There's present discussion on WT:NFC about getting a bot to do NFC#10c enforcement (assuring that every article that a non-free image is used it has its name mentioned, as a bare minimum)) as the number of image uses without proper rationales is rising. Those that remember that this task was done in the past via BetaCommandBot, but numerous issues, more dealing with BetaCommand as an editor, but some dealing with the heavy-handedness of NFC enforcement, led to larger problems and the eventual current ban on BetaCommand and the loss of his bot. Even if BetaCommand's ban is removed, I would not anticipate his bot being allowed to run. In the current discussion, the effort is to find a bot programmer and get BAG approval for the task to be run.

But, there is an unresolved point from the previous problems, that being, how exactly should #10c be enforced. There was a rather intense discussion when images were tagged with #10c that, to some, had trivial fixes that should have been corrected by those that were enforcing #10c. Some of these were simple typos, use of extended/accented characters, etc. But others, that some called simple, involved reviewing page histories to find the case of a misplace move. That previous discussion boiled over on the concept of BURDEN and the "good faith" efforts of the enforcers, though I don't think we resolved that as more pressing problems with BetaCommand came forward.

The concern that has been raised is that if we bring a bot forward, with BAG approval, to handle #10c, are we going to run into the same problem where the editor running the bot could expect to be the target of angry editors seeing their images get deleted or even questioned due to the failure to meet #10c due to one typo? Given that NFC is a WMF-directed policy and ergo critical to follow, is there any way to make sure editors understand that this is a mandate that we have been sorely lacking in maintaining even though it is prime for bot work? --MASEM (t) 23:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If we're being uber-technical about this, while the broad outlines of NFC policy are WMF-directed, NFCC #10c is not.

WMF's resolution requires that a rationale must exist [1]; but it was the en-community's decision that the rationale must be written down.

So, since it's the community's policy, how best to enforce NFCC #10c is also for the community to decide.

But Masem's entirely on-point, that the community does need to seriously consider what it thinks it wants to do (while retaining the flexibility to change its mind, if mechanisms turn out to have unforeseen/unacceptable consequences when actually put into practice). Jheald (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The best way I see to solve this would be to have the bot flag images that need review, but not actually tag the image for deletion. This allows editors to review each image on a case by case basis. The majority of #10c violations are the results of typos and article moves which can be easily fix. If the problem can be easily fixed, it should be the responsibility of whoever is enforcing #10c to fix it instead of marking the image for deletion. —Farix (t | c) 01:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Except, no, that requirement per BURDEN is on those that want to use the images. Not that I don't agree with having a human-review maintenance category and to perform simple typo fixes, but if it is not obvious what the fix is, it is up to those that had performed moves or the like without checking images that should be responsible for resolving them. (This was a major issue last time) --MASEM (t) 01:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That approach doesn't work, in part because the only time it's an issue is when these hypothetical editors that "want to use the images" (what, did we have a show of hands at some point? did they sign a petition?) only discover there's a problem because someone removed an image and tagged it for deletion rather than correct the problem or simply point it out on an article talk page, thus creating more work than was necessary. It is contrary to Wikipedia being a collaborative effort to say no, only YOU are responsible for fixing this problem; anyone who edits has a responsibility at the time they are editing to PRESERVE content and not create an unnecessary mess.

Anyway, I agree with Farix. The problem is this whole BS "enforcement" approach, which has fostered an inappropriate us vs. them mentality and encouraged some rather poor authoritarian conduct and attitudes. Instead ask how we can bring content into compliance, which reframes it as a community task to fix what can be fixed. postdlf (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is about editors showing that challenged information is verifiable though a reliable source. However, it has nothing to do with WP:NFCC#10c because WP:Verifiable has nothing to do with whether an image is in compliance. Just as it is the responsibility of an editor to first check that an article CAN be brought to Wikipedia's standards before nominating it for deletion (usually, in the form of searching for reliable sources), the same burden should apply to those enforcing WP:NFCC. We don't put the burden of fixing typos and grammar mistakes (which I am very guilty of) on those who introduced them into articles. I don't see why 10c compliance should be any different. —Farix (t | c) 02:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that those enforcing NFC make zero attempt to try to fix simple and obvious problems (hence a bot to message and to flag images into a human-checked category so that these cases can be resolved), but last time this came up, there were editors complaining that their images, no longer meeting #10c because of a complicated and difficult-to-follow page move - should have been fixed by a NFC maintainer. That's unacceptable. People that are moving or splitting pages are already supposed to check about incoming links to make sure that they aren't broken if the page move doesn't include simple redirects, the same logic applies to images used on it. On the other hand, obvious typos can easily be fixed and should be fixed if the image is checked by a human in the maintenance category.

But we also have cases where people simply reuse an image without adding a rational (eg: the number of image uses is more than the number of rationales given) and that's a case where only the editors reusing the image can actually write the rationale for it. Again, the last time this came up, there were editors that expected the 10c maintainers to handle the job of adding new rationales where to them the use was "obvious" (often a logo repeated N times). This is why BURDEN applies to NFC - only those desiring to use the images know what the rationale should be, and ergo they need to be the ones to write it out properly. Smaller aspects like typos affect #10c, that can be fixed by anyone, but the core of the rationale is only apparent to the image users. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Foo uploads a non-free image and adds it to article A without a NFUR, shortly afterwards loses interest in WP. User:Foo2 is an occasional editor, about once every few months. Foo2 adds the same image to article B without a NFUR. In the ensuing weeks, neither Foo nor Foo2 edit again; however, many editors edit both A and B and do not remove the image from either. Which "editors" are now "using" the image at this time? postdlf (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The many editors that (by default) keep the image in the article, in addition to A and B themselves - consider if that the image is silently removed and deleted (not what we want) that that group will be the first to complete should that happen. Now, one of the points of suggestion for a #10c maintenance bot would be, in addition to the uploader and on the file page, a notice on the talk page of the article in question, so those interveining editors would know that there was a problem on the image. --MASEM (t) 04:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(A and B are articles in the above hypothetical). I've always supported article talk page notices as being more important even than uploader notices, because if it's in use in an article (and it is articles that use images, not editors) then editors interested in that article would be most likely to be able and willing to fix it. postdlf (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies on sources are conservative, for good reason. But sometimes this leads to self-inconsistency.

Here's my current bugbear. (I'm not pushing a barrow here. I just want feedback on the policy-level implications, not on the specific problem.) The Ubuntu operating system recently began displaying advertising in the user interface of a core OS component. Wikipedia's adware entry defines adware as "any software package which automatically renders advertisements." A consensus of editors on Talk:Ubuntu (operating system) refused to permit the labelling of Ubuntu as adware without reliable sources, on the grounds that the term "adware" is value-laden/pejorative. On the other hand, a consensus of editors on Talk:Adware refused to permit the modification of adware, either by recognition of the pejorative connotations of the term, and/or by renaming the entry to a value-neutral term, again without citing reliable sources. I've searched. I can find no reliable source documenting a pejorative connotation to "adware", but nor can I find a reliable source for Ubuntu being uncontentiously "adware", I suspect (in light of Talk:Ubuntu (operating system) feedback) because the term indeed has a negative connotation.

That's all by the book, but 1) the resulting encyclopedia is not self-consistent and 2) the resulting encyclopedia is less valuable, because Ubuntu (operating system) is forced to link to a generic entry on advertising, rather than directing the user to an article that is more specific to the type of advertising under discussion. The conservative interpretation of WP:SOURCE means that one article's "innocent until proven guilty" is another article's "guilty until proven innocent". In the Ubuntu entry, "adware" is pejorative until proven otherwise. In the Adware entry, "adware" is non-pejorative until proven otherwise. Mainly because commercial sources can't be bothered writing about these things (there's no advertising money in it for them), there are few or no sources available to document either position.

How widespread is this problem? Is there a good, generally-applicable resolution to it? (I'm back on WP after many years of low activity. It's changed a lot. I post this to present a potential policy problem and listen to the feedback. If I seem to be arguing for any particular solution above, I'm not. If there's one thing I've learned since I've come back it's that almost everyone assumes bad faith now. So please let it be known I'm just raising the issue for discussion.)--Russell E (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If the word, and not the concept, is the problem, then don't use the word. What is wrong with saying "The operating system displays advertising in the user interface." I don't see anywhere that anyone can object to a clear, unambiguous sentence like that. --Jayron32 06:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Because the article itself is named after and couched in terms of the offending word, linking to the article, even through a pipe like "displays advertising in the user interface", is bound to raise the ire of the WP:V police. But the article apparently can't be renamed without verifiable sources to document the supposedly contentious nature of the original, more commonly used term. So then, as I said earlier, you're forced to link to a more generic article that is not as contextually useful to the reader.

I don't think this is likely to be the only instance of such "verifiability deadlock" (to coin a term). Have a look, for example, at fornication (I mean the entry! :) It is flagged as needing references. Probably references do exist to document the value-laden nature of the term. But if they can't be found, we'd be faced with a similar situation. The article would have to be merged with premarital sex and any claim about contentious meanings of the term removed. If the entry continued to be named fornication, under the insistence that this term is more common and should be used unless verifiable sources can be found to document its pejorative nature, all those articles that currently link to premarital sex would find themselves forced to link to, say sex, instead, unless they could find a reliable source justifying switching to the term "fornication".--Russell E (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't claim that in diffrent place so I will do this here, in place that I use everyday - Wikipedia. You Americans so desperately want to proof to rest of the world, that you are so unique, that you need to have everything trully yours. Moreover you try to impose those idiotism to the rest of the world. Its long time since I've noticed, that date format on Wiki is changet into MDY. Why, I'm asking? First days pass, after we count some number of days, we reach month and after few months, we have year. Why are you try to change that and force rest of the world to accept that? It's the same with all other aspects of life - weight, measures, speed and so on. Even if you use common known gallons, it must be US gallon, a bit diffrent. same with other units. I'm waiting, when you start to drive on middle of road one way and outside - opposide way. Just to be diffrent. What I'm talking about! What language I'm use? You still understand me? Or I'm speaking complitly diffrent language, some English. You of course using American. Something fall this atumn and so on... Adam85.164.48.210 (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Our MOS doesn't not require articles to conform to US date formats or measurements; instead, we advice that one use the date/measuring system that is appropriate for the nationality of the article in question, if there is clearly one (eg, an article on the Beatles should be using DMY formats). If there's no clear nationality, then it is up to the initial editor to select one to use of their preference. But we have no requirement to force one format over another otherwise. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I see now, that my previous post was writen in some kind of aggresive way, sorry for that, but its not just about Wikipedia and confiusons you can go into (I hope I write well) - a confiusion when you read something with dates in one format and then start jumping on hyperlinks with dates in diffrent format. Then when you see 11.12.2012 you dont know if its about Nov or Dec. Its also far beond. I just simply cannot understand why you change into this weird kind of format?

Adam 85.164.48.210 (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The potential for confusion is why I prefer to use a format such as 16 Nov 2012 or 16 November 2012, which cannot be misread. There are time when a numeric format (sorting) might be preferable, but that only happens when there are multiple dates, so there is less apt to be confusion. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding that 11.12.2012 is completely understandable and completely unambiguous in some parts of the world, India, perhaps, and equally understandable and equally unambiguous in other parts of the world - while at the same time meaning November instead of December. I thoroughly agree that date formatting is just like British/American/etc. spelling, and does not need to be unified. If it is apparent that readers are confused, that can be rectified in a variety of manners. It is sort of interesting to step into a different world when reading an article about Britain or Australia or Canada or the United States, replete with a whole new set of spellings and date formats, etc. (for a bloody readable article on the United States, see en-brit:United States...) Apteva (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Because there is potential confusion, our MOS only allows for three date formats: "January 2, 2013" and "2 January 2013", and "2013-01-02"; only the first two are allowed in prose (there are exceptions for abbreviated months in tables), while the last one, the "ISO" format, can only be used in citations/references. The "11.12.2012" is far too ambiguous that we don't allow that format. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

For those who don't follow Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, the English Wikipedia has never adopted ISO 8601 for use in articles, although it is used in certain system timestamps. There are several ISO different standards related to dates. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Masem is correct, we use the date/measuring system that is appropriate for the nationality of the article in question and where there's no clear nationality, the initial editor decides. See here. It's not ideal but, at the end of the day, we are all trying to work together; and so in the interests of harmonious editing, we have to compromise.--Ykraps (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have opened a Request for Comment regarding WP:NC-TW, which was part of the policy regarding naming conventions related to Taiwan, and Republic of China, but since been removed and marked inactive. There is no current policy placed in place of WP:NC-TW, so the request for comment seeks a replacement for it. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

As a doctor of medicine, and in my work as a senior surgeon, I find that I have an increasing number of what have been termed 'e-patients'. These are internet savvy patients who are empowered by their internet searches to ask for 'shared decision making' when in consultation with a healthcare professional. In other words, the age of Doctors as Deities is past. They are no longer trusted to always know best in matters of medical care. Patients need advice as to how to sort the good from the bad when doing an online search of their medical condition.

Wikipedia is increasingly seen by medical professionals as a reliable, up to date and well considered and properly referenced source of such information.

My proposal:

Can Wikipedia allow some of its pages to have a "seal or stamp of approval' from recognised authorities in particular fields? The BMA and AMA (medical associations of UK and USA) could be asked to approve (or not) articles pertaining to medical matters eg tonsillitis. The BOA and AAOS (orthopaedic associations of UK and USA) could do the same for Orthopaedic articles eg on arthritis. The BTS and OTA (trauma associations of UK and USA) could do the same for Trauma articles eg on fractures.

I have read the 5 pillars that support Wikipedia and do not think my proposal weakens any one of them.

The freedom for anyone to edit a page has always been Wikipedia's greatest strength but also its Achilles heel. The lack of responsibility for anything that is written by any single person is the fundamental reason for Wikipedia's (unfair) reputation for being an unreliable source when using it to research a topic. My proposal would reverse that and would give Wikipedia official recognition as the World's Premier Encyclopaedia.

An Alexandrian library for the 21st Century, if you prefer!

Thank you. Kevin Newman Consultant Trauma Surgeon in UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinnewmanortho (talk • contribs) 11:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does NOT give medical advice. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Completely unhelpful knee-jerk reaction that any parrot could've given. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

From a purely logistical standpoint, this proposal would undermine the Wiki process, requiring that article only be improved with the approval of the granter of the "seal or stamp of approval". In effect creating article censorship and Wikipedia is not censored JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Said organizations are free to link to the permanent URL of an approved version from their own pages. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This would be better done as something within Wikipedia instead of a "permanent URL" linked from an external website. Yes, in theory some organization could put together some pages to link to recognized accurate articles, but that wouldn't deal with hyperlinks inside of those articles or to those who happen upon those articles from other sources based upon Wikipedia content.

By far the "solution" to this question is flagged revisions, where some people with knowledge of the topic are involved in setting a more authoritative version of the page. The above hyperlink to the topic includes links to discussions about how controversial that can be. There have been some experiments not only on Wikipedia but other Wikimedia projects to implement something along this line of thought in some fashion, attempting to put some balance on allowing anybody to edit, but at the same time removing some of the obvious vandalism and inaccuracies in article. There is a strong anti-credentialism bias among many Wikipedia editors, so just because you have a PhD is not likely get you involved in selecting authoritative versions. The real question now is how to decide what is that authoritative version of a page, not if the software exists for merely selecting a single age.

There is some merit to this idea that pages could go through some sort of "rough draft" phase where recognized version through some sort of consensus process could then be accepted by the community and then "published" in some fashion. As to being recognized as accurate by some outside agency, that may prove a little more problematic.

On the other hand, one huge issue that many Wikipedia editors do face is a problem even getting access to some important sources of information. Often sources are locked behind a pay wall or some other restriction. If a group like some of those mentioned by Kevin Newman at the start of this thread wanted to help set up scholarships or provide access to some of these important sources of medical information and support some groups of Wikipedia editors in writing these articles, that would not only be welcome but even encouraged. There are such "scholarships" for access to some scientific journals and other sorts of information which have been made available to Wikipedia editors in the past (application to receive access to those accounts or scholarships is made on a as available basis to interested editors).

Stick with the goal, which is to improve the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia articles. Items like this have been raised in the past and there are ways to keep Wikipedia open for anybody to edit, yet maintain quality articles and even improve upon the accuracy of the information in these articles. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Against, if it's done within Wikipedia rather than outside of Wikipedia. Even large medical organizations with long histories can get it wrong. Lobotomy, anyone? They were once accepted treatment for a range of mental disorders. Hey remember when eugenics was considered a good idea? The American Psychiatric Association maintained a diagnostic label for homosexuality as a disorder as late as 1987, as you can see in the "History" section of their article. I don't want associations, even professional ones, stepping into Wikipedia as editorial authorities to give a stamp of approval to anything, it would marginalize criticisms. OttawaAC (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There was a New England Journal of Medicine study (admittedly nearly a century old now) which came to the conclusion that your odds of survival upon the onset of any arbitrary disease actually improved if you didn't see a medical practitioner and used folk remedies instead. I would hope that has changed somewhat, where many of the things you are complaining about have a similar point of reference where the science itself was rather weak for quite some time. Stamping approval upon such articles is likely not going to happen within Wikipedia anyway, but don't you think encouraging people who have a knowledge of the topic at hand might actually be useful to improving the quality of Wikipedia? One of the sources of the problems you are citing (including why doctors were often a bad idea to seek advise for treatments of health problems in the past) is due to a lack of sources of information or information that was based upon unreliable sources. Working with medical societies to ensure that the highest qualities sources are used within Wikipedia seems like it should be a laudable goal... and certainly trying to work with physicians and others who may have knowledge that could contribute to Wikipedia articles from time to time ought to be encouraged as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Physicians and other professionals have several options to help improve Wikipedia, but I don't think this idea has legs. Different medical associations don't necessarily agree with one another; if the British Medical Association accepts a diagnosis or treatment that the American Medical Association rejects, which one will get their stamp of approval on the article, and who wants to arbitrate that dispute? OttawaAC (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There is on Wikipedia something called consensus, which allows different people from even different backgrounds the ability to come together and make some decisions on topics like this. If it turns into an edit war where you have two or three different opinions on where to go from here, there are dispute resolution procedures already in place on Wikipedia that address this concern. My assertion is that consensus can usually be obtained on what is a quality article worthy of publication, as often happens anyway on talk pages at the moment. Wikipedia uses similar criteria at the moment for GA and FA articles where some review processes are performed with outside participants looking over the article to see if there are any glaring problems before it reaches those levels of quality. Encouraging outside participation in this process of vetting articles ought to be encouraged, not ridiculed or even told to go away. Some of this is talking past each other, but I feel that there is room to engage these professional groups into the development of these articles. There certainly is a problem on Wikipedia where it seems like people who have knowledge of some technical fields are discouraged from participation for a great many reasons, and some education on the part of long-time Wikipedians as well as those new to Wikipedia but having some particularly useful background knowledge that can improve Wikipedia could be useful. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, one of the most important effects Wikipedia has had is getting people to question the idea that there even exist "unquestionable" sources. Just because some authority says something is correct doesn't make it so, and I'm glad that more people are now recognizing this more of the time. WP:MEDICAL has a greater purpose than just discouraging lawsuits; you shouldn't uncritically swallow everything you read at Wikipedia or anywhere else, even if it gets the stamp of some authority's approval. The proposal feels like a step backwards. Ntsimp (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing unfair about Wikipedia's reputation as an unreliable source. Wikipedia itself tells you not to trust it. And therein lies the fatal flaw with this proposal. As noted by others, the only way to do this would be to lock down such articles, and that flies entirely in the face of Wikipedia's mission of being open and freely edited. This proposal, well meaning as it is, asks us to cede control of a subset of articles to outside bodies. But perhaps more importantly, the last thing we should be doing is giving the impression that Wikipedia should be the first place to turn for medical advice. Resolute 21:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a bad idea, but I doubt that they would want to do it. As soon as they put their stamp of approval on the article, someone will change it, and who knows what the resulting article will say. The high-traffic articles frequently see several changes per day.

On the other hand, we are looking for ways to do better. There is a program in the works to encourage collaboration with outside medical groups. You can read about it at meta:Wikimedia Medicine (note: that's a sister website, so you have to put in your username and password again). You might also contact User:Jmh649 or User:Bluerasberry about your ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a reasonable idea. However, as others have pointed out, this could potentially limit further editing of an "approved" article. Third party organizations are most welcome to copy Wikipedia's text and display it on their own websites as an "approved" version, provided that they display and conform to the CC-BY-SA license. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• While I think the premise is quite interesting it is in fact unsuitable for Wikipedia. This is a general reference, not a place for any type of serious medical research, and there could be liability issues that I tend to think the Wikimedia Foundation would not want to deal with. And only allowing the versions approved by an outside entity, not the WP community, is very much against the idea that this is a community project. On the other hand there is nothing stopping these organizations from linking to "approved versions" of a specific page from their own websites. Admittedly most people are likely to come here first though. I have to admit I have done this myself when I have been ill, but if someone is seriously ill they should see a doctor, not a website. It just pains me to even say that as I do want the world to see WP as a serious project, not just somewhere to go for details on the last episode of Pokemon or other pop-culture. I guess you can tell I a, feeling a bot conflicted here... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hello Kevin. Thank you for your very insightful proposal. User:Jmh649 (James) and others are presently working with several medical journals who are willing to offer independent scholarly review and publication of our medical articles. That is, we submit a Wikipedia article for publication, their peer reviewers critique it, we modify the article accordingly (and in line with Wikipedia policy), they review again, and when the Wikipedia editors and independent peer reviewers are satisfied, that version is published by the journal. The published version would then be as reliable as the present academic publishing model allows, so that version could be considered an officially approved version I guess. Several very highly-regarded journals are interested but only one is presently willing to do this using the required Creative Commons license. Hopefully more will jump on in time.

How we use that peer-reviewed version will be open to community discussion. The flagged revisions method mentioned by Robert, above, is one option: this would involve locking an article so that all changes are vetted by moderators before going live; or we may instead/also put a link at the top of peer-reviewed articles to the most recently-peer-reviewed version; or not. This will come up for discussion as peer-reviewed articles begin rolling out - the first one is going through review right now.

Meanwhile, may I repeat WhatamIdoing's invitation to look at the project page meta:Wikimedia Medicine, and perhaps jump into the discussion at meta:Talk:Wikimedia Medicine? That new organisation is being formed in order, among other things, to create a bridge between Wikipedia and professional organisations such as BMA/AMA, BOA/AAOS and BTS/OTA. You might want to get involved. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Many of the articles of evidence mentioned here about how medical practitioners were previously unreliable sources of medical care is completely irrelevant now. Science has progressed dramatically since then, and medical associations probably won't make a call on a given treatment or disease that is still an active area of research. Our refusal on Wikipedia to allow such bodies of people with the knowledge and judgment to decide which information is reliable, which is not, and which is still an active area of research will only perpetuate our reputation in academia as an unreliable crap magnet. While I don't think that we should be providing medical advice specifically tailored to any patient's circumstances or disease, we should try to maintain the quality of medical articles in particular, and refusing to take all reasonable measures (including this) to do so is completely immoral and spreads misinformation. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 19:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. Basically all treatments and diseases are "active areas of research". I'm not sure I could name a single disease with more than 1,000 people affected worldwide that isn't the subject of research.

