that are not part of the person's notability. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Particularly in articles on politicians, people often find a pressing need to add WP:UNDUE information that happens to portray the politician in a negative light. I don't want to take the time to investigate the merits of this edit, but a clue is that the reference article is titled "Literal candidate denies acting as Tory stooge", and that kind of article is often undue (X claims something; Y denies it). Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps better for the article talk page, but I would advise you to read the article rather than merely the headline (in British newspapers the headline is written by the subeditor not the author of the article). I would have said the clue is that the article was written by David Hencke. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "edit war" in our edit warring policy

FYI, the way we define "edit war" in policy is being discussed.

At WP:EDITWAR, the first sentence of the section "What edit warring is" now reads

"Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it."

There is no mention of "discussion".

The next sentence reads

" This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle."

We are discussing the language in these two sentences and your comments/ideas would be welcome

The discussion is here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of category redirects

I recently participated in a deletion discussion for a category redirect, Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines, which is being held at WP:RFD. Is this the right venue, or should category redirects be discussed at WP:CFD? Redirects from all other namespaces are discussed at RFD, but the technically different nature of categories means that their "redirects" (which work differently and, from the software's perspective, aren't redirects) might warrant discussion at CFD instead. I decided to see what we currently said on the subject, but I can't find anything relevant at WP:CFD, WP:RFD, or WP:XFD. I don't remember ever seeing a category redirect up for deletion before (I'm sure it's happened, but I've not seen it), so I can't rely on doing-like-we've-always-done.

With all this in mind, I'm proposing that we add the following sentence to WP:XFD: "Category redirects should be discussed at _____", and a comparable passage to be added to WP:CFD and WP:RFD. I don't care whether we fill the blank with "RFD" or "CFD" or "either CFD or RFD", but we ought to address the issue somewhere. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I don't see anything special about category redirects, particularily no difference from template redirects. Neither I see any need in any mention in WP:RFD and WP:XFD. Warning against nominating redirects may be helpful at WP:CFD though. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 04:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of permissions for inactive indef blocked users

A proposal to update the permissions process for inactive, indefinably blocked users has begun at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_permissions_for_inactive_indef_blocked_users_.282014.29. Please join the discussion there if you are interested. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

is Wikipedia dying?

Posted at three locations; please discuss at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
just few years ago I could find artciles about everything new, but now I can't: King's Bounty: Warrior of North is just still redirection Ironclad: Battle for Blood - no article yet what happen to Wikipedia? deleters are clailm that "wikipedia already has articles about evering and now new articles are needed", but I see IT'S A LIE! why they become so POWERLFUL? why metapedists who do nothing just delete are more equal the thouse who write articles? why noone see the AGONY of Wikipedia? why noone tryies to save it? (Idot (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)) Assuming you are actually serious, policies and priorities change. As to Ironclad, see WP:FUTURE for why articles about intended sequels (with no real details) aren't being created. For King's Bounty, maybe it's not really a notable video game. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)