I don't think that the organizations would be happy to put their "stamp of approval" on an article if some crackpot is allowed to change the article two seconds later. Respectable organizations would rightly be concerned about appearing to endorse garbage, even for a few seconds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Such bodies may be willing to endorse a version of a Wikipedia medical article, but they can't be expected to endorse an article that can be changed from their endorsed version without their approval. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing, what I really meant to say was treatments and diagnoses that are currently in active research, where no definite statement on the effectiveness of those treatments and diagnoses can be made. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 18:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't think my proposal would merit such interesting debate! Medical organisations are notoriously conservative and suspicious of new ways of disseminating information but have finally dipped their toes into apps and other internet technologies. I agree that Medicine itself has backed some ridiculous treatments over the centuries (lobotomy was mentioned) but in the 21st century the emphasis is very much peer-reviewed acceptance of what may be true. Wikipedia and its new offspring WikiMedicine and WikiSurgery will complement the current medical literature and enhance the public's understanding of what are gigantic subjects. I do not see my request as being prescriptive for a patient's illness or condition but merely informative and up to date. We have a crude rule of thumb in Medicine and Surgery when considering how to advise patients as to the best treatment options: "what would a reasonable body of (professional) men and women do?" This allows for differences of opinion whilst giving the patient some form of choice. There is rarely one correct or best option when giving medical advice as treatment is based on the patient's other co-morbidities, their expectations, their lifestyles, their beliefs and also their physician's experience and skill set. Delivering the best Medical Care is thus a mixture of Art and Science with a little luck thrown in for good measure. By increasing their knowledge base patients can be empowered to receive the best treatment within the many limitations of their particular healthcare systems.Kevinnewmanortho (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the goal of the proposer, but think it should be enabled in a slightly different form than proposed. My suggestion would solve the problem of an article subject to change. While it has been noted that a reviewing organization can provide a link (at their site) to the permanent url of the reviewed version, that doesn't easily achieve the goal of providing that view to readers of Wikipedia.

I suggest flipping the option around:

Suppose, for example, that the AMA reviews a particular version of the article on arthritis, and deems it acceptable. Suppose for example, that they like Arthritis 6 November 2012.

What we could do is add a hatnote saying something like:

For a version of this article approved by the AMA see Arthritis 6 November 2012

There would obviously be some bureaucracy involved in getting this started—identifying who at the AMA has the authority to make such a pronouncement, and getting assurances that they would update their reviews on a reasonable time frame (annual or biannual), but this would allow viewers to read the latest version, as well as a version that has been vetted by an official body.

If this took off, we might design a custom diff view, so that people could see differences between the latest version and the vetted version.

I think this has potential.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to go that route, I would suggest wording like this:

For a version of this article recognized as accurate by a panel of professionals [or choose you term here] please see:...

I don't necessarily object to a hatnote (even though that can be vandalized), and the debate over flagged versions or other similar technical solutions has yet to be completely played out. The goal here isn't to necessarily get official recognition from major professional associations, but rather to make sure that the information is accurate and verifiable to the best of the ability of anybody participating on Wikipedia. Wikipedia certainly doesn't need such formal recognition in terms of getting more page views (Wikipedia pages already are usually #1 rank on many search engines like Google). Working with these professional associations to ensure accuracy of the articles is an admirable goal though.

Furthermore, if there is some way to increase the number of editors to Wikipedia, particularly from the perspective of attracting editors who have a strong background and high levels of knowledge on a particular group of topics like medical-related articles, I think would be especially welcome. This said, reasonable edits by non-professionals that are added in good faith (fixing typos, to give an example) should not be dismissed out of hand either. --Robert Horning (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I still maintain, that criticism and conflicting/dissenting information will be discouraged and eliminated from articles by giving professional associations the authority within Wikipedia to give an official stamp of approval. Consensus would be overridden, by the fact that the professional association's veto muscle would give their opinions more weight. Just my opinion, but Wikipedia should not simply rebroadcast the official stance of outside organizations on a given topic, even if the outside organizations are esteemed ones. They can still get it wrong. And they would in effect be handed a veto over any article versions that they would screen for their approval.OttawaAC (talk)

Convenience break

There are a lot of good ideas here. I'm struck by the all-or-nothing views of having the "approved page" appearing on- or off-Wikipedia. Certainly something could be done with "semi-approved" pages "sort of on-Wikipedia." To start off, imagine the following scenarios, the 1st of which could be done NOW, without any real formal approval.

1. The Wikistan Medical Association gets a copy of the freely licensed Mediawiki software and puts it on its own computers. It copies Wikipedia pages, edits them to meet its own standards, with its own standards of who can edit the articles, and links to Wikipedia in the external links section. The resulting articles would be licensed CC-BY-SA and would likely meet the standards of WP:RS, thus this material could be copied back into Wikipedia articles. Perfectly possible right now.

2. The Wikimedia Foundation reaches out to various expert organizations. It helps them start up the Mediawiki software and will link automatically to articles copied to and approved by the new ExpertWiki, possibly in the left hand column right above the different language versions of Wikipedia. The expert group agrees to maintain a given set of standards and license all its articles CC-BY-SA so that, if Wikipedians want, the material can be copied back to Wikipedia. The WMF would need to set up an outreach program and provide the set-up programming, which is a WMF decision, but not one that would be very expensive or out-of-line with its current stated goals.

3.The WMF could do the above on it's own servers, providing technical help all along the line, easy access to images on Commons, toolserver and the like, treating the set of editors from the approving groups as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic group. Why not? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there would be 4: People involved with the Wikistan Medical Association create a GLAM style Wikiproject and have an A-Class review process where Wikistan Medical Association has their own reviewers that review A-Class according to their own standards and those required by policy (such as MOS compliance, neutrality, citing of sources, no copyright violation, use of images). --LauraHale (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disputed statement no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Disputed statement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This guideline was merged into the WP:Accuracy dispute essay, turning it into a guideline and an essay.[2] Apteva (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering whether there is, or whether there should be, a policy of when a person's race is mentioned in articles, bio or otherwise. I recently began an RFC here [[3]], and please feel free to contribute. But it started me thinking about this. I've done some searching on Wikipedia and best as I can tell this appears to dealt with on a case-by-case basis. However, I'm wondering if some basic criteria could not be established. As an example of race being dealt with in context, the first sentence of the lede of the Obama article has always referred to Obama as "a US Senator", "US President", etc. Barak Obama's race was always referenced in the context of his being either "the first" or "the only" US Senator or President. It would have been unacceptable to have had the first sentence of the lede say "Barak Obama is an African-American Senator" or now 'Barak Obama is the African-American President of the United States". But why do we do this? Is this policy?

In the case of the RFC, the article Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese, I couldn't see why the perpetrator's race is mentioned as the article indicates no racial aspect to the crime. The victim's race is mentions only as part of a detailed background, but the race of the perpetrator is included with no additional background detail other than his job. My concern is not for how the perpetrator is portrayed, but, to be perfectly blunt, is it racism to point out the race, without justifying context, of someone associated with a despicable act?

Bottom line, do we have any written criteria on Wikipedia to use as a guide for when race, religion etc. should be mentioned? Then, if we don't, should we? BashBrannigan (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

When it's relevant to the subject, as determined by reliable sources. That's why it's done on a case-by-case basis, because it's always a question of what's appropriate for the individual subject. A high-level abstract rule would certainly make things "easier", by making the question a simple matter of rote compliance with that rule, but it would also be easier to just flip a coin every time to make the decision. Any attempt at a rule that would govern in all circumstances would be just about as arbitrary. Nothing will work better than simply reading and understanding the sources and what the importance of such demographic information is in the context of that person's life and accomplishments, if any. So we should not be trying to answer that question in the abstract without regard to its treatment in reliable sources. postdlf (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can see what contents other people's resources regard as relevant to this topic(but not the person).--Inspector (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I always link to the relevant policy or guideline in the edit summary when I revert an article edit. Is this recommended anywhere in a guideline? If not, should it be? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

No, and no. Edit summaries are not required. They are a useful tool, but not required by any policy or guideline. What you are doing is to be commended, but is not something that is expected of all editors. We have way too many content things to worry about than to add requirements about edit summaries. My personal pet peeve is edit summaries on talk pages. On a talk page you say what you are thinking. In an edit summary you say what you are thinking. Using an edit summary on a talk page means you are saying what you are thinking about what you are thinking. I strongly resent the need to read edit summaries and talk pages, when editors do not express what they are really thinking on the talk page and split it into the summary. Apteva (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You're never forced to read an edit summary, so I don't know why you would resent them. Some talk pages deal with multiple topics and have multiple active discussions or points of contention; edit summaries help other editors – some who have hundreds or even thousands of pages on their watchlists – to know if something important to them is going on. Your pet peeve is a basic courtesy to all of the other editors who might be working on the same talk pages as you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The most useful ones are those that summarize the post. The more difficult ones are the ones that say something different from the post. They are seen by anyone who regularly reads histories, such as watchlists, but are missed by anyone who only reads the talk page. Apteva (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Policy or guideline links are often a straightforward way to briefly explain why you might have reverted an edit; they are not the only way. A clear, concise, situation-specific edit summary can sometimes be more useful than a bare policy link—but it can also be harder to write well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAll Trades, edit summaries are useful when looking down a list to identify particular posts as well. My main gripe is the use of bare policy guidelines without adequate context. A credible sounding policy guideline can be used to provide the impression of credibility and respectability. For example, the claim of synthesis can be used to exclude almost anything an editor doesn't like. It's only once you have studied the edit in detail you realise it is baloney! --Andromedean (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean, the policies you are complaining about are in place to ensure only neutral, verifiable and accurate information is published by Wikipeida. The sections and policies and guidelines you are referring to have had long discussions demonstrating that the information you had unilaterally added and then the amendments you attempted to impose on the article which were against the consensus of other editors. Sport and politics (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(answering the initial question) No, I don't think it ought to be policy. It takes a while to become familiar with all the guidelines and forcing new editors to link their edit summaries would be unfair. Also what punishment would you inflict for non-compliance?--Ykraps (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the point, Ykraps and TentOfAllTrades. I'm a bit annoyed when I see experienced editors baffling newbies by reverting with "Needs RS" or similarly meaningless argot, when they could have said "Wikipedia content that is not supported by a reliable source may be reverted" or similar. I was suggesting we add a few words to a guideline, not a policy, because I realise it's not something enforceable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I was recently involved in a dispute resolution were one of the involved members views (I am not referring to myself) appeared to be largely ignored in the final decision because he was away for a few days and unable to contribute to it. Other editors may also have misrepresented his views leading to a strange final decision and subsequent claims he was in agreement to this day. I wonder if there should be formal sections in the DRN in which proposed versions of the article being discussed are inserted, and each member then enters the degree which they agree with each of them? This will provide a fair indication to the volunteer which version everyone is consenting to.

The final decision of course is the volunteers since he/she has to decide not only on consensus but on the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. but this would provide a quasi-democratic, transparent, formal framework on which to arrive at a decision which does not seem to be the case at present. --Andromedean (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Even more forum shopping. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. A controversy about a controversy article Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Apteva (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That never happens! --Izno (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's is the wider context of DRNs and avoiding confusion, rather than this specific case I wish to discuss. It can be difficult to tell what is going on most of the time, even for the volunteers involved. We must not provide the opportunity for editors to confuse others, either inadvertently or otherwise. It's a difficult one because the more one formalises a procedure the more daunting it becomes.--Andromedean (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean the only reason you are actually here is because you have failed to get your demands forced through and on to the article in question. You are forum shopping and have been warned against forum shopping before. Sport and politics (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi All,

Over at Australian Cattle Dog, an editor keeps trying to use "Note" references to inject material that might be otherwise viewed as inappropriate in the article. Is there an article published somewhere which might tell me what is the intended use for the "Note" reference field? Any pointers would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You might want to check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes and References for suggestions. Certainly raise the discussion on the talk page for interested editors to that article to debate specifics, but it should be noted that several articles on Wikipedia have inserted information into footnotes that would normally break the narrative of the article yet are of interest to readers... and doesn't strictly need to be just references. See also WP:UNDUE for another likely guideline that would apply although note that this is sometimes abused as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of WP:WEIGHT myself. --Izno (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE, I'm not sure what to say. Regarding the technical uses, there's a better way — if you restrict <ref> to citations, you can use the ((cref)) system for content comments, and this way you can better serve readers by separating content and citations. Notes with cref can even have citations on them; see how they're used at St. Joseph's Catholic Church (Egypt, Ohio), for example. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The List of unsolved problems in physics article seems to have inbound links from many of the problems that it lists; where these links exist, they are as large margin-floating grey boxes with magazine-style pull quotes (eg. on the Theory of everything article we have a grey pullquote box of "Is string theory, superstring theory, or M-theory, or some other variant on this theme, a step on the road to a "theory of everything", or just a blind alley?"). Is this appropriate? It seems a bit overdramatic, when other lists are just mentioned quietly in the "See also" sections. --McGeddon (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitely seems inappropriate to me, but the template in question, ((unsolved)), has survived four TfDs. There does appear to be some willingness among the template's proponents to convert it into something less intrusive, like a sidebar. Maybe raise the issue on the talk page? DoctorKubla (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Aha, thanks, I didn't even think to check whether it might have been a special template just for that one list. I'll see if there's anything left worth raising after I've had time to read through the old TfDs. --McGeddon (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I recently reverted this reference [4] in the Vitamin C megadosage article on the grounds that it contravened WP:CIRCULAR. My edit was then reverted with the following statement: Not a circular reference at all. These sources explicitly back the statement made.[5] A comment was also added to my talk page.[6] I would therefore welcome some thoughts/advice on the correct interpretation of WP:CIRCULAR as a means of determining who is correct here. Thanks in advance. Vitaminman (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a clear cut case WP:CIRCULAR to me. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's technically circular, since it links to other articles, but I imagine that JzG just didn't know he had to provide external links for sources. Ask for a page number on Trick or Treatment, and a link to the specific column on Bad Science - if they check out, it shouldn't be circular any more, provided neither of them is citing Wikipedia. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 20:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not really a circular reference to Wikipedia so much as a semi-implicit reference to those off-wiki sources. Wikilinking the names of the books and their authors – in this case, Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, and Trick Or Treatment by Simon Singh & Edzard Ernst – seems more intended to make it easier for other readers and editors to locate and evaluate those sources then any attempt to suggest that the Wikipedia articles themselves contain the information. (It would, however, be helpful if JzG or another editors were to expand those references to include specific page or chapter citations, rather than just book titles and author names.) If I were to write "The American Cancer Society reports that tobacco smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer", despite the presence of the link to the ACS Wikipedia article it is clear that I am attributing the claim to the ACS itself. It seems that this is a similar situation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• These are not circular references. The sources do not cite Wikipedia. They do, however, support the fact that vitamin-mongers have made extensive, and evidence-free, claims of curative properties. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Just stumbled over this AN thread. Wouldn't it be possible to protect ourselves at least to some extent against such hoaxes by using legal action against someone who demonstrably knows that they are posting counterfactual info? Or, I'm not sure, are hoaxes as a systemic problem on the backburner? --87.78.52.67 (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think deletion is usually sufficient. Legal action costs money and would probably not stop the flow of hoaxes. On top of that you would need to prove in court who made the edits. Not just what computer they came from but who was using it at the moment the hoax was posted. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

...and to sue, you (or the Foundation) would have to prove that you suffered concrete injury because of the hoax. Outside of libel, that isn't likely. postdlf (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

A lawsuit about hoaxes could also give a lot of bad publicity, probably not worth any potential benefits. And benefits are uncertain. There might be more vandals taking a lawsuit as a dare than as a deterrent. It's not hard to be sufficiently anonymous to avoid a lawsuit. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Substantial hoaxes are generally done by editors who've taken care to protect their anonymity. (Using an IP address doesn't make you anonymous; it visibly ties you to a particular ISP or business; a made-up name is much more anonymous). So, apart from checkuser (which can go stale, and which can be fooled), it would often be hard to connect a hoax editor to a real-world identity. bobrayner (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I should have mentioned as well that neither individual users nor the community as group have standing to sue anyone over content they contribute. The Foundation would have to do it and they are obviously not going to waste their time. suggest we not waste our time discussion this extremely far fetched idea any further. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Recently I just read Wikipedia:Handling trivia, and I found quite contradictory ideas. In one way it says "it is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers.", while in another way it identifies some of the examples as "unimportant". I think this is not made clear throughout the article(For example, it says"Alan Smithee's favorite color is yellow" is not important enough to mention, but what will happen if"some readers" in "it is not reasonable...ome readers." includes someone doing research about people's favorite color?). Are there, if any, useful and acceptable(don't need to be absolutely decisive) ways of judging (e.g. if the thing of this article does not exist, what will happen to the item, picture included?) whether some item is important or not?--Inspector (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If it's trivia, it is by definition unimportant.--Ykraps (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

... in that context. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't equate trivia with unimportant. I looked at the trivial Pursuit page today, and the question was about the name used to reference Swiss bankers. Not only can you find the answer, it is an article Gnomes of Zürich. I'll be surprised if fewer than 95% of Trivial Pursuit items can be found in Wikipedia.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

How do we decide whether it is important or unimportant?--Inspector (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I usually use the rule that it must be mentioned by a reliable third-party source in order to demonstrate significance. Unfortunately, most trivia, particularly pop-culture trivia, is based on primary sources (which in some cases can also be a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS). —Farix (t | c) 12:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

But a lot of the problem is someone adding a cited or uncited-but-easily-citable thing from a news website. Look at the "Incidents" subsection of the Xanga article before I chopped the whole subsection — several are cited, and many of the uncited ones could get citations, but they no more deserve to be mentioned in this article than emailed threats deserve to get mentioned in our email article. Nyttend (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we just accept anything that is adequately cited?--Inspector (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No. When the relevence or importance of any fact or item or anything else is disputed, you discuss it on the article's talk page, and arrive at a consensus to include or not include it. Being cited to a reliable source is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for inclusion. It must also be relevant, and relevance is something that needs to be discussed when it is in dispute. --Jayron32 00:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

But as a minimum standard, third-party sources should be a fundamental requirement for any such details, especially for pop-cultural references. Just today, I removed two references to Bakuman in a couple of other articles. Bakuman makes a lot of references to other manga series that are or have been serialized in Weekly Shōnen Jump. Just because Bakuman makes a references to Barefoot Gen or Ashita no Joe doesn't mean that the references are relevant to Barefoot Gen or Ashita no Joe. —Farix (t | c) 13:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Farix's approach is my guide (mention in secondary sources(, but if that happens to make for excessive sections, then usually one has to fall to a more exclusive metric ,but that's something that's hard to fit for all topics and should be discussed case-by-case. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I like to take the approach that a "trivia"l item must both have it's own article, and a reliable source (preferably secondary) which mentions the connection, as minima for inclusion. Even so, sometimes that's not enough and the sections simply need to go. --Izno (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Editorial judgment. There's no escaping it. And then when other editors' judgment differs, you discuss it. Reliable sources are obviously the minimum starting point (if it isn't verifiable, it doesn't go in regardless), but you could write completely trivial articles even limiting yourself to facts that multiple secondary sources report: "Bill Clinton is an American who likes McDonald's. He had a dog named Buddy and owned a Mustang convertible." And you could omit some of the most significant facts about a subject by limiting yourself to secondary sources, such as the population of a community reported in a census. There are no rules we can invent that will prevent us from having to read the materials and understand the subject to decide what is relevant and encyclopedic and what is not. postdlf (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. I try to think "would someone reading the article be wanting to find out this fact?" or is it that someone interested in the fact wanted it putting in the article. Thincat (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that there may be an concerted effort by some to edit any articles that look unfavorably upon the Israeli side of the conflict with the Palestinians and replace them with pro-Israeli propaganda. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-x2DFnGI9Ac )Is this true ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkKnight49 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's true that some editors are making such concerted efforts, yes. (They might not regard their output as "propaganda", though.) I haven't watched the youtube link you posted, so I have no idea about that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This has been going on for years unfortunately, though in the wake of WP:ARBPIA2 and WP:CAMERA, many of the old hands were stripped of power, banned, or run out of the project. Nowadays it is like any other hot-button topic; Obama, The Troubles, climate, Scientology, etc...all have a variety of personalities that cause trouble, but mostly manageable trouble. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a rather unusual notification, but because it directly involves a conundrum surrounding the question of the scope of WP:BLP1E and how much leeway it can allow closing admins in AfDs that is now at the heart of a series of a DRV and three AfD's that seem to be spiraling in not such a good direction and outside observation and input by uninvolved admins and experienced users may be very beneficial. The current situation begins with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley, in spite of 28 Keep votes, vs 4 Delete votes (including the nominator) and 5 Redirects, the closing admin decided to delete on the grounds of WP:BLP1E. This then was appealed (by me) at DRV and is now ongoing at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21#Jill Kelley. In the course of other articles' names being mentioned in the DRV, users have then used that to head for three other articles, so far, nominating them for deletion also on the grounds of WP:BLP1E, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Tripp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eunice Penix, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Khawam with all three of these being nominated only because someone had mentioned their existence in the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21#Jill Kelley DRV or related discussions. This is an unhealthy situation that could spiral out of control, with editors basically divided into pro and anti factions as regards the application or not of WP:BLP1E without considering the content of subject matter. Something is not right, and something needs to be done, before further chaos and disruption occurs. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• The three AfDs and DRV cited above have been notified of this discussion [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems perfectly appropriate. The articles that are being AFD'd due to BLP1E are the types of BLP articles we don't want on WP because they put the person in a negative light for their involvement in a single "event". We have to remember that we're an encyclopedia; just because we can document someone's life due to one notable event doesn't mean that information's appropriate to the work. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Masem, in the DRV discussion the consensus is that the original Jilll Kelley article should not have been deleted (28 Keeps). For example, User:Jclemens says " BLP1E is indeed policy, and rightfully so, but per WP:WI1E and WP:WIALPI (both of which I wrote), it's a bridge too far to apply them to this case--certainly too far to close against a numerical consensus like that based on a disputed interpretation of policy. Those who showed up to the AfD gave some very compelling arguments why 1E did not apply, which should have carried the day in a dispassionate close." Instead, it's now resulted in users going on hunts to shoot down articles that are mentioned as part/s of arguments, such as the Linda Tripp article. IZAK (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• What are you smoking? The AfD for Eunice Penix has NOTHING to do with BLP1E. It isn't even mentioned in the discussion. There is no reason for you to include it here or to disrupt that AfD with your spamming. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• So? Each AFD will still be judged individually, so to expect the results of teh first AFD to apply to the second is not of concern. And as repeated often for AFD and consensus, it is not a !vote, it is the strength of argument and policy, not numbers. Even if it was 99 to 1 that the artilce be kept but the 1 giving a polcy-based argument, the closer is free to close it in that direction. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Niteshift, I just cannot believe your audacity. It is you that sits on my talk page and waits for comments and then you jump on them, see this discussion that I was not even part of: "User talk:IZAK#Jill Kelley deletion" -- I didn't even get a chance to respond to someone who had contacted me when you jumped in with "Penix has an entry of about two lines, submitted by a relative, backed up by two small articles in a local paper about filing to run for another term, and yet Jill Kelley is somehow regarded as not notable. It is hard to figure.Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• WP:SOFIXIT and nominate the Penix article for deletion. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• I fixed it for you [11]. Since you consider Ms. Penix an example of being truly non-notable, I'm sure you'll be anxious to participate. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)"

So Niteshift, I am not sure what is driving you right now, beyond violating WP:POINT and WP:DONOTDISRUPT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT for issues that have nothing to do with your unknown reasons in keeping the Jill Keely and Natalie Khawam topics off WP? Who are you protecting and what is your agenda? And forget what I am smoking, that is just a gratuitous insult and a red herring that violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sit on your talk page? Self-important much? I went there to leave you a message regarding an separate AfD we're involved in. That article was mentioned by another editor as someone wholly non-notable. I looked at it and agreed so I nom'd it. The difference here is that the Penix article has nothing to do with BLP1E. There is no "one event" for her. She is simply non-notable. She is a minor politician holding an office in a small town that has no significant coverage. I realize that your panties are all twisted because I nominated an article you wrote and support the deletion of another one, but your inclusion of Penix is uncalled for. You've had no involvement in that article and BLP1E isn't being discussed. Your inclusion of a completely unrelated discussion is what is disruptive. Claiming my nomination is just my not liking it is idiotic. Yes, idiotic. Look at the discussion, and see who is getting support. As for your whining about AGF, you failed AGF a while back my friend. When you stop giving it, stop expecting it. Clean the sand out of your swimsuit. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Niteshift, you are actually emphasizing my point that there is now a vicious cycle in progress that is being generated by all the heat from over-zealous application of WP:BLP1E which is how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eunice Penix got dragged in, otherwise you would never have known that the latter existed. My point is that WP:BLP1E is causing trouble because the rules of its application can never become a clear-cut science. Believe me, I can live with whatever outcome will be the final verdict, and my record shows that I abide by admins decisions, but the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley just struck me as an aberration when you have two thirds voting to Keep and and an admin just ignores that WP:CONSENSUS to impose another outcome. IZAK (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Penix has nothing to do with BLP1E. Period. No matter how much twisting of logic you do or how many useless wikilinks you post over and over (and that is some annoying crap too), it won't change the fact that nobody has suggested BLP1E applies to Penix, so using her in the discussion is idiotic. Again, untwist you panties and use some common sense.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• You're making the claim the admin ignored consensus which is false. Consensus-based closures take into account both !votes and arguments, and despite the !votes outnumbering in favor of keep, the admin stated the policy arguments had the stronger argument and closed appropriately. Now, as to this vicious cycle, it would only be the case if the only reason to delete the subsequent articles was based on the reason that the Kelley article was deleted - but in deciding AFDs, they are to be judged case by case so arguing "Kelley was deleted, so was this" should not be sufficent groups for deletion. But reusing an established policy, BLP1E, is fine. If you don't like how that policy is being applied at AFD, you need to change that policy, but its application and re-application is just fine in line with how policy is meant to work. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think it shows a lack of sincerity to use all these articles as an amorphous mass to exemplify or justify why a policy or guideline is 'wrong'. Perhaps the Kelley article did not violate it, and I think there's consensus that Linda Tripp doesn't either, but that doesn't mean the others don't. I have a feeling that IZAK is trying to prop up his argument for keeping Natalie Khawam‎ by arguing that Linda Tripp should also stay. That's disingenuous at best. Each bio and each article should stand and be considered on its own. §FreeRangeFrog 21:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is WP:NOTE, believe it or not. WP:NOTE is saying: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list" and "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article" and "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation." Those guidelines found at WP:NOTE need to be modified to accommodate WP:BLP1E. Indeed we do have to limit content when writing an article about an individual who is notable for only "one event". WP:BLP1E represents a special instance of WP:BLP, in which relevance to that one event is given preference to general biographical information which in many situations should be omitted or downplayed, due to assumed privacy concerns. Bus stop (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTE explicitly says (or at least it used to....) it is not the only authority on whether a topic shown to be notable can have a standalone article (it is necessary but not sufficient). WP:NOTE cedes to WP:NOT and WP:BLP and any other policy where having an article would be a problem. I was going to quote WP:NOTE this part but it appears to have been lost, but I will assure it gets restarted again. --MASEM (t) 21:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

My point is that an article can be written on an individual notable for only one event in such a way that it respects the privacy which I think is at the heart of WP:BLP concerns. An article so-written would concern itself primarily with material related to the "event" for which the individual is noted, and would steer clear of biographical information deemed by a consensus of editors to be unrelated to that one event. Bus stop (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

But if you can only write about the individual in their relationship to the event, and not even provide additional details, this makes it even better to talk about the individual within context of the event and not make a separate article.

More to the case here, we have a person who's "importance" is strictly due to tangential relevance to a scandal, but where other, primary data (sourced biography) could be included. The problem is, if you take out the scandal aspect, we'd never include that person in a separate article on WP; it's clearly the attachment to the scandal. So unless their importance endures past that (and I'd argue here an example is Monica Lewinsky who continued to have fame after the scandal), BLP1E avoids giving too much undue importance to an individual, positive or not. It is not just a privacy thing (and in some cases, such as the Star Wars kid, we've figured out how to respect that outside of BLP1E. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BLP1E should be cut from policy, in favour of WP:BLP-proper for real BLP isses (which matter, 1E or not) and BIO1E. BIO1E is appropriately a notability subguideline and covers everything BLP1E is used for. There is no reason that BIO1E should not be consdiered applicable to libing people, and there is a too-strong tendency for editors to cite the allcaps "BLP" for effect over merit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • We don't consider BLP1E a notability/inclusion guideline. It can actually overrule WP:N for a person who may have a lot of coverage in sources, if that person only was notable for one event. For example, Steven Slater would be considered notable due to his involvement in JetBlue flight attendant incident but because that's all we can really talk about him in depth, we don't have a separate article for him due to BLP1E override WP:N or WP:BIO. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • If that were entirely logical, you could tell me how things should be different if Slater had died last year.
    • BLP issues are not solved by pageMoves, or redirects, or "Merge and redirect to the event" as is the standard remedy for what many call a BLP1E concern. "A lot of coverage in sources" is a poor description of how to meet WP:N, or WP:BIO. "We can't really talk about him in depth" is the heart of the approach of WP:N. Steven Slater is not notable per WP:BIO1E. There were no actualy BLP concerns with Wikip[edia coverage of him at any point, which is why all of the content remains welcome at [[the event page --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Masem, the JetBlue story is a bad comparison because there is no way that the Petraeus scandal article could and should contain the growing and important details about the five main players so far: Jill Kelley, Paula Broadwell; David Petraeus; John R. Allen; Natalie Khawam. See for example this latest New York Times article about the five of them and their uniqueness: Second Act of a Scandal: Cue the Superlawyers and the Spinmasters (Published: November 20, 2012) with important photos of and information about all five. This is a big story and it is about time that attackers of this topic back off, stop their obfuscation and WP:LAWYERING, and let editors who are able and willing to develop these key articles do their job instead of standing in the way of WP performing its role as a reliable encyclopedia in this vital subject. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't really understand this argument IZAK - why is there no reason the Petraeus scandal shouldn't include passing mentions of otherwise entirely non-notable people? There are some who are involved in this event who are independently notable - those for whom we would have an article regardless of this event. Then there are others who without this event would be entirely non-notable. Patraeus' article should be - Patraeus was a general and did x and x. He was involved in this scandal, for more information see [scandal article]. What else would Natalie Khawam's article be about? We don't need a separate article about her 15 minutes of fame before her very quick rise to prominence in relation to this event. The basic premise is this - without this one event she (and perhaps a couple of others) would be entirely non-notable. Without this one event their biographies would be a collection of inane trivia, none of which would be considered enough to consider them notable. Only with this one event do they become arguably notable. If their biographies would be a re-hash of their involvement in this one event plus a couple of non-notable fact-bites then they shouldn't be the subject of a biographical article in the first place. I've (admittedly - including earlier today) overused this particular analogy, but Conrad Murray was not notable as Michael Jackson's doctor or friend. He had done nothing to be considered individually notable. That's why we don't have a biographical article about him - his name redirects to Trial of Conrad Murray - the one event (very public and detailed, like the Patraeus scandal) for which he became notionally notable. Without that one event (which is actually two "events" MJ's death and the subsequent trial), Murray is otherwise not at all notable. We wouldn't otherwise have an article about him. Stalwart111 05:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

I have reverted an edit (see here) at Opal card as it was:

• a large slab of 'semi-promotional' text added to the lead,
• then I noted it was unreferenced,
• finally I found that it was almost word for word from http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/opal

However that website has a "Copyright and Disclaimer" here' [12]' that says "This material is copyright but may be reproduced without formal permission or charge for personal, in-house or non-commercial use."so it seem that we may use it, as Wikipedia is 'non-commercial'.
• Does this type of statement suit Wikipedia's copyright^© policy? - 220 of ^Borg 08:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, this is incompatible with the CC-BY-SA licence Wikipedia content is licenced under, which allows commercial use. January (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so it would be a copy-vio to use the text irrespective of their statement, as it could be copied from WP and used for 'commercial purpose', is how I understand it? Another valid reason to have reverted then! - 220 of ^Borg 09:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. We can't licence the article for commercial reuse if some of the text is copyrighted by an organisation which only allows non-commercial use. January (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much January! I will advise the editor involved (gently, it's their first edit!) - 220 of ^Borg 09:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I am currently putting together an FAQ page for an article related to white supremacism, and am looking in particular for discussions which have established the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League, Southern Poverty Law Center, and similar organizations with respect to the issue of classifying organizations as white supremacist. If we don't have anything on record quite that specific, I'll settle for whatever is closest. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There have been numerous discussions about both groups at WP:RSN (the Reliable Sources Noticeboard)... the page has a search function to help you find these discussions in the archives. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I did a preliminary search there before posting, but my terms were probably much too specific. I think I have what I need now; Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Recently, I had to move an article about a song because it had the wrong title - it's called "Take You There" (the Donnie Klang one, not the Sean Kingston one), and someone had created it as "Take Me There." Since I'd already turned it into a redirect to Donnie Klang, I fixed the double-redirect created by the move, and then promptly tagged it for R3; Amatulic deleted it 13 minutes later. But that got me thinking about times I'd seen admins move pages without leaving redirects, and having recently successfully requested the Rollbacker permission, I wondered if there was a way that I could request this right, too. It turns out that, apart from admins, 'crats, and stewards, it's only extended to bots and global rollbackers, and it can't be requested. This surprised me mostly because we allow people to request all sorts of far more sensitive permissions, such as Edit Filter Manager and Account Creator (both of which could be used to cause temporary, but major, disruption to Wikipedia - picture a lockout of all edits, or simultaneous swarms of 20 sockpuppets to every major article on a sensitive topic), so I figured there'd be some way to obtain this flag, even if it had some heavy restrictions on who can get it.

I'm stopping short of outright proposing that we make suppressredirect available at RFR, but I was wondering if some more senior editors could explain the reasoning behind it not being there in the first place. The way I see it, it isn't a particularly dangerous right to give out, especially since you can always just remove it from editors who abuse it (the warnings about misusing rollback have scared me so much that I still haven't even used it!). There's also a huge difference between making a right requestable and granting it frequently - I was manually confirmed because I was on RCP and AIV had been semi-protected, and, since October 1st, that flag has been requested 134 times, and has only been given out to four editors, myself included.

So, as I said, not a proposal yet, just a question about why the status quo is what it is. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 04:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It's an admin only right since it theoretically gives you the ability to delete a page. While even though you're merely re-locating the page, in reality, you're moving a page, and deleting the original title. Legoktm (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure MediaWiki defaults to putting the suppressredirect into the admin package. Why it's that way, I'm not entirely sure. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Can admin-package rights not be given to non-admins upon approval? (Serious question; I'll reply to rationale points once I'm clear on the technical side.) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 05:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes — take a look at this and the table here, which you may find of use. Rather interesting: it appears global rollbackers get access to suppressredirect... —Theopolisme 05:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, okay, now that we've established (i.e. now that I've figured out) that it's possible on a technical level, my answer to Legoktm is this: yes a suppressredirect user can delete a page, but they can't delete its history or content. In other words, any confirmed editor can de facto revert a suppressredirect deletion, simply by moving the page back. Which means that all-in-all the risk for abuse is fairly low - no higher than the risks associated with rollback or autopatrol: Some fairly small percentage of users will abuse the right, and waste a very small fraction of other users' time. before they lose it. But we judge that risk as being less significant than the general utility of there being a rollbacker class. And I don't see why that same evaluation wouldn't apply to suppressredirect. Once again, I'm not asking why all editors don't have it, or why most editors don't have it, or why I don't have it - just wondering why no one can have it (without becoming an admin, steward, or global rollbacker). — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 07:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The bottom-line reason it's not available to non-admins is because there is no consensus for it, as shown in this proposal from August. The ability to move a page without leaving a redirect is easier to abuse than you might think. Anomie⚔ 15:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that proposal, and I think its proponents made a very weak argument - for starters, the OP wasn't proposing it as a permission, but as a right one's automatically granted after a certain point. And I'm aware that there isn't a consensus, clearly; what I'm wondering is why there isn't. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 15:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Among other things, it means that bluelinks could much more easily be turned into redlinks, and except for pagemove vandalism, that's almost never a good idea when pages are simply moved. I've had this permission for five years, but I very rarely use it — a substantially more common situation is seeing someone move a page and tag the left-behind redirect for an inappropriate speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree - suppressredirect should be used rarely enough that it shouldn't create much of a burden to either non-admin requesters or admin answerers to do it via speedy requests. --– Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Are images supposed to be ineligible for copyright in the United States? If that's the case, why does the WP:NFC say that anything copyrighted in the original source country may also be copyrighted in the United States per URAA? --George Ho (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The language at NFC is an over simplification of things, what it basically means is that if a foreign work could have been still subject copyright in the US, and wasn't, it is treated as if it is. There remains the possibility that an image could be subject to copyright in a foreign country under that countries laws, but not be subject to copyright under US law. For instance, a work published before January 1, 1923, anywhere in the world, is public domain in the US, regardless of foreign law, URAA doesn't change that, as the result would be the same even if every US formality had been followed. Likewise, the Freedom of Panorama rule for Buildings applies regardless of whether the foreign country recognizes it. I imagine there are a few other similar circumstances. Monty₈₄₅ 20:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the category reminds me of another case, logos that are not sufficiently creative to receive protection under US law. Other countries may have lower standards, but we aren't required to lower ours as a result. Monty₈₄₅ 20:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) U.S. copyright law is in many instances stricter than foreign law regarding what threshold of originality is required for the work to be copyrightable. Other countries may also cover certain kinds of works under copyright law what the U.S. might instead place under trademark or patent law (and thus public domain for purposes of copyright law). postdlf (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The line from this policy is now discussed at policy talk page. --George Ho (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely a better title for the category could be contrived. This title is simply awful. Perhaps Category:PDUS images eligible for copyright in their country of origin.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia's official stance at the moment is that it won't run ads. But given Wikipedia's popularity, it has the potential to generate a lot of revenue. As such, I have two questions:

1. Does the Wikimedia Foundation ever get approached with offers from ad networks? If so, how often does it happen? Does the WMF just turn them down (without burning bridges, of course) immediately?
2. There has been talk of enabling opt-in advertisements, but there seems to be no consensus on the subject so far. On the other hand, this doesn't seem to be too hard to implement. A user can create an account on an ad network (such as Infolinks) and set Wikipedia as "their" website. They can then write a user script that inserts the ad placement widget. Anyone who installs the script would get ads on Wikipedia.

However, there are two issues to this approach: 1) there is no transparency unless the script author shares the PayPal account information with the WMF, and 2) Wikipedia can get in trouble if something goes wrong (e.g., if the user breaks the ad network's service agreement).

So my second question is: is there any policy against creating an ad placement user script?

Just curious. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

These would be questions to take to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The current policy is that advertising would compromise the content's neutrality. I totally agree with that policy. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been beaten to death on the Village Pump since the very earliest days of Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Advertisements for much more information about this issue.

There is an advertisement script that can be used on user pages for advertising Wikimedia-related projects (primarily Wikipedia Wikiprojects and interest groups). More information about that can be found at Template:Wikipedia ads

Really, this is just a tarpit of flaming if you want to push this any further, but those places are very useful to check out if you want to understand what is going on with advertising in regards to Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reviewing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Commons categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

When is it appropriate (and when is it inappropriate) to link to an essay on policy and guideline pages... are their limitations, and if so what are they? Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? Blueboar (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• In practice, I think it is unstable. WP:IAR and WP:N have had many and few linked essays, for example. In theory, I think for an essay to be linked, it must be comprehensive, NPOV (not required for essays, but the best are NPOV), and directly relevant. Essays that preceded and informed the writing of the policy/guideline should be linked (eg Uncle G on Notability). Essays disputing policy are a complicated question. Where there are many assays, a link to a collection of essay links may be appropriate. A few essay that are for "further reading", which explain and are fully consistent with the intent of the policy/guideline should be welcome. Note that the intended audience of project pages are a different group to the authors of project pages. I think this is often forgotten, and policy pages are used for strained, high-level-language debates between old Editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Should there be some some level of "support" for the essay before we link to it? (Not necessarily a majority, but some level of support)? My personal feeling is that it would be appropriate include essays that outline "minority views".... if the minority that holds them is significant enough. However, if an essay only reflect the views of a few editors, then linking to it on a policy/guideline page would be inappropriate. Am I off base? Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that POV essays should not be linked directly from policy. POV essays include majority view and minority view essays. A neutral point of view essay should not be subject to support or opposition, but should be widely accepted as comprehensive and fair, and should assist in comprehension and interpretation of the policy page. It may include mention of continuing debate, and may itself link to POV essays, if first putting then in context. Including direct links to advocacy for or against the status quo is likely to be confusing to random readers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What does "link to" mean? Inline links? ((Further)) links? See also links? Navboxes? The standards will be different in each case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This part of articles is out of hand. Many of the links have no direct relation to the article, while others are simply not notable to the article. It is also constantly abused by advertisers or people trying to promote an idea or topic. It is too much to fix. Why do these sections even exist? Shouldn't it just be for synonyms? I haven't actually read the guideline or policy on this. Sorry if this is in the wrong section. 198.151.130.65 (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There is also a similar problem with "External links". 198.151.130.65 (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• WP:See also
• WP:External links

Go forth and read. I would agree that these sections can become cluttered, so be bold and fix it! :) --Izno (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, of course much of the time these sections have issues, but that's true of ANYTHING on Wikipedia. They are both extremely valid and useful to have when done right. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What I would like to see was some NPOV standards especially for "See also"-links, since in my experience some editors use the section solely in order to make a point. An example could be someone adding Police state to the "See also" section in Capitalism (a real example iirc) or something similar. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That particular example seems like a clear vio of NPOV and I would have no problem with someone removing it. A link to an article offering another perspective on a topic, say like Marxism, I'm ok with that, but when the connection is extremely tangential or just spam, treat it like any other chaff that needs to be cleaned up by editors. I guess a guideline might be helpful, for some parameters like length... For an example, I've seen "See also" sections that had dozens of links; all were perfectly relevant to the article(s), but it would have made more sense to work them into the body of the article(s) somehow so that there was some context for the reader, rather than a big mess o' links.OttawaAC (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I do a lot of editing of those sections. I don't think there's nearly the problem that you seem to think there is. If you think somebody is too tangential or spam, just remove it. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place to ask but... Is there any way for editors to be alerted when a page is added to a given category (something like a watchlist... but pegged to the category and not the page)? Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You can go to the category and select "related changes" in the toolbox at the left of the page. You can also copy the raw direction of that link and paste it somewhere in your userpage, so you can easily access it anytime without going first to the category Cambalachero (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

But that still requires periodically doing a manual check of the category (which can be all but impossible if the category is large). What I am asking about is whether there is any way to get an automatic alert, that would tell the members of a wikiproject "someone has added category X to a page (any page)" ... an alert that is tied to the category the way watchlist change notifications are tied to individual pages. I am looking for something that would notify editors who are interested in monitoring a specific category... something that would tell them that it has been added to a page (which they might not have on their article watchlist). So that they could know to go to the page and check that the categorization is appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There was a script that had that functionality, and would cause new pages added to a category to appear in your watchlist. Unfortunately, the script, User:Ais523/catwatch.js no longer seems to work, and I haven't had any luck getting anyone to fix it. Monty₈₄₅ 16:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The article under question was this. It was first proposed for PROD by me, when the prod was removed, stating that an AfD must be followed. Then I posted it for AfD, during which time a CSD template was added and then removed because the article was under AfD. Finally the AfD closed as no consensus with no prejudice towards speedy deletion because of no quorum.

After the AfD remained inconclusive, I posted the article for CSD when it was removed stating contest speedy deletion as indicating importance/significance ("prominent Islamic scholar") - please start another AfD discussion in a few months if you think this should be deleted.

My question is - 1) Is removing the CSD template allowed under 'contesting' it? [If so, then it looks surreptitiously like PROD] 2) In your opinion, does the article look notable enough to stand? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That an article is at AfD is actually not an appropriate rationale for removing a CSD, and authors cannot remove CSD templates from their articles. No comment on the article itself. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll only reply to your question under 1), because I have not yet reviewed the article in question: yes. Anyone but the article creator can remove a speedy deletion tag, because the idea is that speedy deletion is only appropriate when the deletion of the article would be entirely uncontroversial, if it was sent to AfD. SD is a way to ease the burden on AfD, nothing more. The only difference between PROD and CSD is that the article creator can remove a PROD nomination, but not a SD tag. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now reviewed the article and can confirm that speedy deletion per A7 would have been wrong, in my opinion: the article clearly indicates why this person is significant. I'm not sure Abdul Ghaffar Naqshbandi is notable — mainly because I'm unfamiliar with the topic area —, but I believe the only way to get this article deleted is through AFD. The last one could have been closed as soft delete, but the other editor would probably have objected to that. So, in short, if you want the article deleted, renominate it, hoping that, this time, someone will comment... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

While instructions make it clear that the creator of an article may not remove an CSD tag, that is mainly because article creators almost never remove them properly. That said, if in your judgement the creator is right about the reason for removing it, don't replace it. Monty₈₄₅ 16:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I was previously under the opinion that only admins could reove CSD templates, and regular editors could just oppose it, following which the admin would decide.

Question 2 - What then is the main difference between a CSD and a PROD. Both are the same, only the former has an admin deleting it, while it autodeletes for the latter. Right?TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion is designed for cases where there is no need for discussion nad has restrictive criteria that must be met for an article to be deleted. An article that meets any of the criteria may be immediately deleted with no discussion. As a result, the scope of speedy deletion is limited to only the most obvious cases, a CSD tag may be removed by anyone but the article creator; if removed improperly, it can theoretically be re-added, but in most cases subsequent reviewers would just refer the matter to AfD. A WP:PROD may be used to delete an article for any reason that could get it deleted at WP:AFD, but is meant for uncontroversial cases, and thus may be removed by anyone. After the prod expires, the article is added to a deletion category and an admin will review the article and either delete it, or dispute the PROD. Monty₈₄₅ 17:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Question- Can I file an AfD right now, seeing how the previous one closed?

I am still of the opinion of taking the article to AfD under the notablity criteria, but not being familiar with the exact policies and examples, its prudent to ask here if I should. So if you can please vote Keep or Delete, it would make it easier for me to understand if an AfD would be futile here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Any article can be taken to AFD multiple times, but in general it is expected that some time passes between nominations; if you instantly start a new AFD as soon as the old one closes, it will be declined rapidly as well. Give it 2-3 months and try again then. --Jayron32 00:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. I just actually looked at the AFD, and it received zero comments despite being relisted three times. I think it would not be unreasonable to start a new AFD given that literally no one commented at the old one. However, not everyone may agree with me. I am but one person with one opinion. --Jayron32 00:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Relisted. 1 vote already, and so it shant be closing as no consensus now [Atleast for lack of quorum that is]. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Admins may add the resolved tag here if it is an appropriate tag to add

Everything related to global warming takes it as fact. Isn't this bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No. It's the scientific opinion on global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No. WP:Making necessary assumptions reads:

"When writing articles, there may be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic. For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc. It is difficult to draw up a rule, but the following principle may help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if that assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. A brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate, however."

Hope that helps. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 21:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Just as an example, we treat the Apollo 11 moon landing as fact. That doesn't mean there aren't dissenters, but the scientific evidence is that we did, in fact, land on the moon. It is not biased for the Wikipedia article to state that we did land on the moon. Addendum: To clarify: the rise in global temperature has been established as fact. The remaining controversy revolves around the exact cause, and what (if anything) we can do about it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#inclusion of prehistoric terms in history of country templates and vice versa. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have started a RFC regarding allowing bureaucrats to remove the bureaucrat bit, and regarding the regranting of the bureaucrat bit (to bring it into line with the recently-passed policies for administrators). Please see Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#2012 bureaucrats RFC. --Rschen7754 01:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I think Wikipedia is a wonderful resource and I'm very disappointed to find that it uses interlocking signs for male and female to indicate that an article has to do with sexuality. I don't expect Wikipedia to be behind the times or exclusionary and I hope this is just an oversight that will be corrected very soon.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.89.245 (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to ((Sex-stub)) and similar templates? If you wish to suggest that a template be altered to adopt a new image, everyone, readers included, are welcome to comment on the template's talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It might be a complaint about ((WikiProject Sexuality)). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it just on the basis of the acceptance of alternative lifestyles, because that delves into a more sensitive field that Wikipedia would do well to remain unbiased in. However, despite personal views of homosexuality, it is empirically a large part of "human sexuality" as a broad topic and should thus have some sort of recognition, but on the basis of statistical fact, not sexual equality. Dab8fz (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear editors,

Many of you are well aware of the convenience in using web citation as a source. And sometimes, official information are only available online as the only source. But the main problem of citing them is that they tend to disappear within a few years, sometimes even in months. Some articles rely heavily on citing official websites, so when the source links slowly go dead, we're facing a problem of not only link rot but an article rot as well. The current template/tools do not support/suggest archiving or using permalinks, so most editors neglect to archive them. Most of the editors are vigilant on an article only around the time of its creation, or around when it is still a hot topic, but by the time the link and the article rot, the source material will no longer be available, and most editors will no longer care.

I've come across this problem while I was working on an old film's article. It had been so well-sourced with official materials, which means it had been very reliable until the movie distributors decided to stop hosting the information, as it no longer affect their publicity or sales. First-party sources like official websites of products or movies only exist as long as they serve the distributors' sales or publicity. So now we are busy finding and relocating the information, but by now the film is 13 years old, and it was so hard to find any reliable substitute, if at all. And we only have two editors there.

The suggestion to this has already been proposed. Per Wikipedia:Link rot, we are suggested that we use a web archive like http://www.webcitation.org to provide us permalinks. But I find that this is not enough. Since the current templates do not support or suggest adding archive date nor archive URL (see below), most editors will take it as the only information required in the blank field is enough. As a result, most articles citing websites have only the URLs and the site themselves as sources, and when they go down, your citation and the reliability of the article with it.

((cite web
 | last =
 | first =
 | authorlink =
 | coauthors =
 | title =
 | work =
 | publisher =
 | date =
 | url =
 | format =
 | doi =
 | accessdate = ))

((cite web
 | last = Spiegel
 | first = Rachel
 | title = Research: Thalido...
 | url=http://science-educat...
 | accessdate = 30 April 2006 ))

((cite web
| title =
| url =
| date = 
| accessdate = ))

((cite web
 | last = Hansen
 | first = James E.
 | authorlink = James E. Hansen
 | last2 = Ruedy | first2 = R.
 | last3 = Sato | first3 = M.
 | last4 = Lo | first4 = K.
 | title = GISS Surface Temperature An...
 | work =
 | publisher = [[Goddard Institute for...
| date = December 15, 2005
 | url = http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...
 | format =
 | doi =
 | accessdate = September 28, 2006 ))

((Citation
 | last =
 | first =
 | author-link =
 | last2 =
 | first2 =
 | author2-link =
 | title =
 | date =
 | year =
 | url =
 | accessdate = ))

((Citation
 | last = Spiegel
 | first = Rachel
 | title = Research: Thalido...
 | url=http://science-educat...
 | accessdate = 30 April 2006 ))

((Citation
 | last1 = Hansen | first1 = James E.
 | author1-link = James Hansen
 | last2 = Ruedy | first2 = R.
 | last3 = Sato | first3 = M.
 | last4 = Lo | first4 = K.
 | title = GISS Surface Temperature An...
 | publisher = [[Goddard Institute for ...
| date = December 15, 2005
 
 | url = http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...
 | accessdate = September 28, 2006 ))

Not only that, old editors usually use a gadget like Provelt to make citing sources easier. And of course, Provelt follows the citation template and do not provide a box or put archive URLs or archive date.

So to encourage the use of lasting sources and to give an article highest longevity, I suggest we add

|archiveurl= |archivedate= |deadurl=

to the template, and program Provelt to follow the template accordingly. I must emphasis that Provelt needs to be changed as well, as most editors tend to use the easier method. And the Policy and Guidelines should probably suggest archiving first-party sources too. This should fix the problem of link rot and article rot in the long run.

I would like to hear some opinions and suggestions. Anything is appreciated. Anthonydraco (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You took those examples from Wikipedia:Citation templates, which needs an extreme makeover. If you look at the documentation pages for ((citation)), ((cite web)) or any of the other Citation Style 1 templates, you will find that the archive parameters are supported and well documented.

Archive.org and the others are not a panacea. They honor the robots meta tag on sites like The New York Times and will not archive them if they go dead or paywalled. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It's even worse than that. Archive.org may archive a site not blocked by robots.txt or meta tag. But if the site dies and a new owner takes over the domain and adds a blocking robots.txt, all the historical archives of that site are lost, because IA won't distinguish change of ownership and doesn't seem to archive robots.txt, or honor archived robots.txt. It's DMCA-like control over somebody else's history. --Lexein (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

OIC. Thank you for the information. I didn't dig deep enough. Still, including those into the citation template page would've been nice, IMO, since a lot of new editors will look there first. And a change in Provelt would be nice too. Regarding some non-archivable sources, yes, you're right, but encouraging the archiving wouldn't hurt. Although this won't eliminate the problem, it will surely save some trouble in the long run. Anthonydraco (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There is an (ironically) archive discussion at Wikipedia:Citation templates that I need to dig up. It only gives short list of commonly used parameters which can be misleading. And it mixes up a bunch of different citation styles. I have done a lot of work cleaning up the Citation Style 1 template documentation. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't say I understand very well what you're talking about. Does the first 'it' in your paragraph refers to 'the archive discussion' or WP:Citation templates? Sorry, can you clarify? I'm not a native-speaker, and I'm decent in English, but I'm not that good. Anthonydraco (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

A side note, I want to tell you that if Provelt doesn't include boxes for archive URLs and archive links when you cite web, people will over look those and it becomes a tedious job to editors who come later. Especially when they have to do it without Provelt. Not to mention that it will be harder to find the sources when the links are dead. Anthonydraco (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss at the User:ProveIt GT talk page. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I will go there. In the mean time, would anyone like to give an opinion on adding a suggestion to the WP:Citing sources guideline page to suggest users to archive first-party sources that are prone to disappear? Anthonydraco (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Executive summary:

• A new policy is needed to allow for speedy or more efficient deletion of articles on events that have not happened yet, because the current policies and guidelines that apply to those situations do not directly address that circumstance.

Full rationale:

I am seeing a trend of article creation for things that simply have not occurred yet, such as musician's tours, annual events, etc. These eventually go to AfD, but that invariably becomes a mess. I'm hoping that this is something that has been seen enough in the community to preclude the need to cite examples, but please let me know if I need to start linking AfDs as supporting evidence, and I will.

Now, there is a reasonable expectation of these events happening, but the policies that should preclude article creation have holes in them that need to be plugged in relation to this issue:

• WP:CRYSTAL does not cover this adequately (it allows inclusion based on future occurrence alone)
• WP:NOTNEWS also skirts this situation (a tour isn't really "breaking news")
• WP:NCONCERT only gives notability guidelines without addressing timing (and has a "financial impact" loophole to make an argument that how fast the tour sells out in a given area can indicate notability, which is absolutely foolish with the advent of ever-larger arenas and electronic ticket purchasing)
• WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E address non-notable people in otherwise notable events.
• WP:UNDUE applies to sources within articles, not weight of an individual event in a larger ongoing context.
• WP:TOOSOON is an essay without force of policy.

There are other policies and guidelines that can be cited in some individual cases (generally CRIME, related to ongoing cases), but invariably, when these things go to AfD, there are a slew of ILIKEIT keep votes with no policy support for said votes (who also tend to abuse the noms and the delete voters). The result is a lot of wasted time on what should be open and shut cases, because the ILIKEIT votes (not policy based) also preclude NAC based on deletes (which are policy-based) because the AfD then becomes "controversial." I'd also note that Wikinews has been eroded by this type of editing, and that has been noticed higher up, to the point of potential closure of that project.

Therefore, there appears to be an issue that is not only wasting editors' time, but is adversely affecting a sister project. Very succinctly, I'd like to see a policy that thoroughly precludes writing about events prior to their occurrence. A third-party source cannot reliably report on an event unless it has happened, and we already disallow speculation in articles as-is. In reality, what is happening is OR based on cobbling information together. I think it is one of those things where fans build their "fan-ness" by doing things like this ("Well, I was the one who created the tour/event article on Wikipedia, so can i have a backstage pass to your next show?")

I'm not sure what to call this new policy, but we pretty much need something with teeth to allow these types of articles to be speedied if possible, and at least to have something better at AfD to back up NAC policy-based closures in the face of ILIKEIT votes (I have an issue with "controversy" in voting being based in "X is notable just because") just so these types of articles aren't diverting admin attention.

From a policy perspective, I would indicate the following items as a starting point:

• For one-off events, there's no reason not to write about the event objectively afterwards, if only to find out if it really makes a difference.
• For long-term events, like US presidential elections, the campaign trail is part of the process, so while the event starts before the date of elections, the event has begun and has been reported on by sources, so it would be fair to write about it prior to Election Day of whatever year it is.
• For concert tours, when a show happens, there should be reports available, and it avoids any issues around cancellations.

In the end, I think a new policy could address several outstanding issues across Wikipedia and contribute to a higher quality of content. MSJapan (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can speedy these, unless they are 1) obvious hoaxes, or 2) so far out to be impossible to write an article. The latter is going to vary for what the event is: we would likley have articles for Olympics 8-12 years out due to the city vetting process, but I would not expect articles on next years pro sports seasons. Because of the variance in time, there's no way a clear CSD criteria could be made. These arguments are completely fair at AFD, of course, and a PROD can be tried first, but I just don't think CSD is right for these. --MASEM (t) 01:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, OK, but I still think there's got to be a limit of reason somewhere short of having to spend a potential two weeks on the deletion process. Case in point: Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013, which was created within 24 hours (possibly much less, I'm not sure of the time zone diffs) of the ending of the 2012 contest, because absolutely nothing has been announced about it yet, not even the city. The article even noted this. So the article was prodded, and then the prod was contested, then requiring an AfD. I see no rational reason for that to be allowable in good faith, and thus there are still policy holes here that need addressing, even if it is just to create a more solid foundation for allowable content on Wikipedia. MSJapan (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case, are we likely going to have an article on the 2013 contest? Sure, certainly in another year, possibly sooner. IT's a good faith creation of an article which for right now should be a merge and redirect to a different page but not deleted. It would be different if it were , say, the 2020 contest which there's no way it can be talked about in a reasonable manner. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• The very premise of this proposal is fatally flawed. Why? Because even the proposal itself makes it clear that there is no consensus that such articles should always be deleted, thereby making it entirely inappropriate as a criterion for speedy deletion. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Header and the list of non-criteria for the basic rules of what is and is not an appropriate criterion. The list of non-criteria specifcally mentions proposals based on WP:NOT, which CRYSTAL is part of. FYI I will be posting a link to this discussion at WT:CSD so that users interested in speedy deletion are aware of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• See, the problem with categorical rules, is there are often many exceptions. What about 2016 Summer Olympics or 2020 Summer Olympics? Ok, maybe we can identify what about them makes them different, maybe the bidding process, but now we are into intricacies that need to be discussed, aka a deletion discussion -> AFD. Monty₈₄₅ 03:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure why "the event has to have documentably begun" does not cover the above, but there seems to be a serious objection to purpose, regardless of content. Is there any objection, then, to taking this stuff back and reworking it as a content inclusion policy/guideline that is not going to be used for purposes of CSD? The policy holes I mentioned are there whether or not there's a CSD involved. Assuming there's no objection to that, would it make more sense to address the hole in each policy separately to avoid creating a new policy to deal with, or create a new policy to cover the gaps because it's easier than running multiple policy discussions? MSJapan (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

See, I would argue that those Olympics articles are useful. An article on the upcoming Olympics is going to be of interest to readers for a long time before the event begins, at least as we normally use begin. We could call the bidding and selection process enough to count as having begun, but how is that really that different from a concert being booked, or an upcoming TV show being under contract (but maybe not even having started filming)? Monty₈₄₅ 05:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because the rationale of creating tour articles six months in advance is mainly that they inherit notability from the artist, when policy indicates otherwise. Additionally, most of the links are ticket sales sites and fan blogs. The content of said articles is no different and no more extensive than if one went to the artist's site, and there's no way to address the content of the tour before it happens. That is very different from the pre-coverage on the Olympics, where even the bidding process is a big deal. MSJapan (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with trying to create a CSD for even articles that are created several months prior to a band touring is that even there, there's a difference between, say, the Rolling Stones or Lady Gaga announcing a tour (which will nearly assuredly be notable) that's 6 months out, and My Local Just-Barely-Notable Garage Band announcing their tour 6 months out. You can't create a CSD criteria that really cuts out the latter, while leaving the former. Obviously, there is other content problems (you are pointing to the problem with these early tour articles being to serve a commercial purpose (how and where to buy tickets, instead of just discussing the tour) but that can be corrected and merged, or as a last resort deleted after discussion at AFD.

The point is that while many (including myself) agree that people should not be created articles far too soon before an event's realistic frame of occurrance, we can't simply use CSD to remove these. PROD works, AFD works. Of course, if they meet other CSD like being a hoax, sure. But if it is otherwise meeting the minimum need of being verifiable, we're pretty much going to have to go the long way to remove it if it needs removing. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think notability standards work plenty well in terms of dealing with the fringe cases of what you are talking about here, and no additional policy is really needed. If the Rolling Stones can say they are going to do a concert tour in 2020 and there are sufficient reliable sources of information that have plenty of details about that concert tour, there should be an article on Wikipedia about that tour. Reliable sources mean something other than just the band's web page, but rather something of substance like a major article in the New York Times or in Billboard Magazine (take your pick). The article should be about that topic, not a casual reference like they plan on taking their last tour in 2020. In other words, standard notability issues. The local "just barely notable by themesleves" garage band is not likely to have such reliable sources except in the case of something truly exceptional that would be noteworthy in and of itself.

The Olympics are particularly noteworthy because they do have this kind of press coverage decades in advance. There is all kinds of political maneuvering in terms of who gets to become the host city along with issues about what new sports are going to be introduced and other substantive details that can certainly flesh out such an article well over a decade in advance. Logos, pictures of venues (under construction, planned but announced, or even already built) and other very reasonable things can be added to such articles. You can say the same thing about the Super Bowl or the FIFA World Cup in terms of some advanced knowledge of the event that may be mentioned in popular media and other reliable sources. Outside of sports, you can even have articles about upcoming space probes like New Horizons, which has been extensively written about even in academic papers... sort of the holy grail of reliable sources. In that case it isn't just six months out but won't be doing its main mission until 2015.... is that a reason to force an AfD onto that article since it is about a future event more than six months from now? There is Timeline of Solar System exploration#Planned or scheduled which has a whole list of such future missions, including vehicles that haven't even been launched yet.

If the argument is that it is too hard to determine if something is noteworthy as a future event, I would say you are straining too hard at fine details. There really is no need for any sort of new policy. Sometimes it isn't easy to make a quick assessment, but that is why you need to find a specialist in the particular topic... of which Wikipedia has plenty. That is also sort of the point of AfD nominations, so such things can also be sorted out. Just don't be so quick to PROD something or make that AfD if you simply can't make the assessment quickly. --04:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A speedy delete is a terrible idea. A not-so-terrible idea is to create some sub-policy pages for crystal ball. So, have a crystal ball page for music tours, a crystal ball page for elections, sports events, etc. That would give something more relevant and specific to cite in these deletion discussion when they happen. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have always disliked the creation of stub articles for recurring events that have not happened yet. However, I agree that a speedy delete is not the right way to go on this... I would propose merger instead. An article like: Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013 should start off as a short paragraph contained in the broader Junior Eurovision Song Contest article... as more information about the upcoming event becomes available, it can be expanded into a section ... and eventually get hived off into its own article. The same would be true for articles on annual sporting events. So... I think a stronger sub-policy for Crystal would be a great idea... we should have some guidance on where draw the line... After all, there is a reasonable expectation that there will still be a Winter Olympics in 12 years time... but it would be ridiculous for Wikipedia to have a "place-holder" stub article for the 2024 Winter Olympics at this time. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we do have 2024 Summer Olympics :) - but there has been genuine coverage of it and far in advance, like all Olympics. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Also note that there will never be a 2024 Winder Olympics, as the Winter Olympics have been moved to a two year offset from the summer games. There is, however, a 2022 Winter Olympics article that has plenty of reliable sources and information. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Continued ...

... on Jimbo's talk page. (Note that there was an announcement of another major Amazon investment in Wikia on 30 November 2012.) Andreas JN466 07:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If an electronic-only publication is cited as a secondary source, how is it decided whether or not it should be taken seriously as a reliable source? There's definitely a privileging of print sources over electronic when it comes to reviewers questioning references; how do I support the source? Alexa rankings? Longevity? Business capital behind it? I need some pointers here. It's unusual for a book to be questioned as a reliable source, apparently, but blogs/emagazines aren't given the benefit of the doubt if the reviewer hasn't heard of them before. Guidelines? OttawaAC (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a particular article in mind? The documented "strict" approach is WP:SPS but if it's uncontentious and non-promotional info, existing (and good in my opinion) practice is to take a more relaxed approach and just make a subjective call about whether the info is correct and useful/relevant to the article. Policies like SPS were mostly developed around contentious political articles, BLP's, and so forth, and they necessarily exclude a lot of stuff that readers would consider informative (as a way of stopping endless fights, and avoiding doing possible damage to BLP article subjects). For something like "number of pins on such-and-such microprocessor", careful policy adherence should only come into play if there's an actual disagreement. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You look to see what editorial practices the electronic source uses. It also helps if other reliable sources have referenced the electronic one as a good source. If the people involved are also considered experts in their field, that is good too. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh wait, I think I mis-read your question. I thought you were asking about sites like hackaday.com, which are about electronics (microprocessors etc.) Anyway see WP:RS for the whole story, and use WP:RSN if there's a disagreement. But in general, as before, stricter adherence generally goes with more controversial or vulnerable (BLP) topics. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for pointing out the pertinent policy docs! OttawaAC (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Online magazines aren't self-published if they're proper magazines (e.g., with a separation between the writers and the people who decide whether the writing gets published), like Salon.com.

When people say that something is being "cited as a secondary source", I've reached a point of assuming they're wrong. So just in case you haven't seen it, this is a general reminder that WP:Secondary does not mean independent, and that you are permitted to WP:USEPRIMARY sources (carefully). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

While I don't want to get this discussion sidetracked, I do see sites like io9 that call themselves a blog, but they do have editors and some sort of review where the content does get vetted. I have seen some knee jerk reactions where this particular source is yanked out of articles simply because it is considered a blog... and I don't think it necessarily is the same as a solo website that is just one person musing, sort of like the Chaos Manor Blog by Jerry Pournelle. This is an issue that needs a little more work as increasingly there are some sources of information like io9 that have some useful information that could be put into some articles but some overly zealous editors are removing these links and declaring them as unreliable sources purely because of the assumption that a blog is automatically unreliable. I do think that something which has editorial review should be at least considered for reliability. On the other hand, sources like examiner.com can appear to look like a reliable source, but extensive discussion (and not just that one link) would suggest otherwise.

I even got into a couple discussions a while ago about "official blogs" that are sometimes done by companies who try to interact with their fans/customers a little more closely. An example of this is the Telsa Motors blog that arguably could be called a series of more casually written press released, as they do represent official communications from the company. Admittedly they are primary sources that need to be used judiciously, but to throw them out as unreliable and that they can't be used in article development is contrary to policy as well.

This isn't as cut and dried as you would think, where your first reaction on a site may not necessarily be correct. There definitely is a blurring of what would normally be considered a reliable source, and is a sort of continuum of reliability from flat out unreliable sources to something that would generally be considered rock solid reliable such as an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. I would call io9 in this context more reliable than a personal blog and certainly examiner.com, but less reliable than the LA Times or the Washington Post and those less reliable than Science, Nature, or the New England Journal of Medicine.

As for where to weigh the sources and their quality, raise the issue on the talk page of the respective article you are editing. Usually there are some people who do have a clue about the industry the topic is related to (for a person, a product, or a company especially) and is best resolved on that talk page when possible. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard should, in my own opinion, be reserved for those situations where the talk page simply doesn't resolve the issue and consensus isn't achieved. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This brings up a good point is that the quality of sourcing of a source will vary depending on the field the article is in. io9 - a news-blog style site which covers science fiction-related topics include real-world creations that approach what we once thought was science fiction - is likely suitably fine for articles on science fiction works and television shows and other contemporary cultural articles - but I wouldn't dare use them if they were discussing an interesting medical device (say a new type of artificial heart) on an article about medicine or health, especially if they were the only source reporting it; mostly because I would expect the quality of sourcing requirements for those class of articles to be higher than for contemporary culture ones. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello all, There is a discussion at ANI about the use of primary sources and birth dates. One user had added a bunch of birth dates, sourced to a reliable primary source. That is against our BLP policy WP:BLPPRIMARY which specifically says

"Do not use public records that include personal details, such as 
date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, 
and home or business addresses." 

(Emphasis added)

Clearly the intent is to protect privacy, but given that dates of birth are common elements in most paper encyclopedias, this seems a bit restrictive. I'm hoping to either A) get a deeper appreciation for the justification of this or B) get consenosus to remove "date of birth" from that element of BLPPRIMARY. I'll post a link to this discussion on the BLP talk page. Hobit (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The primary source cited at the ANI discussion is "U.S. Public Records Index." I have some experience with this from my family tree research on Ancestry.com, and I've been less than impressed with its accuracy. It's also something of a black box because you can't actually get to view the underlying data. Here's what Ancestry.com has to say about it: "The U.S. Public Records Index is a compilation of various public records spanning all 50 states in the United States from 1950 to 1993. These records are all accessible to the general public by contacting the appropriate agency. Ancestry.com has simply made the process of finding certain public records easier by making them available in an online searchable database." And then this caveat: "As Ancestry.com is neither the author nor the compiler of the data in its indexes, we cannot assume responsibility for the accuracy of this information. Please exercise caution when judging the accuracy of data in the U.S. Public Records Index. Some addresses and telephone numbers are invalid and birthdates may be inaccurate as well." So its reliability is a more pertinent question than its status as a primary source. postdlf (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm fine with not allow a non-RS of course. The reliability of ancestry.com is, I think, independent of the policy issue I'd like to raise. As policy reads (and is being implemented) we wouldn't allow a primary source to be used for date of birth even if it was 100% reliable. Hobit (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know that my answer is narrower than you intended, but I think the question really hinges less on "primary" vs. "secondary" and more on the nature of the source we're talking about--the source's relative privacy or accessibility and its reliability. Newspapers, for example, are considered in some contexts to be primary sources, but I don't think many WP editors would reject a newspaper article as a source for a birth date or age.

    To go back to the BLP policy language, I note that it says about primary sources generally to use them with caution, but says not to use "public records" at all, a mere subset of primary sources. Do you have a problem with a restriction on public records, and if so, which public records do you think we should use and why? Or do you think we are too restrictive with primary sources as a whole? postdlf (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The rationale is that public records frequently include information which is not just DoB - and for us to link to, say, addresses would, in fact, potentially lead to privacy violations (or SWATting of celebrity homes etc.). Sources which only have DoB, moreover, may link to the "wrong person" which is also poor for an encyclpedia. So we simply trust that a proper reliable source will provide the information at some point, and if they don't - then they likely felt the data was of minimal value. Which t generally is. Collect (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that the material quoted above is relates only to the use of primary sources for birth dates. This is not the only guidance about birth dates in WP:BLP. It also states (in part): "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year". In other words, we should not be adding dates of birth at all, unless they are widely reported (or published by the subject themselves), and only then if the person is notable (eg do not put dates of birth for spouses, etc). I suggest people who do not understand the rationale for this read WP:BLP in full. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with what Delicious carbuncle says above. From nearly six years of personal experience in the BLP trenches and involvement in the OTRS BLP/Quality queue, we get personal stats such as exact birhdate wrong more often than I think most editors realize. The most BLP compliant option is also the most parsimonious one: If in doubt, leave it out. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• The exact DOB is almsot always unencyclopedic info, and it's useful for identity theft. We should generally not publish it unless it's clearly encyclopedic, i.e. its notability is documented by secondary sources. In the case of very famous people I wouldn't get too worked up about it, but for the less famous it's a privacy invasion. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Biographies need birth dates and death dates. Wikipedia demands accuracy. If an accurate birth date can be found in public records, it should be used in a biography. The argument that Wikipedia reproducing publicly available public records information is somehow "an aid to identity theft" is specious. Carrite (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "Biographies need birth dates and death dates" is itself specious, since BLP's by definition don't have death dates, and we have plenty of perfectly good ones without birth dates. A claim that the DOB is relevant to the biography has to be backed by secondary sources just like any other disputed content in a BLP. The argument that "[t]he argument that Wikipedia reproducing publicly available public records information is somehow 'an aid to identity theft' is specious" is also specious. If we could find the person's home address, mothers' maiden name, social security number, etc. in public records, putting that in the article would obviously assist identity theft, so we don't do it. It's an absolutely central theme in BLP policy that not everything in public records is encyclopedic. Wikipedia biographies are not dossiers. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Most biographies do not need birth dates and death dates. We have a lot of biographies for relatively minor authors, professors, business people, and entertainers. Who cares exactly what date Bob Author was born on? The year might be useful for placing him in a social context (e.g., identifying him as a baby boomer), but only an astrologer will view Bob Author differently if his birthdate is announced as April 5th instead of May 23rd. IMO we ought to far more strictly enforce the rules about omitting exact dates for living people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Anyway, why is this discussion happening here instead of WT:BLP? 66.127.54.40 (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Some links:
  • [13] "Birth-date blues can cost with identity theft" / "Your birthday could lose you everything. Too often a date of birth is all that an organisation asks as a security check to confirm your identity."
  • [14] "Online information about your date of birth and place of birth could allow identity thieves to guess your Social Security number, according to a paper by two Carnegie Mellon researchers."[15]
  • [16] "Using a variety of methods, criminals steal Social Security numbers, driver's licenses, credit card numbers, ATM cards, telephone calling cards, and other pieces of individuals' identities such as date of birth.
  • [17] "Some states, like Massachusetts, have lax procedures for distributing birth certificates. The bottom line: your complete birthday (e.g., March 12, 1984) is one of the valuable pieces of sensitive personal data which identity thieves can (and do) use."
  • [18] "Your name, date of birth, address, credit card, Social Insurance Number (SIN) and other personal identification numbers can be used to open credit card and bank accounts, redirect mail, establish cellular phone service, rent vehicles, equipment, or accommodation, and even secure employment."
  • [19] "Access to your social networking page — Where you might give away your date of birth and enough information for him or her to guess your PIN and passwords." is given as #3 on list of items sought by identity thieves.
  • [20] ... These robbers typically start by using theft or deception to learn a person's Social Security number, date of birth or other personal information. Armed with those details, the perpetrators can open credit card accounts, make purchases, take out loans, or make counterfeit checks and ATM cards in your name.

The above came from the first page of google hits on "date of birth" "identity theft". I think the folks here claiming DOB is irrelevant to identity theft have a WP:RANDY problem. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That's ironic, I think that people who illogically get all worked up about Wikipedia editors repeating publicly-available birthdate information and then positing that this is the lynchpin of some grave identity theft crisis as if they are security experts have a WP:RANDY problem... Carrite (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Carrite, given all those links I don't understand why you expect anyone to think you have any credibility on the subject. Here from the fbi.gov site is the Assistant Director of the FBI Criminal Investigative Division saying similar things to the Senate Judiciary Committee: "[i]dentity theft takes many forms, but generally includes the acquiring of an individual’s personal information such as Social Security number, date of birth...". It appears to have been prepared testimony, which means every word was vetted for relevance by CID managers and lawyers, rather than something off the cuff. And Bruce Schneier mentions criminal gangs breaking into homes looking for (among other things) DOB's.([21] p. 14) I just don't see the slightest grounds for listening to you instead of to those guys. The very concept that anyone should, sounds like something directly from WP:BOISE.

Obviously leaving the DOB out of a WP biography won't stop an advanced persistent threat from getting the info, but that's not the idea. Locking your house when you go out won't even stop a doofus with a screwdriver, but that doesn't make it sensible to leave it unlocked. Having some friction in these places is a good thing, as it slows down the doofuses and gets them to turn their attention elsewhere. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• • If it's already in easily-accessable public records, why would our publication of said information be harmful? Anyone looking for it can already find it. So even if it is harmful, it's no worse than what it was before. And as to why I started the discussion here, well it was suggested at ANI that having it here would create a wider bit of discussion and I agreed with that idea. There is a link to hear from WP:BLP's talk page though... Hobit (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Easily-accessible is a relative term. Wikipedia is easier to access than almost anything. Therefore, almost anything else is not easily-accessible relative to Wikipedia, and in the case of this type of info we keep it that way. And contra to Ryan Vesey at ANI, birth certificates are not in general public records. The whole birther phenomenon revolved around that. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I have to agree. All of the stuff, or most of it, I get from the web, so I could just write Article title see here for details. A lot of the stuff takes a while to find, and takes a lot of grains of salt to figure out which information to include and which not. We do that work for the reader, and provide a link to where we got it so they can check it their self. And the stuff that comes from books, it is rare that the reader is going to have easy access to that book. Apteva (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

primary sources are fine for material not likely to be contested, and birth dates are normally in that category, though of course there are exceptions. We omit the exact date when we are requested to do so for living people, except for famous people when it is widely known. I think that is sufficient. The only part that concerns me is when people list on sources related to them the birth dates of their minor children. They have of course a legal right to do so, but I think we should be more protective. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, deleting birth dates of minor children is a major pet peeve of mine. Children of notable people have a hard enough time without us making it worse. Even the Obama children, for example, and the other Presidents before, such as Chelsea, Barbara, Jenna, etc (except that Wikipedia did not exist back then). In fact, I see no reason to include birth dates of minors at all, even when that minor is notable, such as the 16 yr old Justin Bieber, but I know that I would be out voted on that issue. Apteva (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• do not support any change of policy that would allow primary sources for personal information. 1) While the exact date of birth may be a typical piece of information in an encyclopedia article, how is it actually of any use or value? the year of birth, yes, but exact date, no. 2) allowing any primary source for the birth date will get things like court filings being used and that is a whole nuther can of bad worms we should not be encouraging. The actual value is minimal and the potential harm is great.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  I've seen that point of view in several places now, and it strikes me as being extremely dogmatic. A few months ago in a somewhat related issue I pointed out the implications of this; unless we had people like Gao Wenqian (demonstrative, not exhaustive), we'd be slaves to propping up Chinese propaganda bullshit about Liu Xiaobo or the Tiananmen Square massacre as fact while simultaneously not being able to mention someone's conviction on international charges of ethnic cleansing. It's the same basic problem here; although we hear about the periodic complaints from individuals, the fact is the vast majority of the time someone's birth date isn't a source of controversy, and by adhering to a blanket one-size-fits-all policy we're depriving ourselvs of the ability to give very basic information about a subject. Beyond that, I essentially agree with DGG on all his points above, so I won't repeat them here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just to support what DGG said and I see no reason not to use a reliably referenced date of birth for notable subjects. One of the problems is finding a reliable link to show that the primary source actually relates to the subject, which may need a secondary source! but that should not rule out using the primary source. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Commons categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted as not relevant to Wikipedia. Apteva (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

At present our policy on signatures in non-Latin characters is that editors with names in non-Latin character sets are "encouraged" to add Latin characters as a courtesy to other users. I really think that should be upgraded to a mandatory requirement. (Wild notions dept.: possibly even to the point where the signature settings would warn you if your signature doesn't contain at least one Latin word, but I'm sure somebody would find a reason to balk at that.)

Please note that I'm not suggesting that we ban non-Latin names. (That's a bad idea; see much previous discussion.) — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A somewhat related issue (where people cannot communicate with a user due to their name and a MediaWiki problem) was discussed at VPT here (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that this presumes that users know, or care, or would even be bothered to, customize their signatures. Requiring a subset of users, especially those who may not know English all that well (because many of our non-Latin users are SUL users from other Wikipedias) to figure out how to customize their sigs, just isn't realistic. --Jayron32 04:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I don't think that it's practical to require every SUL user to change their signature upon arrival, no. However, I think that it should be the case that if a user asks you in good faith to add a Latin component to your signature, you should have to. At present, there's a loophole; even as an administrator, I can't require someone to modify their signature in that way. Making it so that any editor, not just administrators, is entitled to ask, would reduce the amount of administrative overhead (i.e., having to go find an administrator to tell someone to change their signature). If they declined, then enforcement could be requested. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Before we discuss how to ram this down people's throats it might be good to discuss why we would want to in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Because it makes no sense to leave a loophole that could conceivably be used at a future date by a person to justify making it difficult for other editors to interact with them. I'm far from the first person to propose something like this. (E.g.: 1, 2.) — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't make rules that inconvenience well meaning people just to stop hypothetical future people who may or may not use "loopholes" to disrupt Wikipedia. People being disruptive are blocked for being disruptive. There's no need for this additional rule. --Jayron32 18:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That somebody, any participant on Wikipedia, may suggest and encourage a user to add a Latin component... I'm fine with that. That is even in the guideline. To require, coerce, suggest that they may be banned or to use any sort of threat of any kind that they must change the signature and that they are required to have a Latin component? Absolutely not! You should not have to do anything at all, even if you are participating in a multitude of discussions and have tens of thousands of edits. Admins especially shouldn't be forcing this down anybody's throat or even using some tool of some kind to make the change on behalf of that user. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You should not have to do anything at all... because? I'm here to discuss this, but just "no no no" isn't very illuminating. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)]

Why "forcing" a user to do this? In a project being run by volunteers, this is a pretty lousy way to treat those same volunteers and to piss them off to the point that they don't even both with future contributions. Coercion never works in terms of regulating behavior. This is also a situation where instead of a person committing an act (such as vandalism, sock puppetry, or engaging in an edit war), the person is guilty of inaction and failure to actually perform some sort of act. Such things should never be a part of a volunteer project, ever. Wikipedia doesn't even require users to log in for editing, why should they be "forced" to create some sort of standardized signature? --Robert Horning (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between interacting with someone appearing as a string of numbers in your native alphabet and as someone appearing as a string of symbols that you have no idea how to pronounce, let alone type. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you feel comfortably if in Arabic Wikipedia, after you show up to fix an interwiki link, you get a message in Arabic on your talk page, and next time you show up in a year to fix another interwiki link you find yourself blocked?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I've had messages in other languages before. You know what I do when I get them? I read them. Anyway, your example doesn't even make sense. Why would someone request a signature change from someone who had never used their signature in a discussion? If you're not specifically referring to a signature policy, well, that's what's under discussion here. Incidentally, we're in a privileged situation here. The Latin script is so widely read that it's unlikely that another language project will have sufficient difficulty in reading Latin user names to the point that they need to formulate a policy. Possible, but unlikely. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't really see a case as having been made that the proposed rule would even be a net benefit, let alone a case strong enough to justify compelling users to comply. In fact, I think it is likely to be less confusing if the user name and the name used in the signature at least in some way reflect each other. Monty₈₄₅ 04:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• This seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem. Has this been a problem lately that we need a policy-solution to it? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the need. Legoktm (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• That's what I was getting at in my first post. Show us the problem before you present a rather draconian solution to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Solutions in search of problems lead to instruction creep and a more complicated/hard to use encyclopedia. Solution to actual problems, on the other hand, (hopefully) improve the encyclopedia. So unless there is an actual problem... --– Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • "Hard to use" is the status quo, as described excellently in the following comment by WhatamIdoing. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'm just not sure what problem we're trying to solve here. If you need to address the user by name, then use cut and paste. If you need links to the person's userpages, then find the name in the page history. I've never found myself unable to do my work because of someone else's username.
  You should also think about what you mean by "mandatory". The only true "mandatory" situations are (1) the software won't let you, and (2) we'll block you if you do. Do you really want to block people over this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If you need to address the user by name, then use cut and paste. If you need links to the person's userpages, then find the name in the page history. I do hope you're not paid to design software. Do you really want to block people over this? That was implied by the word mandatory, which you saw fit to explain back to me. Honestly, are you this condescending to everybody? — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not certain i fully support Hex's proposal, but there is actually a problem with non-Latin signatures, to answer those who have questioned if this is just a solution with no problem. There are those people who verbalise as they read in order to facilitate understanding; if there is no way to verbalise a word (in this case a signature, indicating who is speaking), it becomes difficult to know what is being said (in this case, who holds which opinion). To use a simile, it is like when i read a Russian novel ~ i have to make a vague stab at the names, and sometimes i need to go back and see if the character i have just come across is the same one who performed a particular action earlier. Just so, reading a long discussion, coming across a non-Latin signature is quite disruptive, making it substantially more difficult to follow the argument. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  The question here is if providing a Latin alternative is something which should be required of volunteer contributors to Wikipedia, noting that the only enforcement mechanism is to either force the issue by either banning/blocking users or having an admin (or some other new user class with a change to the MediaWiki software) make this change arbitrarily on behalf of that user... with the potential for such a forced change to misinterpret the meaning of that non-Latin signature. If you don't understand the characters being used, I'd suggest a bit of education is more in order on the part of those who lack familiarization with those alternative characters used in other languages. I don't even have a problem with people raising a concern or entering a reply on talk pages or discussion forums in a non-English language (including non-Latin characters). This is assuming good faith, where there are options like Wiki Embassies or something like Google Translate that can at least help out those trying to express their opinions in a language they are more comfortable with. I've used this good will to communicate to other Wikimedia projects in the past when I don't write in that language (or at least not very well), and I expect the same in return here on en.wikipedia. The Wikimedia projects are multi-lingual where a vast majority of the content is not in English and much of it in non-Latin characters I might add as well. This proposal smacks hard against that tradition and treats those who come here occasionally with contempt or fails to even touch on the issues of why somebody has a non-Latin user names. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a monthly contest (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links#DAB Challenge leaderboard) to see who can fix the most links to disambiguation pages. I would like to offer a small but meaningful cash prize to whoever wins next month's contest, and I would like to make sure that the community does not consider this to be a violation of any policies. I do not think that it should be considered "paid editing" because the prize would be based solely on the number of errors fixed, without seeking to promote the editing of any particular article, or imposing any particular point of view. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Volume does not always equal quality. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

True, but we already have internal controls for that (the contest has been going on for several years now, and continues whether a tangible prize is offered or not). Cheers! bd2412 T 12:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

So why does it merit a cash prize now? Leaky Caldron 12:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the question isn't "should he do it?", but "if he were to do it, would it run afoul of the paid editing or other policies?" (unless the reason behind it might change its violation status). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No worser than the Wikipedia:Bounty board. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I see no issue given the nature of the idea (no COI seems possible) and think it a wonderful gesture. Very kind.Hobit (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• I also would have no problem with the proposed prize. Clearly this is on the approved side of the massive paid editing grey area, but as it still touches it, there are likely to be a be a few objections. Either way, there is no policy that would prohibit it. Monty₈₄₅ 21:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• I do not think it violates any policy but I personally would find such situation unhealthy. I think a much better move would be to give the winner(s) a barnstar and add some personal words, or possibly offer a non-monetary prize like a pen or a calendar.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that there is no way in hell I would ever give my actual name and address to "some guy on Wikipedia" (which I would have to do in order to collect the cash prize).. I think I will pass. Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that BD2412 would allow you to redirect your prize to the WMF if you preferred.

(I wonder whether we could hire people through Amazon Mechanical Turk for tedious tasks?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

First, hey, I am not "some guy on Wikipedia", I'm bd2412. I've been hanging around here for seven years (and have a half-million Wikimedia-wide edits to show for it). The details of the prizewinning I'd work out with the winners. I suppose I'd be fine buying something off of a wishlist on some retailer's website, which protects the anonymity of the recipient. Barnstars are nice, but cash is cash. However, the sole point of my inquiry here is to insure that this intended act adheres to everyone's understanding of policy. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like the idea of cash for editing. But consensus seems to be otherwise. -- ypnypn (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Like ypnypn I'm also against this type of thing, but as with ypnypn I'm apparently in a minority. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not a fan of cash for editing either, and in response to "No worser than the Wikipedia:Bounty board", Money for that editing goes to the foundation not to the person who does the editing, a much different thing. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

We will see how it works out. The contest for which I'm offering a prize is in February. bd2412 T 01:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I received a spam email advertising the services of this company: https://www.wiki-pr.com/ Apparently what they do is they charge companies money to create and maintain wikipedia pages about their companies Is there anything that can be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.129.99 (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"Every page we’ve created for our clients remains on Wikipedia exactly how the client envisioned it." Obviously, they don't follow WP:OWN, even though they insist that they hold to our rules. Can we get an injunction against people like this for soiling our good name? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how they can live up to such a claim, unless the articles they create are extremely low in traffic and non-noticeable (and thus not very useful for their clients) they will at some point experience changes from other editors. It seems like empty advertisement rhetoric to me. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Freelance writers and editors, or heck, even salaried writers and editors, don't make a lot of money at what they do. Kind of like all the aspiring singers, artists, athletes, and so on in the world. Making a good living at it is not easy. Lots of gifted writers get paid peanuts. Supply and demand. Even if this sort of attempt to game the WP editing process took off, it would wind up being undercut by massive competition in short order. (Visual editor is coming.) Proving that you could somehow draw extra eyeballs to a WP article would be more of a selling point than claiming that you can leave an article's original PR copy untouched (unedited generally = unviewed/unread). Just my two cents worth. OttawaAC (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

For myself, I have been approached by and have talked with several organizations about writing Wikipedia articles about their organizations. While I haven't been paid for such efforts, I do try to explain Wikipedia's mission and especially go into the role of the 5 pillars. Trying to explain NPOV policy seems to be the toughest part, although I have turned down some requests simply because I thought the organizations failed WP:NOTE. If there is a group which is trying to help out in a public relations situation in regards to writing up something that generally follows Wikipedia rules, I don't have a problem with it. I do know that there are some in the Wikipedia community which have a huge problem with paid edits (Jimmy Wales in particular), so I'll try to leave that can of worms alone.

One thing that does disturb me though is how the leadership page of their website has their "Vice President of Operations" claim to be somebody who has volunteers for years with the Wikimedia Foundation... as if he was a former employee. I think that is stretching the truth quite a bit, unless he actually did volunteer in the Wikimedia office more directly. I have volunteered to be an editor on Wikipedia, but I don't consider myself to be a "volunteer editor for the Wikimedia Foundation". Heck, I have been editing here since before there was a Wikimedia Foundation. --Robert Horning (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The whole line of business is basically dishonest, so I would not be at all surprised if they were just lying or grossly exaggerating. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

One peculiar thing is their emphasis on keeping their clients' identities secret -- most PR/marketing firms try to publicize their client list. I can't figure out the reason for that, unless they don't want to draw vandals to the articles of their clients by publicizing their identities...they must not have the resources to deal with that. I'm just guessing, though. OttawaAC (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

If we knew which pages they wrote, the pages would end up at AFD and the authors' accounts would be blocked for spamming. We don't have a policy that supports that behavior, but that's what would actually happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What is dishonest, lying, or grossly exaggerated with what they are claiming on the web site? I think it is in part a condemnation of the current caustic nature of the editorial process on Wikipedia that punishes amateurs and new contributors severely for minor mistakes and assumes bad faith on the part of their contributions. That you may need the services of a full-time professional writer to navigate through some of the arcane rules of Wikipedia in order to get an article about your business to stick may even be somewhat reasonable given what I've seen on Wikipedia lately. The process of creating a new article is increasingly bureaucratic. I've been in edit wars over redlinks where the assumption is that if the article doesn't exist, there shouldn't be a redlink at all due to a lack of notability... otherwise there would be an article written about that topic. Every single article I've tried to start in the past couple of years has gone through an AfD process and often been PROD'd within three minutes of its creation. Not one has ever been actually deleted either, but I had to scramble with finding more sources rather than simply making a stub.

Guaranteeing that the "page will stick" (aka it will survive an AfD review) seems like a prudent claim to make. People who are experienced editors here on Wikipedia could likely tell inside of about five minutes if there is enough material about a company to justify that it is notable or not. A brand new start-up with no PR efforts would likely be advised by this company to not even bother with their services yet. Working with a client to dig up facts about a company, to find details... especially press releases and news articles about a company or other organization that can correct inaccuracies, that sounds like a really good service to be performing. That is good not just for their client but also for Wikipedia.

Seriously, it sounds like there are some people who are bent out of shape simply because somebody else is getting paid to do stuff for Wikipedia and they aren't. The service being provided here is to make sure the pages aren't perceived as spam, and that factual errors like the BS which John Seigenthaler had to go through (and prompted the creation of the BLP policy) doesn't happen to the clients of this particular service. If you don't like seeing services like this pop up, Wikipedia needs to become much more new user friendly. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The AfD tags don't get applied consistently, and in practise, I've found that some of the ways that make articles sticky are to cite at least 3 sources, preferably with one of them from a large newspaper, an academic journal, and/or another encyclopedia (or similar pubication). Those types of sources aren't realistic for every notable topic, but in practise, that's what's needed to evade a speedy delete. What's contradictory about that is that it isn't necessary to have at least 3 reliable sources cited, not according to WP policy. In years past, many articles were written and kept with no sources cited whatsoever. Standards seem to have changed over the years, or at least editors' expectations have been raised.

Interestingly, I know I've written (or substantially expanded) an article in a good way not when it "sticks" or remains unchanged, but rather, when other editors jump in and make changes to improve it. It shows that I've written something in a way that invites editors to read it, take an interest in the topic, and contribute to the article. And the article ends up improving with the other contributions. It also means the article is updated and essentially monitored against vandalism by more editors. Volunteers, I might add. Collaboration still beats paid PR hacks, IMO.OttawaAC (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

By definition any article that hasn't been written yet is something that hasn't been considered in the past and doesn't have a "community of volunteers" who are editing that article. That would imply it is unlikely to get right away, if ever, a large group of people to jump in and start to edit the article. I have had larger articles I've written get some of the ancillary kinds of editors jumping in though, including people who perform spell checks, assign categories, and do other cleanup around Wikipedia. Stubs typically don't get that to happen but more substantial articles are much more likely to see stuff like that go on.

Emergent technologies and topics, for example a small start-up that has a huge fan base but hasn't really hit mainstream media yet, those kind of topics tend to be real problematic as editors strain to find reliable sources to justify the article. I have seen some of these kind of topics end up having the number of sources available explode over time when news media finally recognize the idea. Wikipedia itself is a good example of how that happened, where for awhile nobody noticed and then suddenly it seemed like it was on the news everywhere and even being referenced in popular culture like fiction in books, television, or in comic strips.

BTW, I would agree that some professional staff working with public relations officers of a company can cross the line and go overboard and be overly protective to the point of WP:OWN and other similar kinds of problems. It is a fine line between simply offering assistance to help improve the quality of an article and correct legitimate errors to going all out and simply pushing a particular POV by having a sanitized article free of any criticism. I have seen some Wikipedians who are long-time editors who have offered reasonable advise to would-be public relations people trying to fix Wikipedia articles. It is something where you need to tread lightly if the article is about you or the company you represent. Still, I'm suggesting that this particular company could still have a niche market and serve as a valuable kind of professional service that is needed for a company that wants to have a properly vetted article on Wikipedia. This shouldn't be feared by the Wikipedia community but rather be encouraged so far as people who are doing something like this professionally shouldn't be afraid to discuss that they do this kind of thing on their user page and that edits they perform, as long as they are cooperative with other editors and abide by general Wikipedia guidelines, should not have a knee jerk reaction to revert or even delete those edits. --Robert Horning (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

so, is there anything we can do to protect wikipedia against these unscrupulous professional spammers? 147.188.129.99 (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to have convinced anyone that a person who is paid to type "Widgets Inc is a Ruritanian company that uses unobtanium to produce widgets" is an "unscrupulous professional spammer", whereas a volunteer who does the same thing is perfectly acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, you don't seem to have read these people's website. I am simply pointing out the obvious: this violates the WP:COI and WP:OWN policies. And I am wondering what (if anything) we can do to protect wikipedia against these unscrupulous professional spammers. 147.188.129.99 (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have, and I don't see the problem. They offer a money-back guarantee if their work gets reverted. What's OWNing about that? "Every page we’ve created for our clients remains on Wikipedia exactly how the client envisioned it"—so? That sounds like a plain old statement of fact to me, and if what their client envisions happens to be what we envision, then there's absolutely no problem with this state of affairs.

There is nothing unscrupulous about being paid to do what we would have done anyway, if only anyone cared and had the extra time to write these articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you've read it?

Look at some of the stuff just from the front page:

• "tells your story the way you want it told" => WP:POV
• "we manage your page 24 hours a day to safeguard it from changes that tarnish your brand" => WP:OWN
• this paid service => WP:COI

147.188.129.99 (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"Is there anything that can be done about this? " - yes, the same thing we do about all kinds of NPOV and spam and COI. Be on constant vigilance. revert-rephrase-and-supplement-all-appropriate-views-with-additional-sources. warn, block and then ban those who cannot edit within Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Any other measures that would be made to try to ensure NPOV editing would also certainly result in you as an IP no longer being able to edit.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

and if you want to get all mavericky, you can conduct your own sting - pretend to be interested in their services and then goad them into doing something inappropriate that you can then get them for false advertising and get your money back. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That is of course if this company or some other similar group really is a bunch of spammers and not simply responsible Wikipedia editors simply trying to offer their services professionally and really do understand WP:FIVE and other similar policies. This discussion started out with an assumption of bad faith here, and seems to be more from the perspective that some people are upset that others are getting paid to do what they are doing for free. That some participants of Wikipedia are against anybody making a profit off of Wikipedia should also be apparent as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

What is prompting me to start this policy discussion is an AfD over an article I just created, and the ongoing debate that I am having with the AfD proposer and myself. I also want to state here "for the record" that I am not trying to do forum shopping, and I expect that AfD will be evaluated and be dealt with as per policy and by intelligent people dealing with the situation in due course.

The issue I have is that the AfD proposer basically suggested that almost any article that is created on Wikipedia should be started in the User namespace until it is polished and "ready for prime time". I think that is not only a silly argument, but it is also contrary to established policy. That for some people new to Wikipedia it might be useful to have some mentors who can guide you through the process of creating a new Wikipedia article, I believe the AfC process can and ought to be an optional system, not something mandatory.

I'll also note that for 100% of the articles that I've started over the past 3-4 years, each and every one of them has been slapped with an AfD (most of them even PROD'd for a speedy delete). I have also had a 100% survival rate for all of those articles where the nomination for deletion was overturned and kept. That is a waste of not only my time but the admins and others who are participating in the AfD process. I don't start these articles until I know there are sufficient sources and otherwise I think they actually merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

All I'm asking is for a little bit of breathing room when starting a new article.... so I can actually put in the references I've found and to actually write the article. I don't think this should be happening in my user space, but if that is what the consensus of those who participate here on Wikipedia want... I'm willing to go through the steps to make that formal policy so that anything added to the main namespace which doesn't fit a B class article or better should be speedy deleted or userfied. That seems to be the standard I'm seeing here too. I'm not trying to be disruptive here, but should article creation in the main namespace be a thing of the past? --Robert Horning (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it is important that the article Golden Spike Company be pointed out, because that's the biggest thing here: it is, pretty much, WP:CRYSTAL until Dec. 6th, especially as the article talks about rumors and speculation of what the Dec 6 announcement may be. It's nothing about being ready for prime time, it is about putting in information of limited verifyability prematurely. If the rumors are true and the announcement as set for the 6th goes through, I'm sure it will be fine and notable and no problems for retention, but this is a case that I personally would have developed the article in user space and only moved to main once details were confirmed on the 6th.

In any other case, about established companies or facts that CRYSTAL doesn't apply, you're absolutely right that someone slapping an AFD immediately on a mainspace article that is still undergoing development is assuming bad faith. But this is not the same case. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In the case of this particular article, I was a little bit hesitant at writing the article until I noticed that there were some pretty big names that were coming out in terms of writing articles about this company and that perhaps there were already enough reliable sources with enough information to create a stub of an article.

I feel that such a discussion could certainly have happened on the talk page first, rather than trying to turn it into an AfD discussion. Being much more friendly and assuming good faith, the suggestion to userfy until December 6th could have even been a good one. That wasn't done, and indeed I don't think an attempt to even read the article references was even done. The assumption was that such an article simply shouldn't exist period and even suggesting that the press conference was a total lark that wouldn't ever happen. I have some "inside knowledge" about this company (no COI here... I just know some people who know some people) that this company is going to be a big deal... so I am also trying to get an early start on the article before the big rush of editors comes. I expect even that by Friday this particular article is going to need semi or full protection from editing. In other words, the AfD is going to be a huge bitch slap on the face of Wikipedia by dozens of news organizations and casual readers saying WTF about the AfD.

Regardless, this isn't the first time I've encountered this situation, and it seems to be a precedent on Wikipedia. The knee jerk reaction to delete anything that isn't a B-class article or better is what I'm complaining about here. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding the statement " any article that is created on Wikipedia should be started in the User namespace until it is polished and "ready for prime time"." That is patently false. We encourage new and inexperienced users to avoid creating articles in the main space because it causes them to become very frustrated and hate Wikipedia. Since we don't want people to hate Wikipedia, we steer new users to use their user space to create "drafts" or use the optional WP:AFC review process. Both of these are fully optional. Indeed, to this day the vast majority of new articles are created straight up as articles in the main space. There's no policy, guideline, or anything else that says it shouldn't be so. However, all main space articles must be main space ready. If, as you say, you want "little bit of breathing room when starting a new article", then you should create it in your user space. Every article which is in the main space should meet the minimum standards. There's absolutely no requirement to create a userspace draft, but there is no special treatment given to any article in the main article space regarding who created it or how new it is. --Jayron32 23:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

By breathing room, I was implying that I needed a chance to actually enter the sources I was using for the information I was adding. That I was trying to build the article a little bit at a time.... write a little, save a little, write a little more. This is called article development. There is no reason why main space articles must appear in full form like Venus coming out of the sea with all of the references and sections fully filled out.

I understand the problems that new page patrolers do encounter so far as random garbage and gibberish being added, and that sometimes there is a desire to try and create articles for a neighborhood pet shop or their elementary school principal. Some care should be taken to beat up new users even in that situation though, where some sort of human interaction should be taking place rather than using automated tools that make it seem like some robot doesn't like you.

The breathing room I'm looking for is to actually write the article in the first place and actually put in some content. What I am seeing is the death of stubs as articles, that stubs can no longer be seriously considered for new article. I am also asking what those "minimum standards" really ought to be for new articles added to the main namespace? Should they include at least 3-4 reliable sources? Should they be multiple paragraphs long? Do they need to be formatted like a Wikipedia article with lots of hyperlinks and have many links to the article as well? What exactly are those "minimum standards" that should be met? I am seeing the standard so high here that it appears to me that the article should be a B-class article. Perhaps some flaws and things that need to be fixed, but still in pretty good shape. If I'm mistaken on this notion, please enlighten me! --Robert Horning (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. There is no requirement to create first in user space. What I do suggest is that the more references that an article has, the less likely it is to be proposed for deletion. So for new articles, having 3 or 4 references including at least one from a newspaper goes a long way to preventing calls for deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I was going to suggest focusing on improving the article instead of spending time trying to defend it, but it looks like it will be a keeper. If every article created by someone is being nominated for afd, it is true that creating them in user space is possible, but so also is simply creating them in notepad or a text editor, and then putting them onto the web when they are more developed. Some of the articles I have created, I just created a stub because they were clearly notable, others I have flushed out more before making them available. If it takes a lot of edits to create a flushed out article, they can all be made using preview instead of save, but there is a serious warning - computers crash and all of your edits can be lost if they are not saved or saved locally. I know because it has happened to me. Apteva (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to point out that it is a huge time waster to deal with an AfD instead of doing just as you have suggested... to simply work on the article and improve the content. An article that has been languishing for a couple of weeks without any subsequent edits or for an article that you do a quick Google search and can't find reliable soruces and sort of 'smells' like it won't possibly have any reliable sources to back it up.... I'd agree that there are some articles that do need to be quickly deleted as there is no possible hope that they will ever become a viable article for Wikipedia.

I do strongly disagree that you need to take your editing elsewhere first though. That gets back to my original point that there is a general sentiment among especially those who are regularly performing new page patrols that articles need to be completely flushed out and be at a B-class (more or less... perhaps start class) level of organization out of the first edit if that is done in the main article namespace. That is precisely the advise I'm being given here, and that is the advise that was given on the AfD. I think that is utterly absurd. As a matter of fact, when I see a huge edit of that nature as the first edit, I tend to think that some sort of copyright violation has taken place and very likely has.

The other issue, something raised in the above mentioned AfD, is that people who patrol new pages and consistently nominate AfDs for articles that likely don't need them rarely suffer any negative consequences. They run roughshod over a whole bunch of editors... some very experienced and can fight back as I have, and others who are brand new and are just trying to figure out Wikipedia for the first time. Contrary to what was said above, your experience on Wikipedia does matter in these situations where somebody new simply gives up and no longer edits the project. I know because I've interacted with those disgruntled former editors who couldn't figure out how to "game the system" to get their edits to stick. This is a very serious meta issue that does need to be addressed and what I'm seeing here is a lack of concern about what is happening to those who don't know how to fight back and make the proper arguments in places like AfD discussions.

I also think it is reasonable to wait a little bit for articles that are somewhat questionable but may have some potential. You shouldn't slap that AfD warning notice on an article in less than five minutes after the first edit, or in the case of the Golden Spike Company article it was just 20 minutes after the first edit. I had even made several edits after that first edit to show I was making continued progress on the article. I can't believe that nobody sees that as a concern and a problem. --Robert Horning (talk)

For certain there's a TROUT to Hell in a Basket here for nominating it so quickly after creation; I'm assuming that came out of NPP. There, those editors do need to use caution and look at edit time stamps: if as you said it was in 20 minutes of creation and you had at least one or two interviening edits, it was far too soon to slap a tag (it was certainly not going to go to a CSD). That's just bad judgement. However, say you did all the work you did on the article in a two hour block, and then didn't touch it for several hours; at that point, it is reasonable to assume that the 2hr version is as much as you can complete, and the worthiness of the article to be kept or not will be judged on that version. Because this falls into CRYSTAL territory, there is a strong chance it would be deleted. This is just a lesson learned for next time - if you know that CRYSTAL is going to come into play but will resolved "shortly", make the article in userspace, and then move to mainspace once CRYSTAL no longer applies (her in the case of Golden Spike, that could likely happen on Friday). Just remember that no one owns any content in mainspace, and it will be judged. We hope those judging use common sense on time it takes to edit articles but if you have any doubt, make it in userspace until you are sure that doubt is gone. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat, I am not trying to make this discussion about that particular article. I am trying to say that this is a consistent pattern for 100% of all articles I have ever tried to start on Wikipedia in the past several years. It is an issue where I don't think any article could possibly reach any possible standard of quality of any kind and that there are a whole bunch of people patrolling new articles that simply act to prevent any new articles from appearing. Just as seen by the above discussion, there seems to be consensus that articles can't be created in the main namespace any more. Creating an article in the main namespace implies that you edit a little, pause a little, research a little, actually use bathroom facilities once in awhile, and make a few mistakes along the way. In other words you are human. These are simply inhuman standards that need to be met where the article must be completely fleshed out and ready for an article review. In other words it must meet B-class standards in order for the article to remain. I don't even understand why a two hour break is necessarily a bad thing or why that kind of criteria must be met. A 24 hour period... perhaps. Certainly if it hasn't been edited for a week I might start to agree.

Had this particular reviewer said "look, I know you mean well and this is an interesting company, let's move this to your user space until December 6th".... I might have even agreed. There certainly were other options available. There is this really cool button that any long-time editor on Wikipedia can use, which is the page move tool. It is just as easy to move a page from the main article space into user space as it is to move it back. Instead all I got here was confrontation and being told I was an idiot and somebody not worthy of editing Wikipedia. I resent that and find that incredibly offensive. This kind of behavior is driving editors from Wikipedia and is a part of a much larger issue that needs to be addressed. It is the view that new articles are something to be destroyed and an utter contempt for what may appear to be a new editor. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Your approach to creating a new article ("you edit a little, pause a little, research a little, actually use bathroom facilities once in awhile, and make a few mistakes along the way") would be fine if it wasn't an open wiki. As soon as the new page is created, it is open game for anyone to edit, review, etc. Obviously yes, we don't want pages sent to AFD the instant they are created, but at the same time, there's a lot of potential for abuse of the open wiki system here (including COI and the like). If your method of editing is like as you described, I would strongly recommend doing the bulk of that in userspace - which is not reviewed like mainspace - until you've gotten most of the initial edits out of your system. If I'm going to create an article directly in mainspace, I will already have all the refs I need to substantiate the article as a valid topic for WP - it obviously won't be complete but it won't trigger any CSD and should avoid any other content policies. I get it to that initial state (not too long if the sources are in front of me already) and then I can take time to expand it without fear of AFD. On the other hand, recently I had an article where I had sources coming in but wasn't sure to the article's appropriateness, so there I started the article in userspace. A few days later I had then enough sources to justify the article and put it to mainspace without a problem.

I'm not disagreeing that we need to give new articles a bit of time to develop, but considering your experience (I've not reviewed anything else you've made), this seems like a "fool me one, fool me twice" situation - if you've had articles tagged for deletion so shortly after creation in mainspace but would later be kept appropriately after more sources or confirmation came around, maybe you should be avoiding initial creation in mainspace. There is no deadline to get articles into the work, and better to avoid the hassle by using userspace for that purpose; the ease of moving an article makes this a no-brainer. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Playing devils advocate here, but Robert, have you considered that it could be argued that it's actually you wasting the time of other editors (particularly new page patrollers) by creating articles in mainspace which aren't ready for it? It's those other editors who have to go through the formality of checking to see if sources are available, filing an AFD (a pain in the nethers if you don't have Twinkle enabled) and otherwise cleaning up what, by your own admission, could have been a fully-formed and clearly suitable article. If you present them with something that has been worked up to an appropriate level in userspace, has a smattering of clearly reliable sources, and doesn't require much in the way of copy-editing, then everyone's life is made easier - they don't have to go through a whole checklist of issues, and you don't have to contest an AFD. No-one is asking that you build an A-Class article in your sandbox before moving it to mainspace, but certain minimum standards apply to anything that we publish as a live article.

Even if you insist on doing all the creation in mainspace, you can still use the Show preview button to see what the article will look like without having to save it. Or you can create it in an offline text editor first. Basically, whilst no-one is forcing you to do all your page creation in userspace, it avoids headaches for all concerned if you do at least the basics there. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This was a border case on this issue. Still, why must articles be developed elsewhere first? That is the issue I'm complaining about here. I am asking what those minimum standards ought to be for any article that is in the main namespace? IMHO, a single sentence that accurately describes a person, business, concept, or idea (aka a real encyclopedia article and not just patent gibberish) is all that really should be that standard, or at least used to be the standard for Wikipedia. That is how most of the existing articles on Wikipedia were started when this project began. If you and others want to say that is no longer the case, that articles should start somewhere else other than the main article namespace, then come out and admit it. Don't give silly responses that some sort of minimal standard that you won't describe exists. I'm not saying A-class here, but it is being implied a B-class or at least Start-class level should be reached with several references and something of substance. I just don't understand why such standard is needed in the very first edit, especially when ongoing edits are happening in short succession? --Robert Horning (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

" Still, why must articles be developed elsewhere first?" - Reverse question: why shouldn't they? It's easier, gives you less hassle, it just requires a single "move" step more, and you can edit them with (almost) all the time you want. I honestly don't understand why don't you accept an obvious good practice. That's what a userspace is for. I'm here since 2005 and I created a few articles, and my first saved draft usually always contains one or two references already: still I always do it in my own userspace until I feel it's a decent article.

Also, I would point that the very fact that you are having every article subject to deletion discussions should make you think that maybe it's you doing something suboptimal. And here's why: "I just don't understand why such standard is needed in the very first edit" : Because once your article is in mainspace, it is fair game for everyone to tag it, consider it for CSD, whatever. Yes, I totally agree that doing it after 20 minutes is poor form, but to introduce such a "waiting time" creates much more hassle for NPPs and everyone else than simply allowing you to work in userspace and moving the article. Why you refuse stubbornly to do that, I don't understand. --Cyclopia^talk 15:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If you follow WP:V's mandate to base articles on independent, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and make sure that at each stage of development the article passes WP:V, you typically won't have any trouble. The problem comes when people try to start an article based on press releases or personal knowledge and then fill in the sources later.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There are some types of articles that raise the red flags for NPPers, particularly articles about individuals, bands, and companies. There is a constant stream of articles created about kids in 9th grade who haven't done anything at all, garage bands formed in the last week, and companies that have done nothing of particular note and want to use Wikipedia to improve their notability. It is regrettable, but after awhile NPPers start mentally trying to fit new articles into those types of categories. Its those ones that you really want to have good sourcing for to avoid AfD. While perhaps NPPers are overly agressive with those frequently abused article types, they really do need to be dealt with. Meanwhile, if you want to create a new stub about a town/village or a species of butterfly, you are unlikely to end up at AfD if you have any sources at all. Monty₈₄₅ 16:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"I'll also note that for 100% of the articles that I've started over the past 3-4 years, each and every one of them has been slapped with an AfD (most of them even PROD'd for a speedy delete). I have also had a 100% survival rate for all of those articles where the nomination for deletion was overturned and kept. "

I'm confused. Would you please list all these articles? If you want to limit it to 3-4 years, I'm at the moment only counting 2. Golden Spike Company and Fluidic Energy...and I have little issue with Fluidic Energy being tagged as it was created, even if it was only live a few minutes. I see another handful of articles from before 4 years ago that never had a problem. Also, I'm a bit curious about this redirect. Why would 1680 (number) redirect to 1000 (number)? What purpose does that serve? --Onorem♠Dil 16:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

To me, the problem here sounds like this analogy: "Every time I drive down Highway 1, there's traffic. I could take Highway 2, which would get me there in the same amount of time and drive the same distance, but the Highway 1 shouldn't have traffic so I should be able to use it." There are two solutions: 1 - Userfy to start, which honestly I cannot see why you are so averse to doing so. 2 - When you start the article as a stub, make sure you add 2 reliable sources to the article, so when someone patrols it, they see that the subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. If you have these sources, add them when you start. If you don't, userfy for a short while. Nothing is lost in the world by waiting a few days or hours before adding an article to mainspace. Angryapathy (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points I want to make here on this.

1. We need to stick with policy here. There is no policy which requires users to create articles in user space first so we should not be requiring that here. I see a lot of editors trying to justify the argument but unless the policy is changed to reflect the statements it just doesn't have any validity.
2. Crystal ball - Justifying the deletion of the article until Dec 6th is just a waste of time. If its noteworthy then the article should be kept. There's no reason to wrap around symantics over a period of a couple days.
3. Whether the article is noteworthy enough to be kept is a whole different can of worms. I think it probably qualifies but just barely. I think the sources are pretty weak though but I don't see anything that makes me think its advertising or anything like that. I don't think (and no offense intended here) the article looks all that high value. I really don't know that many readers are going to notice if its here or not. Kumioko (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Nobody's saying that one must create articles in user space first. What is being said is that, if you (like me, and the OP, apparently) grow articles little by little, over the space of several hours, it's a good practice that makes everybody happier and avoids the misunderstandings herein noticed. But hey, if you create an article from scratch which is already well referenced and formatted from its very first edit (perhaps by using an offline text editor first), then no problem at all. --Cyclopia^talk 22:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It is probably worth pointing out that using an offline text editor does not afford the opportunity to test wikilinks. I solve that problem by copying and pasting whatever I am working on into any edit window on wikipedia and using edit preview. Obviously it requires care to not accidentally click save instead of preview, and the safest edit window to use is a sandbox... Apteva (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is probably a little bit snarky, but "fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me." if you are tired of your usourced stub articles immediately getting hit with AfD tags, then either create the stubs in user space or dont save until you have appropriate sources. if you keep grabbing on to the boiling kettle without protective gear, you shouldnt expect NOT to get burned. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thus the moitvation for this talk. Hitting unsourced stubs for deletion is not something that should happen when the topic of the stub is notable, something that can usually be assessed with a simple WP:BEFORE. It's bitey irrespective of the article's creator experience; a veteran could learn to avoid the Wiki-vampires, but a newby will simply flee from the project. If the official answer is to create such articles out of mainspace, like you and others are promoting, then Robert is right to ask for it to be encoded in policy after a community-wide discussion. Until then, the solution is to not tag those stubs for deletion. Diego (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

An observation on the implicit policy change, from the AFD side

As someone who is fairly active in AFD discussions, I do notice the change of perspective on this. Back when I started editing there was a lot more tolerance for stubs than there is now, and there are whole classes of articles for which there is little or no toleration for stubs. Articles on corporations is one of those, and certain types of biographies are another. In both cases, it seems to me, the problem is the same: the only real standard for notability is references, so an under-referenced article is take as prima facie evidence against notability. This is in contrast to, for example, athletes and politicians, for which there are straightforward standards which can be applied to the text of the article even if the material is uncited. Given the steady rain of promotional articles for businesses and products and musicians, this approach is somewhat understandable, but it would save a lot of grief if AFD nominators would do the few basic web searches which it is often enough apparent they didn't bother with. That said, I don't see how we're going to get away from this. It's not unreasonable to expect the basic research to be done by authors. But if we go this way we really need to spell out the expectation. Mangoe (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... I have also noticed that we have a lot less tolerance for stubs than we used to... perhaps it is because "back in the old days" we did not have the concept of "userfy" at AFD. When the choice was limited to a stark "Keep or Delete" choice, we tended to give borderline cases the benefit of the doubt. But now... with "userfy and return when improved" as an accepted (and increasingly common) option... not so much.

I think this is an issue where Consensus has changed (or at least is in the process of changing)... but the change has occurred organically, and is not reflected in policy/guidelines anywhere. Perhaps it is time to hold a community wide RFC to discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there seem to be many of these "unwritten" rules that have creeped in over the last few years. An RFC on this may well be needed!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There isn't much tolerance for stubs, particularly if it's in an unusual subject area for Wikipedia/the reviewers. It doesn't mean the article topic deserves an AfD tag, but the onus is on the editor who writes the article to make it clear right off the bat why the topic/subject is notable.

I've had stuff tagged for deletion before I was finished working on it, and I had to turn up some extra sources double-quick. But that's just the reality of the process at this point. Editors who review new articles go through them at a fast clip, so maybe some guidelines would help editors who write as well as the editors who review? I'm thinking of clearer minimum content guidelines that will help editors prepare articles before they go live with them. There are sooo many policy documents on establishing notability, it's high time they were organized in a way that's simpler to navigate for newbies. If the notability criteria could be summarized, what would be the basic points you would include? Then go from there. Make it easy to drill down for relevant details based on whichever subject area you're writing in. Make it as simple as the uploader at Wikimedia Commons....OttawaAC (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That anybody can move to delete an article, however foolishly, is a correlate of the basic principle that anyone can try to create an article, however foolishly. If we are open to anyone, this will include those who do not understand, and this cannot be avoided. The only true protection in our system is the same: general alertness of the community--both to new articles and to deletion suggestions.I give some very simple advice to people who hare having difficulty in getting articles to stick: make sure there is at least one unquestionably sound and accessible reference from the very first edit I tell them that it shouldn't actually be necessary, that this is not policy except for BLPs, but the reality is that many people here people are impatient. Contributors in general understand that to be successful, they have to do things in a way that is likely to be succeed under our conditions. People sometimes write articles because they recognize something as article-worthy, without being in a position to do anything more--they expect that in a community of broad interests people will take an interest in improving it. It would be nice if they did, but we have grown past this point, and they are in safer in such cases following the article creation process (except for the problem that they are almost as likely to run into "reviewers who do not understand there, as they are to encounter them at New Pages). We do need people of greater experience reviewing articles at both places, and there are many improvements to be made, both in unifying workflows, simplifying procedures, and educating those who would judge the work of others.

As for the article that provoked this discussion, I closed it as snow keep a few hours ago. DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

My frustration with AfD has been pretty clear for a while. I think that a culture has developed, where WP:BEFORE is not particularly well respected (particularly regarding stubs). Further, there are some articles, for example organisations and particularly some subsets of organisations, or articles regarding people, places and things where coverage is primarily in a foreign language, where an assumption of non-notability is carried too far. My particular area, schools, is a world of two opposites. While on one side high schools are considered automagically (spelling deliberate) notable, primary schools have an almost insurmountable bar to cross before they're considered notable (primarily because there are those who consider WP:OUTCOMES to be policy and read the sentence "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD" without registering the word "most" and/or the phrase "that don't source a clear claim to notability").

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Middle_Harbour_Public_School_(2nd_nomination), sent to AfD together with an unprecedented ~200 other school-related articles, was completely farcical. A top ranked school educationally, and also the site of a road rule change that is now pervasive throughout Australia, and it was still considered not worthy enough, primarily by people with no interest whatsoever in schools.

How to fix it though? No idea. Sorry. Wish I was able to help. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I've always been of the opinion that if we're going to have a big, capitalized "BEFORE you nominate an article for deletion", we need a corresponding "BEFORE you create an article". The primary criterion there would be "Ensure that high-quality reliable sources have covered the subject in depth, and cite them." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE is generally disrespected at the moment (I know of at least one user who flat-out refuses to follow it and thinks it should be "abolished", and another that doesn't follow it, resulting in many erroenous AfD's, but claims he does), what makes you think a "BEFORE you create" would be any more respected? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is still a colaboration

I feel sad that the guy that started this thread, gets every single article he creates taken to AFD. I am also very sad to hear that so many agree that articles should start in the namespace until they are "ready" for publication on Wikipedia (which is not at all policy and still doesn't stop the article from showing up on a Google seach by the way) but what bothers me the most about all of this is that there seems to be little input that the entire point of Wikipedia is collaboration. Articles should not be the product of a single editor. Not that they should be deleted for it, but that others should be willing to help contribute more. The more eyes and input on an article, the better it will be. We are allowed to create stub articles for the very reason that others can add information and build it to GA or FA standards. I feel this is about working together and this thread is something of symptom of Wikipedia growing ever more towards a few established editors in a number of areas. Work together and improve the project and the article and try to find a way to save things...if they can be. Sure we have a lot of promotional stuff to worry about, but somethings that are being pushed as promotion are notable in themselves so we don't just delete it as it makes it difficult to recreate it later.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's a problem when people demand the creation of fully polished articles. I don't think it's much of a problem to expect that the initial article creation contain at least one reference to a completely independent, third-party source about the topic.—Kww(talk) 23:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I know another editor suggested two RS, but from what I understand, the standard is at least one as the "overarching" source to begin the article. Two would be good and even more...better of course. But I really do not like to write an entire article by myself. Not that I can't, haven't or won't in the future, but that i prefer articles to have a history of contributions from as large a pool of editors as possible.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think people expect a "fully polished" article... but they do expect that an article (even a stub) will pass a certain minimum standard before it is taken "live". Blueboar (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "a definition, one more sentence and a source (maybe two)" is not a high standard. It is not hard to write such an article in one sitting - if the sources have been found (and if they have yet to be found, one should look for them instead of writing the article).

Furthermore, refusing to meet even such low requirements actually impedes collaboration. Someone who finds an article that is not even a "decent stub" isn't going to be able to expand it, for there will be little to indicate what an article is supposed to be about... Such "articles" only mask the lack of a real article (red links are changed to blue)... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out the "every single article" angle. As far as I can tell, the number is 2.

I don't think people are agreeing that users should be made to start in user space. I think people are saying if you feel like your articles are being repeatedly "attacked" for not being ready for mainspace, it would probably be a good idea to start them in userspace.

Stubs are great...when they have some indication of why the topic is notable and a source to back that up.

Nobody is demanding the creation of fully polished articles. Take that strawman somewhere where it might be useful to fend off crows. --Onorem♠Dil 23:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I want to know why you are attacking me like this? Why the hell does it matter how many articles I'm involved with, and the presumption that this is the only account I've used, that I've never used an IP address, or worked collaboratively with other editors in creating new articles and had the same damn experience? What you are doing here by attacking me with this "two article" issue is a pure ad hominim attack and being critical of a minor point and missing the big issue here. My point is that this is a pattern of something that needs to be recognized as a serious problem on Wikipedia. If you don't see that, you are simply blind to what the real problem is.

I'm a "big boy" and I've seen raging discussions on Wikipedia and elsewhere. I can take this kind of stuff... and I knew that the AfD was going to go absolutely nowhere even before the proposer even bothered to create the AfD nomination page in the first place (I saw the notice on the article go up before the AfD page was even created).

What I'm complaining about even more though is that I'm told that I was wrong to create this article, that somehow reliable sources about even a few basic facts about this company were unavailable, and that new articles simply can't be created in the main article space. By creating new articles, I'm talking adding a sentence, tweaking it a little, looking up a source to find some information to add to that article, and building up the article piece by piece. That is called creating an article. Furthermore, the point of Wikipedia is to be collaborative in nature and include people that you likely will never even meet in person... hiding an article in the user namespace does none of that.

As was pointed out on the AfD, by forcing this particular article onto my user name space along with perhaps dozens or even hundreds of other similar articles about the same company started by other users, it would have created a nightmare in terms of which one would be selected at the "true article", and then created an even larger mess as the other articles would need to be deleted.

Regardless, I can't stand what is being said in this thread by several participants and they are wishy washy and just don't want to take a stand on this issue. I am reading a whole bunch of doublespeak where you can create an article in the main namespace but you can't at the same time. That an optional program of the AfC process is actually not optional but mandatory. If you are going to take a position, take it and seize it with all of your gusto and don't be a wimp on this. Either you think articles should be created elsewhere first and that the policy on Wikipedia should be changed to reflect this attitude or let these kind of articles actually develop for a bit before a stupid AfD nomination is placed on them. I don't understand why this non-commitment of halfway inbetween and why there is a penalty being applied to somebody creating a new article but that person who is editing even a half-started stub can't take a freaking bathroom break while creating that article and save something mid-way in the main article namespace. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You still don't get it. The problem is not where you create the article, is how the article is when it is in mainspace. You can create the article any way you like, in userspace, in mainspace or whatever, provided it can reasonably stand on its own from the first moment it is on main space. So, if you want to directly create articles in mainspace, just do it in a way that when you click the "Save page" button on main space, the article is already able to walk on its feet. If you feel not to do that, then use your own userspace. Is it clearer now? --Cyclopia^talk 18:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, have you heard of this template? It seems to fix the problem you're talking about. --Cyclopia^talk 18:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope that template only gets placed on talk pages, because I think if it were to be placed in article space it would be the worst maintenance template I have ever seen! It is wrong on so many levels. It is a message from one editor to others (it is of no benefit to readers), it implies ownership, it breaches WP:SELF "articles should normally avoid self-referencing templates" and given the size of the message it would dominate a stub. -- PBS (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Why should you use a silly template like that? I understand it can be useful (I actually didn't know about that particular template BTW... thanks for the link) but you shouldn't assume that everybody knows everything about Wikipedia. I also see such templates as mainly saying "this guy has a clue about Wikipedia... back off". It still doesn't solve the problem of the AfD getting tossed on anyway as I am pretty certain the proposer would have tossed on the AfD even with this template. I just don't think that a page, while it is "under construction" and clearly being worked on, should necessarily be in perfect order on the very moment it is started. Yes, I do "get it" in terms of where the article is being created. I just don't think you understand that writing is a process that has fits and starts and doesn't come easy to everybody, or that your writing style is necessarily what your writing style is. I also completely disagree that an article should completely stand on its own at the very moment of its creation.... as that is way too high of a standard to be imposing on somebody who is actually writing something original.

You are imposing a standard that is far too high, and doing the doublespeak I'm talking about. No, what you've described is not clear either, because I still can't figure out what possible standard of article you are referring to here where somebody creates a basic stub that answers the Five Ws to at least have a gist of what the article will be about but still is obviously incomplete. You are asking for templates, reference.... hell you are asking that it goes beyond basic stub status. Or enlighten me if I am wrong here. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I did used this template instead when I started the article in question, and the AfD was slapped on anyway. I tried to get the message out that I was active in working on the article and digging up additional references. I had included not only the construction template, but four references and two complete sentences upon the first edit in this case. If that standard was too low, what are you saying should be the standard for the "first edit"? --Robert Horning (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"I just don't think you understand that writing is a process that has fits and starts and doesn't come easy to everybody" - I totally understand that, it's the same for me: so why can't you use your user space, if this is the case? What's the problem with that? Can you answer this specific question, because we don't see a reason for your whining, otherwise. Because you're beginning to be very, very needy. You don't want to use your userspace for what it is for (with no reason given about it); you don't want, as an alternative, to use templates to warn editors that you're working on an article (with no reason given about it), and you don't want community standards to apply to the articles you create until some nebulous moment in their future (with no reason given about it). Some other arbitrary request? --Cyclopia^talk 19:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If you really feel this way, come right out and say the policy needs to be changed. Don't keep beating around the bush and say that articles can be started in the main article namespace and then say it shouldn't be. What I'm asking for here is simply an assumption of good faith and and understanding that it sometimes takes a wee bit of time to actually write an article. I do want community standards to apply, I am just asking for some patience to understand that I am a human that sometimes makes mistakes and that sometimes it may take more than one edit to actually create a decent article that even has rough stub status. If these so called precious community standards are so important, that is why I'm calling for the existing policy to be changed so it reflects those standards which you are defending and not me. Don't give be bullshit that I can start an article in the main namespace and then yank that rug out from under me as soon as I try to do as you suggest. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh my god. I'll repeat it again. Let's see if you get it this time. The policy does not need to be changed. You're absolutely free to create articles in main space, and there's no reason to require a change in policy. All we need is that, when an article is in mainspace, it has to be compliant with our already existing policies. We don't care if the article is 1 nanosecond old or 10 years old: same standards apply. This is the point, and it's already in policy per the very concept of "policy". So, the problem is, how do you do that? Someone does it by slowly editing in userspace and bringing it to mainspace. Others may stick the template I linked above and hope other editors won't challenge it for a while, while slowly editing in mainspace. Others can still edit all of it offline and then bring it all at once in mainspace. The way you do it is up to you. In other words, we totally don't care on how you create and where you create articles, provided they comply with our policies when they are in main space. What you cannot do is hoping to keep a draft in mainspace arbitrarily unchallenged. Now, given that it seems you (like me) are a guy who prefers to create articles articles by slow edits along a relatively long time frame, the resulting pragmatical best practice, to avoid troubles to you and us, is to use your userspace. But that is not because using userspace is always the best option: it's because of how your own personal editing style interacts with the policy requirements above. Is this clear enough? If not, what's not clear about this? And why do you stubbornly refuse to consider using your own userspace for drafts, if doing so would make things easier for you and for us? --Cyclopia^talk 12:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem we're having in this conversation is that creating and maintaining undeveloped articles in mainspace is not against current policy. Creating a stub in mainspace and slowly growing it is perfectly allowed as long as the topic is notable, even if it lacks any reference in the article's body itself and it status is lackluster. Challenging such article should be done on the basis of WP:N and WP:NOT, not on lack of development. The point you make about these articles being against policy is simply wrong no matter how many times you repeat it; this is what others are trying to explain you; and this is why nominating such articles, when there's a reasonable chance that they're notable, is often a waste of time for all editors involved. Diego (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Diego, I totally agree, in principle. But if an undeveloped article is also not compliant, then you can't complain if people stick CSD, PROD or AFD tags to it. It's their right to do so. You can't claim some immunity from that just because "my article is young", even if I wholeheartedly agree it can be bad form and that WP:BEFORE is necessary. My point is that he has a problem with his articles being nominated regularly, then he should perhaps reflect on his own habits, instead of whining because we don't give him some sort of unexplained free card. --Cyclopia^talk 14:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please, define not compliant. I think there lies the root of everything wrong with the Deletion Process nowadays. Diego (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What is to define about "not compliant"? We have policies, if it doesn't comply with them, it is not compliant. I don't understand the question. --Cyclopia^talk 22:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I was asking what not compliant means in the context above. Which policy in particular would make a poorly written article about a notable topic not compliant and required to be deleted? Because I don't know any policy that requires it. Diego (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like there would be none, but there are. WP:BLP for a start, see WP:BLPPROD. Also, I've just seen WP:DICDEF being used to justify AfD of an article notable in my opinion. WP:BLP1E could easily lead to a deletion nomination if the in-writing stub only references one event as cause of notability. WP:NOTNEWS is also a recurring issue. Thing is, even if the articles are kept in the end, many poorly referenced stubs end up being tagged for deletion, because they'll look like they fail WP:V, WP:N etc. If one takes care to shape the article robustly before putting it in mainspace, the risk on a deletion discussion decreases (and we have a cleaner mainspace). --Cyclopia^talk 19:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You have not addressed what happens when people throw a CDS, PROD, and AfD tag on an article which is compliant to policy? There is a huge inequality going on here where there is a huge penalty for somebody who might even be just a borderline case of a legitimate article being written... where they are labeled (as I have been in this whole discussion) as somebody to watch and jump on by writing and participating in too many articles that get nominated for deletion, and almost no penalty or even learning of any kind by those who are patrolling the new pages being created when they jump on the trigger too soon and nominate articles in bad faith for those things. I am not asking for a free pass on article creation, but I am asking for those who do this kind of nomination to realize that their actions can have an adverse reaction on the project when there are false positive for something to be deleted, particularly when it isn't even remotely a borderline case. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What happens? We discuss it, and if it's compliant we (hopefully) keep it. Just like it always happened, apparently. Easy peasy. Listen, I am an unapologetic inclusionist. Just look at my user page. It's not like I have sympathy for deleting first and asking questions later -quite the opposite. But this is a separate issue. The point is that, if you're concerned about this happening because your articles aren't production ready in the moment they are in mainspace, then you should find a route around this, be it using your own userspace or editing them offline before putting them in mainspace. Again, may you please explain to me why using your userspace is so repugnant to you? I begin to see competence problems here. --Cyclopia^talk 22:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to say this to you as well.... please read WP:NPA.... as you are skating on very thin ground in that vein. You are misdirecting an attack on me personally instead of dealing with the issue at hand and explicitly entering into the realm of ad hominim attacks as a way to divert and deflect criticism of your viewpoint. Please back off from that and quit that kind of disruptive behavior as you should already know it is contrary to Wikipedia policy even on the Village Pump. Or I should say especially on the Village Pump. Note I'm using myself in the example to show others are also having similar problems.

Also note that "production ready" is contrary to current policy as well. There is nothing in current policy which requires there to be any sources of any kind at all, any categories, footnotes, or for that matter anything other than a coherent sentence that describes the topic cleanly and clearly. You are assuming that some other policy exists which asserts some higher standard, and if there is.... please quote the policy that you claim is applicable here and the level of article that should be present in the first edit? See also Template:Grading_scheme that is applicable here, where you seem to be asserting that the article should be a B-class or at least C-class standard. I am not saying that I refuse to start articles in my userspace, but that policy should reflect this approach if it is required. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Where did I attack you? Whatever. Anyway, your assumption is half-mistaken. Given that articles need to be verifiable, at the very minimum, an unreferenced stub of a sentence is quite prone to be viewed as non-compliant. For BLPs this is explicitly a deletion reason: see WP:BLPPROD. In several cases you also need an indication of importance, beyond the mere description, cfr. WP:CSD#A7 for example. But even if you comply with all of that, you can't avoid people tagging your articles one second after their creation. Not even if it was already at FA class. Once it is in the mainspace, it is fair game. The only exception I could agree is if you actually put an under construction template: nominating a new article with such a template sounds indeed disruptive to me. On this we agree. But for the third or fourth time (and that's this endless need of repetition the reason why I suspect you have competence issues, or you're acting a bit deaf, what you prefer), where you develop your articles is irrelevant: what is relevant for your chances of avoiding a deletion discussion is how they are when they reach mainspace. Userspace is just the most convenient place to do it. --Cyclopia^talk 01:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Who's the one refusing to hear a point now? WP:V only requires sources for material likely to be challenged. When the added content would belong in a featured article, the other editors are expected to find the available sources themselves or, at worst, just tagging it as unsourced; thus nominating for deletion everything that hits the mainspace is disruptive (yes, WP:PRESERVE is policy and it should be normally followed). It doesn't matter that it's "viewed as" not-compliant; it has to be actually non-compliant to contravene policy, and the challenger is expected to assess if that's the case before challenging the content. Burden of proof just means that the original writer should provide the sources if asked for them; but unsourced content should not be directly deleted because it's not currently sourced, only when it can't be sourced after the best efforts of all editors involved.

I have to ask you to stop your veiled accusations of incompetence against Robert; those are uncivil, specially after he has requested you to watch your language. Several editors now are agreeing with his points, so maybe he's not wrong after all, don't you think? Diego (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually WP:V states: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article.", directly contradicting what you state about burden of proof. Also there is this famous email by Jimbo that is cited everywhere, that kind of tilts the balance on the interpretation. So yes, sometimes we don't bother removing unsourced stuff, and I too think that we should check first and then, perhaps, remove: but our policy gives the right to remove that. Listen, I am the first to say that we should use deletion as a very last resort, and not as a default approach. And surely tagging everything that hits the mainspace would be massively disruptive. What I'm saying is different: I'm saying that if your article is an uncited stub, many new page patrollers will be inclined to find it failing WP:V, WP:N etc. and then tagging it for deletion. Which doesn't mean it will be deleted, but it is annoying. Given that Robert, understandably, prefers to create articles slowly and step-by-step, he faces two choices:

• Create articles somewhere else than mainspace, building the article slowly
• Convince all new page patrollers that his articles shouldn't be touched until some vague timelapse after creation

That he seems to prefer the second option to the first, and his bizarre convincement that, since using the userspace fits better his editing style and is reasonable advice, it means that we require people to create articles in userspace by definition, is what lends me to think that he has some trouble in understanding how WP works, therefore giving rise to my totally unveiled questioning of his competence. Which is not an attack, it's just a rational deduction. It seems he doesn't get it, even after it being explained repeatidly. --Cyclopia^talk 20:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Being pedantic, your reasoning is logical abduction, not deduction. If you're going to mix up your methods of inference you should keep the results to yourself; random evaluations of the competence of your peers are rude (and in this case, wrong -though it would be even more rude if you were right-), and WP:CIVIL was created for a reason. So please keep your overconfident musings to yourself. (Sheesh, what do they teach kids these days?) Diego (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My intention wasn't to attack you. I saw your post, and starting digging initially to see if there was a pattern in those who nominated your pages. After looking through your last 3-4 years, I started to think, wow...what a loaded presentation. You go back and forth about making it specific and making it generic. Nobody is saying that every article ever needs to be created first in userspace. Are you making this about you or are you asking about the topic in general? You haven't used an IP address to create an article. Sorry for assuming you weren't editing from multiple accounts since you don't mention that you edit from multiple accounts anywhere on your userpage. --Onorem♠Dil 15:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I tried to say that I was motivated to raise this topic because of a personal experience and that is why I'm raising the topic now. Regardless, I did perceive such digging around my article history and raising such arguments as a personal attack and not really addressing the main issue here, which is if articles should be created in the user space and not. By going after me personally you are in effect violating policy too. Regardless, I do think this is something that needs to be addressed, and obviously there are a bunch of people who feel that articles should not be created in the main article namespace. What is frustrating me is that they don't have a clue that they really do feel that way too. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I am currently working on and off on about a dozne new articles, some of them like "Parliament Square, Edinburgh" (that was created this week) was created in situ without any earlier construction, others like William Govan took much longer to create and were created in my sandpit before being copied to article space. For me it depends on the complexity of the subject and how many sources need to be summarised to fashion an article (horses for course). However even with simple stubs like the Square I never save the text to create an article in article space before creating a stub with cited reliable sources, so if an reader happens to find the page before any more edits take place it is still up a useful standard. Since the creation of the Govan article in February this year there have been a total of 8 different editors who have worked on it. In the case of the Square four editors in in three days. So perhaps stubs on notable topics can encourage more collaboration than fully formed articles (where I have noticed a tendency for some editors of such articles to exhibit ownership that can lead to less collaboration). -- PBS (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

With respect to Wikipedia still being a collaboration; it depends on where you are. For instance, this is something I created as a fairly short but still informative article, and it's been pretty much untouched except for my occasional edits. It's not very likely to go anywhere unless I decide to do some more work on it. This also happens with already existing articles as well; after being created, this had almost no activity at all for about 2 years, got a few edits from me, then sat completely untouched for 2 more years before I was able to get hold of the book again (and I note, with some dismay, that it's been completely untouched since; that makes 1 significant content addition in the last 4 years from someone other than me). As much as it's supposed to be a collaboration, the fact is that the creator of an article is likely to have to write a very high percentage of the content to get it beyond a stub. Every once in a while, exceptions occur (as with Autobiography of a Geisha), but that's just luck; as much as I like collaboration in article writing, I'm also realistic about how many people (almost always 0, 1 at most) I'm going to find editing most of the topics I like. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

How about this?

Create a namespace that is unpublished and completely invisible. Only logged in users could see it. All new articles would start off in this invisible namespace. This is exactly the same thing as starting an article in userspace but it allows collaboration, which userfied articles don't allow. These new articles wouldn't need to be tagged or sent to AfD because they don't exist, they're invisible exactly like userfied articles. Another benefit would be that it would act just the autoconfirmed article creation trial {WP:ACTRIAL) because new users don't have the move right. New users wouldn't be able to publish these new articles (move them to main article space) until they are autoconfirmed. This would give them time to learn our policies. The WMF has been looking in to something like this for over a year as part of Page Curation and would likely allow WP:ACTRIAL to run in this fashion, at least for a limited time until it is proven. 64.40.54.49 (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

it's essentially the same as AfC. Another editor can come and comment on an AfC and thus collaborate, and many people do. Anyone could in principle come and comment on a userified article too, but we normally don't do it. In both cases, there's still a limit to what we permit there: we routinely delete copyvio and libel and gross BLP violations from AfC and user space, and we will delete blatant advertising also. We deleted userified articles that aren't being worked on by MfD, and we could do it for AfC also. I think we would do this in any private space such as you would suggest also, at least for copyvio and libel. , whether by G11 or Mfd. But if something is completely invisible, how would anyone find it to collaborate, except by invitation? DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, DGG. "if something is completely invisible, how would anyone find it to collaborate, except by invitation?" The space would be searchable by logged in users. I specifically left out a lot of details so people could focus on the main idea. Many of the details have already been worked out over the last year. You can find many of them here. Do you feel the basic idea has merit in any shape or form? 64.40.54.49 (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: "...but it allows collaboration, which userfied articles don't allow."... um... I am not sure where you get the idea that userfied articles don't allow collaboration. I have been involved with several articles that began as "drafts" in user space ... drafts that were worked on by several editors collaborating to make the article "ready for prime time". It's up to the user who owns the space, of course... the user may choose to work on it alone without collaboration if he/she chooses (since it is his/her space), but there is no rule that prevents him/her from opening it up for collaboration. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Blueboar. You are correct, people do collaborate on articles in userspace. So what do you think of this idea? Is it something you think is workable/beneficial/etc.? 64.40.54.49 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with userfied articles is simply trying to find them. Having articles in the main article namespace makes it much easier to locate the articles, they show up in hyperlinks instead of redlinks, and don't have an aura of protection where major changes to articles in the user namespace of another user is perceived as a sort of vandalism attack... even if your intentions are good and worthy. If you are in communication with that user and they have given you some permission to edit the article including major overhauls, that is another story.

Regardless, I'm not here attacking the role of people who do create articles in the user namespace. For those who feel the need and especially for those new to Wikipedia that would like some mentorship in terms of how to write an encyclopedic article, I think such actions are strongly encouraged. What I'm complaining about here is that this is not policy that the AfC process or something similar like simply starting articles in the user namespace is something required. If you feel inclined to start the article in the main article namespace, current policy allows such an act. The minimal standard according to policy is just an single sentence with the five ws describing the topic... at least that I how I read the standard. No references, hyperlinks, categories, templates, or anything else are really needed. This is called a stub. Why there is an assumption that something more is needed is beyond me, and there is no other policy about what minimum standard is needed for articles. Other things are useful, and certainly an article with some reliable sources can help to quickly assess notability, but I am insisting that the standard being used by those on the new page patrol are too high, or that the AfC process should become official policy and that creating articles in the main namespace should become the only way to create new articles. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"here" above is a MediaWiki link. MediaWiki is the software that is used for thousands of wiki's not just Wikipedia, and it suggests general ideas for creating articles. Wikipedia has a well developed process for developing articles, either as a sandbox, as wp:Articles for Creation, as a userfied space, as a stub, as a fully developed article, etc. mw:Article Creation Workflow/Design#Workspace Editing is basically describing WP:AfC. Bear in mind that out of the box MediaWiki installations have no such function, and are just a main page and nothing else. some of the English language ones are here. Apteva (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Robert, "Why there is an assumption that something more is needed is beyond me" - It is in policy. Read WP:V: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." - If this material is the entire article, then people have fair reason for suspecting it is not notable or verifiable, and then slap a deletion tag on it. It's 2012: the concept of reasonable stub is not what it was in 2005 anymore, and our policies and guidelines reflect that. I may not like it, you may not like it, but that's the way it is. And again, again, I repeat again: starting articles in userspace is not, or will never be required. All what's required to minimize the chances of a deletion discussion is that references etc. are in place in the stub since the first moment it hits mainspace. --Cyclopia^talk 20:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm semi-active at AFD and I don't see a lot of nominations of brand-new articles except where it looks wp:snow that it isn't wp::notable. What I DO see a lot of is medium-age articles where wp:notability-suitable sources exist but so far no editors have found or added them. After all, only a tiny fraction of editors have the duo of being willing and able to seek and incorporate wp:notability type sources for a particular article specifically for the purpose of showing wp:notability.North8000 (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As another example of the problem

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clementine (The Walking Dead) This AFD was started *16 minutes* after the article was created. It's not a CRYSTAL (the game the character is in is out), and far from BLP/COI issues. It was just not well sourced. The creating author added sources within a few hours, and I will note that, likely happenstance, the actress for the character had just won a major vidoe game industry award for her portrayal of that character. While I understand Robert Horning's frustration above but also the fact that that article in question was a huge target for COI/CRYSTAL problems even after sources were added, here's a case where the article is fine but otherwise lacking immediate sources after the first edit and thus nominated for deletion right away. That is a problem in terms of acting too fast. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This one is a case where the article should have been started as a section within a parent article (The Walking Dead)... with the possibility of hiving it off into a stand alone article once sources were found and added to the section. Merger would be a better option than delete... Indeed, if the nominator had requested merger right from the beginning, it probably would have been better received.

I have never been happy that AfD nominations are initially presented in the dualistic choice of Keep/Delete. We should change the policy title to "Articles for discussion" and encourage nominations that consider other options right at the start. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Since most of the article was cribbed from other articles on the game, there didn't seem much worth merging. Barsoomian (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, nominating an article with an "Under construction" tag is plain disruptive. On this I think we can all agree. --Cyclopia^talk 19:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We can, can we? I proposed that AFD. I was alerted to the article because the creator had linked it into a major navbox (that I watch) immediately he created it, so it appeared as a link on dozens of pages. So I checked it out, as lots of dubious links get inserted in that navbox, and found it was not just a stub, which could be allowed time, but something that I thought never would merit an independent article no matter how long it was given. If the author had just quietly edited the article to a ready state before promoting it, none of this would have been urgent. Knowing that an AFD takes at least a week, I applied that as the simplest way to make my concerns known. The author has weeks to bring the article up to scratch, so how is he "disrupted"? He can just improve the article and it will speak for itself. In the event, he went and canvassed a dozen buddies and they are all voting "Keep", so I suppose that is another way to deal with it. My talk page was disrupted though by outraged fans who thought I was dissing their genre. Barsoomian (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow.....where are we with all of this. I just created two recent articles. One in my own userspace and one in the mainspace. Look.....if you really want to nominate an article because you feel it is not "ready".....then please be very sure it really isn't. AFD over a stub seems to waste a lot of time if there are at least two RS provided.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've only nominated a grand total of eight articles for AFD in several years of editing. I'm not a deletionist. But I don't know why the merits of this particular AFD can't be discussed on the page created for that purpose. It certainly is a waste of time to open another discussion on it here as well. Barsoomian (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Because its not the merits of that specific AFD, but yours and others actions in rushing any newly created page to AFD within minutes, particularly in this case where there was one edit before you had tagged it 16 minutes later. What if the editor, the next minute, was about to press the "save page" button that added a full reception/development section for the character fully putting it past notability? Your AFD would have been a waste of time. Sure, that's not what happened, but irregardless of what actually happened or how the article improved or what the editor should have done to add the character to an existing article or use userspace in the first place, nailing an article that early in the process is extremely bad faith. Its like the above case with Golden Spike - yes, the article should ahve been created in userspace due to the speculative nature of it, but the person that AFDd it also should have recognized that waiting until the 6th when the press releases about the company were due out wouldn't have hurt. Importantly, we have no DEADLINE, which applies both to improving articles, and removing bad content; unless WP would be under legal duress for the information or otherwise being patent nonsense, we don't have to rush to delete it. That's the behavior that's the problem. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"its not the merits of that specific AFD". So why the hell did you link it and bitch about me again, here? And another version of the same patronising lecture again. First at at the AFD, then repeatedly at my Talk page, now here. You're making this extremely personal. You keep acting as if proposing a deletion the same as deleting it. The article is still there. In the worst (or best) case it will be for at least a week. I knew that, and you knew that, yet you keep going on and on and on and on as if I'd thrown it into a ditch, set it on fire and ploughed it under. All I did was add a template to it. Anyway, the author's canvassing was highly effective, and it's in no danger at all, thanks to you and the other fans all turning up and voting to keep it as requested. It's safe. You should be ecstatic. Barsoomian (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Because you aren't getting the point it seems that putting an article with only one edit (its creation) to AFD after 16 minutes is extremely bad faith of the editing process. You're making this like a mad rush of fans to protect an article. I'm trying to point out that this type of action, while not spelled out in policy as a no-no (and hence why it's not an issue for ANI), is strongly discouraged and you and others that tend to nominate on the early side need to be aware of why this is a problem. The specifics of what happened after that AFD are not the issue here, it is the action of tagging an article with one edit with an AFD so short a time after creation. You've been trying to defend that as completely appropriate, but as you see here, that's definitely not the case. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

First you said "it's not that specific AFD". Now it's that I'm not "getting the point". So it is specific and personal. I get the "point" that you are taking every opportunity to bitch about me because you don't like that I proposed an an AFD. If I broke any policy by doing so go to WP:ANI and make your case. Otherwise stop criticising me about this in multiple venues. Now I've had to have to defend myself in three (and counting) venues because you have to vent about an AFD that your friends have stacked and your beloved article will comfortably survive anyway now it's all fattened up with fancruft. Asking for an AFD is not deleting it. It is merely raising concerns and there are weeks to respond. And you are ignoring the creator asked for scrutiny by linking it in Template:The Walking Dead. He wants it to be featured so prominently, he can justify it. Barsoomian (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

AFDs are not to be used for cleanup. If you wish to raise concerns on the article quality, particularly on a rather new article, the proper approach is to use maintenance tags. AFD is meant as a last resort after other options have been tried. The fact that you keep making this about fanboys trying to rush and protect the article is completely missing the point about the advice I've been trying to give you. As it is, the AFD you put on there is in no way anything to report to ANI, but your behavior and attitude since then, showing lack of understanding of new articles and AFD, is potentially a a larger issue. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have seen your "advice" over and over. I'm not illiterate, but I am sick of your tedious, patronising recitals and complete failure to respond to anything I say. So there is no point in our engaging on this any more. Is that clear? The "potentially larger issue" is your continued provocative remarks about me in multiple venues. Is this actually "Village pump (policy)"? No, it's you complaining about my "behaviour", i.e., my lack of deference to your "advice". Take it to ANI or move on. Barsoomian (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I am pointing to what you did on that AFD as an example of the larger problem of any editor nominating an article to AFD within minutes, which should not happen unless it meets CSD-type problems, in light of the previous case and discussion. What you did in nominating the AFD is far from an ANI action and why I cautioned you about that behavior on your talk page so that that type of situation wouldn't happen again. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you making an "example" of me by presenting the issue from your own viewpoint alone in yet another venue and encouraging people to pillory me as "disruptive". If my behaviour is disruptive to Wikipedia, you could make a formal case. That you instead chose to repeatedly hector me on my talk page shows that it's merely disruptive to your own agenda. When you make multiple posts on the AFD page arguing it should be kept, your "advice" to me and remarks here cannot be considered unbiased. Barsoomian (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

@Cyclopia... re: "nominating an article with an "Under construction" tag is plain disruptive. On this I think we can all agree." It depends... I have seen "under construction" tags that sit for months with no evidence of "construction". There are editors who abuse the good faith that the tag requests... to "protect" a questionable stub long after it becomes clear that the topic really isn't notable after all. It is always a judgement call as to how long to give someone when they have asked for more time... but there does come a point when asking for yet more time is simply an attempt to put off the inevitable. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree that tagging is not automatically disruptive just because they have an under constructive template. If anything, someone aware of the template should know better and at least include a single reference in their first draft...or create it in userspace where we come full circle to the beginning of this thread. --Onorem♠Dil 17:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Better still why don't those who want the policy to be "all new articles need at least one reliable source" or more logically "all new information requires a reliable source" file an RFC and try to get consensus to make that policy? A couple of years ago we were able to get consensus for BLPprod which is fairly close to that for BLP articles, but that took a lot of work, and a hearts and minds campaign that convinced the community to be stricter re BLP articles. Now I'm far from convinced that unsourced articles on nematodes, hillforts or Napoleonic warships need the same cautious approach as articles on living people, but if people make a case for change and draft an RFC then I'm happy to look at their case. What I'm not happy with is people behaving as if the policy was now that all new articles require a source without being willing to file an RFC and seek consensus for such a radical change. ϢereSpielChequers 00:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether a new article or not, any stated fact must be verifiable. In practice, if challenged, it must be referenced or removed. If after doing that there is nothing left, then you might as well just AFD. But you don't need to demand that everything must be referenced in advance. It's impossible to say what might be challenged, and just creating tedious unnecessary work when most things never will be. Just be ready to respond if something is challenged, preferably by providing the references rather than attacking the one who asks the question. Stub articles with no references seem to be created by editors eager to score some kind of status by creating an article on some topic that has barely been announced and has no solid information yet, but the desire to create such an article is alone not sufficient justification for it to exist, at least at that time. Barsoomian (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

My experience is that those who create mass stubs have usually learned to include a reference, most of the unsourced new pages and I suspect most unsourced new information come from new or occasional editors. The problem is that our current arrangements are very bitey towards them - hence our difficulties in editor recruitment and ultimately in improving the rate at which we improve the pedia. The difficulty is that we have a philosophical divide, with some editors believing that the best way to sort out the good new editors from the not so good is to simply revert or delete unsourced contributions on sight; Whilst others still believe in the use of collaborative editing and [citation needed] as a way to bring new editors up to speed. This is particularly a problem at newpage patrol and recent changes because those are the areas where people are looking at random new articles or edits, and a deletionist can do far more "work" in an hour of templating than a more collaborative editor can. In my view it is less of a problem past that point because watchlisters are more likely to be focussed on particular subjects, and so are more likely to see multiple edits by the same newbie and see them as potential collaborators. ϢereSpielChequers 10:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "biting": the page creator has 7,406 edits since 2009. He's not a newbie. Though he claimed ignorance, for example, of the prohibition against canvassing. He's still busily editing. So no need for concern on that front. Myself, though, I'm feeling pretty discouraged from the accusations and veiled threats made against me since this started. Barsoomian (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There are editors who trawl wikipedia for articles that have had sections tagged as needing references and they then remove those sections wholesale, whether the information is indeed "challenge"able or not. I had a recent run-in with another editor who had removed a whole section from an article for which a source could have been found by entering around 20 characters into a google search (an appropriate source was literally the first non-wikipedia page that came up). He had done the same to a dozen or so other pages (although those pages are outside my interest and are primarily of subjects in non-English speaking countries), and has continued the campaign since. Tagging should only happen when a superficial search of one's own failed to turn up anything. Removal should only occur where the information is somewhat doubtful and a search has turned up no supporting information. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just two points of what I said above that probably (my fault) have been misunderstood:

• Yes, if an "under construction" tag is there since six months after the last edit, removing it and AfD'ing is more than fair. What I mean is that the article is actually under construction, and tagged as such, one should wait. Even if an editor feels "nah, this isn't notable anyway", better let the editor finish to see what's going on -maybe be creator has sources available that others haven't.
• The problem above is not so much about objectively being compliant with policies (although I would counter WereSpielChequers' by pointing at WP:V), but about the subjective impression that many good-faith new page patrolles have, and as such my polemic above was about: what are the practical steps to lessen the chance of aggressive NPPs tagging your stub? Having it referenced and in good shape from mainspace edit 0 is the way to go, and it's surely more constructive and reasonable, IMHO, than asking NPPs to stop being NPPs and become 2-days-old-pages-patrollers instead.

Hope it's clearer now. --Cyclopia^talk 16:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I perceive one of the problems with what is happening with the New Page Patrol is two fold:

1. A lack of oversight - Nobody is really reviewing the actions of those on the New Page Patrol... at least not until they have run roughshod over a whole bunch of people and it becomes a major problem. What people are doing in regards to marking up pages should be reviewed outside of the AfD process.
2. A lack of training - Many of those who participate in the process really don't understand what it is that they are doing in the first place. There may even be people who will want to participate in the process but simply don't know where to begin.

I've spoken at length about these issues on other threads. It does represent a whole lot of work in terms of trying to set up a training program. I've thought about even creating a NPP academy (or something like that) which would try to address these issues including showing examples of bad articles that really should be nominated and articles which likely should be kept or encouraged for further development.

Going back in part to what Cyclopeia is suggesting in regards to the construction template, perhaps those on the NPP should be encouraged even to slap on the construction template onto articles that look somewhat promising but need some additional attention in the future. The idea is that those articles could be allowed to progress for a few days and then could be reviewed later by either another cleanup crew or even some of those same editors. Most of what the NPP really should be doing is removing/flagging flagrant vandalism and random nonsense and gibberish. I know there is plenty of that getting dumped onto Wikipedia, and those who perform the NPP really are doing an amazing job in terms of keeping a whole bunch of that garbage off of this wiki. I know from first hand experience because I've run other wikis elsewhere and know what can be dumped onto such a wiki if you aren't ever vigilant at removing crud. Unfortunately some promising stuff is also being deleted and no feedback mechanism to try and prevent that from happening or being to bity towards new users either. I don't have an easy answer, but I do think better training might be one positive solution and step to take.

Note that I also don't think new articles should be prohibited from the main article namespace, nor do I think articles should meet some sort of standard of having to immediately meet WP:V with references as has been suggested. That is my opinion, and I will acknowledge that there are other opinions... which is why I raised this topic in the first place asking if the AfC process should be made formal as the only real venue to create new articles. Something should change and I simply am saying that I don't like the current status quo as it is harmful to Wikipedia in the long run and damaging the project. There may be other problems with Wikipedia, but this is something that I do think some positive and proactive solutions could be done to help out. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Be aware, this is not all coming from NPP. This specific example in this section was because the editor that created the article added to a template, upon which another editor (Barsoomian) likley had on their watchlist, saw the change, reviewed the article, and AFD'd. There are a number of different "vectors" from which an too-early AFD can come from, and I really don't think NPP is the big one (they're not perfect but they aren't the problem either).

Requiring AFC would slow down too many long-time editors that know exactly how to write out a first draft of an article to avoid initial scrutiny. It would be great if newer editors unsure of the ability to create an article used this more to help there, but that's difficult to enforce.

What's basically needed is to get people to simply use common sense before applying the AFD template (per WP:BEFORE, which we can't enforce but keep prodding editors towards). --MASEM (t) 17:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There is an unfortunately vert active set of AfD nominators who look on WP:BEFORE as a hindrance and rather pointedly refuse to follow it. I'm thinking of at least one user, who I won't name, who says as such on his userpage. I think that this results in quite major problems. I have seen an example of a school region article nominated where, for whatever reason (usually English-as-a-Second Language) it was misnamed (even if it was clear in the actual content of the article that it was about a region, not an individual school), and then sent to AfD for being an "inherently non-notable" primary school (which I also have a problem with). When it was pointed out that it was a region, not a primary school, the nominator refused to withdraw the article. The issue was compounded because other !vote-rs were coming into the AfD, seeing that the nominator said "primary school" and voting accordingly (i.e., without actually looking at the article or the intervening comments pointing out the problems of the nomination). How can you prod people in the right direction in the face of situations like that? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image use policy has been moved to Wikipedia:Image use suggestions, and it's no longer marked as a policy. Edokter left a comment about it at WP:AN, to which I responded by beginning a discussion — it probably should have been somewhere else, but I didn't think of that at first. Please either join in the discussion there or move it to a more appropriate place and discuss there. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be back at its original title and marked as policy again. Resolved? Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

This issue was the latest in a series of disagreements which have shown up what a dire state the supporting policies and guidelines about images are.

At the moment we have:

• Wikipedia:Images (10,535) (overview)
• Wikipedia:Image use policy (9,254) (policy)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images (2,924) (MoS Guideline)

Note also the existence of Wikipedia:Copyright, which isn't really about media.

As the main ones, the numbers in the first bracket are views/month. I believe the problem here is really the allocation of topics between them is arbitrary. I've worked in this area before, about six months ago, and there were clearly some disagreement like this one about what ought to be policy or a guideline or neither. There is also the issue of whether we're speaking to uploaders or editors. I think we'd do better to reorganise it like this:

• Wikipedia:Image upload policy
• Wikipedia:Image use policy, if there is anything about use that we'd like to be policy;
• Wikipedia:Image use guidelines (a guideline, outside the MoS - with a summary at WP:MOS)
• Wikipedia:Images, a redirect to one of the above or maintained as an overview.

Image upload policy If we take, for example, Wikipedia:Image use policy it has several sections about uploading that I think should be the new Wikipedia:Image upload policy: ss. Requirements; Rules of thumb; Copyright and licensing (User-created images, Free licenses, Public domain, Fair use images); Deleting images; Image titles and file names; Format; Privacy rights. It has some subsections that I feel should be included: Uploaded image size; Animated images; Watermarks, credits, and distortions. The section "Consideration of image download size" from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images would also be included, merging with "Format". These are all a) aimed at uploaders b) have either a legal or technical basis. They aren't advisory, they are firm rules (all rules have exceptions).

Image use guidelines Wikipedia:Image use guidelines would be everything advisory about the use of media. So, again, looking at Wikipedia:Image use policy I can see things which are aimed at the editor, not uploader; that are about getting the best out of images. They are about size, placement, context: Placement; Displayed image size; the first half of section "Content", before the subheading. It would also take in most of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images: How to place an image; Choosing images; Image preferences. The section "Making images available" should be removed, or rehoused. It's distinctly incongruous - I'm not sure anyone comes to this page when seeking help about finding images. Parts of it might be relevant to upload policy.

Conclusions The effect of all of this would be to make it easier to point someone to the right page for them; it would help remove redundant sections and duplications; it would ensure that policy in particular is kept as concise as possible; it would help each to be more understandable since at the moment they switch between types of reader and tone. I know there's going to be some inertia to achieve this, but I do think it's something that needs to happen - and any wrinkles ironed out after. I haven't mentioned above what the new "Image use policy" might look like; I attempted to remove from "Image use policy" those parts I thought should be a guideline (Section "Placement") but was reverted, as I recall on at least partly the basis that it should be policy (to my mind, it was at least, part of the wrong policy page). So the idea there is to look at the new "Image use guidelines" and work out what, if anything, should be policy.

Do you think I should draft versions of these pages, or am I barking up the wrong tree? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion this is certainly a good road to go down; the images and copyright documentation pages as they currently stand are the most nightmarish mess, even by Wikipedia's usual proud standards of incomprehensibility. Victor Yus (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see the point in making style advice (e.g., the size and placement of images) not be part of the Manual of Style.
• "Policy" does not mean "firm rule", and "guideline" does not mean "optional advice". WP:The differences between policies, guidelines, and essays are subtle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As I say, the guideline page could or could not be part of the MoS, I don't see it as an important issue. But I do think it should be one page. That essay merely notes that policies have exceptions, as I note, and that some guidelines are without exceptions. That's consistent with the proposal, as far as I can see. Indeed that's what I had in mind when I suggested there was a discussion to be had about whether any usage points should be considered policy or guideline. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would support this plan of splitting up the image policy/guideline pages. I have just one request though: could we have a prominent link to Help:Introduction to uploading images? It's a very helpful guide for inexperienced users on images. David1217 ^{What I've done} 19:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Having drafted the relevant pages I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Image_policy_and_guideline about adopting the drafts. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am hoping to start a discussion with this posting. I posted something like this at Wikipedia talk:Recent years before but that page seems to have little action...

I find the recent years articles to be too watered down for my liking. These pages used to contain list of important happenings which was interesting to read through and go to the individual articles. On the other hand I am aware these pages also stuffed with useless trivia. I do not like either extreme to be honest.

Currently, few people seem to be dictating the inclusion criteria through quick reverts. It seems like the very guideline mentioned is being enforced rather than referenced. Discussion seems secondary if at all relevant as visible on the talk page. Rollback is seldom used to revert new entries without a rationale effectively being treated like vandalism, this is in my view an abuse of rollback.

Inclusion criteria itself seems problematic as well - at least to me. Below are some examples of important events that I'd not dismiss as simple trivia

• Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II is of little concern to most of the planet. while the crash of an airplane into a bus killing 10 people that happened the same day as the Jubilee isn't mentioned. In fact I cannot see a single plane crash having a mentioned. I remember several accidents in aviation.
• US election is also not mentioned. In fact the only election mentioned is the one that did not happen due to a coup.
• My inclusion of the shooting down of a Turkish jet has been removed twice even though it brought Turkey and Syria at a brink of war almost escalating the Syrian conflict to an international war. Turkey has as a consequence changed its stance towards Syria to a near war state where even the mildest airspace violation will be shot down. In fact nothing about the ongoing Syrian conflict itself is mentioned. The only time Syria is mentioned is when Canada closed its Embassy in Iran cutting ties.
• Emphasis is almost entirely put on deaths which is neither as important nor as interesting as events unless the death itself was unusual. We already have articles such as Deaths in 2012 so I do not see why so much emphasis is put on them inside 2012. In fact I do not see why deaths are segregated as a separate section. I know this was the practice in the past but when we have articles that are dedicated to deaths in a specific year, we do not really need such segregation anymore.

This matters because, recent years articles tend to stay in the top 100 most visited articles so these pages are our most viewed content and topics posted there will allow people to learn more about what had happened recently. This is what an Encyclopedia supposed to be about.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 06:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, what we have is a guideline at Wikipedia:Days of the year, which is limited to the day articles like January 1 and the like...perhaps that would be a starting point for discussion. Lectonar (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I really want to avoid moving the discussion left and right. I am rather surprised at the lack of participation :/ I can leave a note there if you feel it is appropriate. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• See WP:SOFIXIT for guidance. If that doesn't work, see WP:DR. Toodles. --Jayron32 01:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Poodles. This is the purpose of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 01:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an appropriate place for discussion, but WP:RY, discussed at WT:RY and WT:YEARS, represents a local consensus. If you want a wider consensus, go ahead and try to establish one. For specifics:

• There are enough airplane crashes every year that it doesn't seem notable. Try 2012 in aviation?
• Elections occur every 4 years in the US; if one was cancelled, that would be notable, as you've observed. See National electoral calendar 2012 and 2012 in the United States for appropriate locations.
• Emphasis at WP:RY is on restricting the addition of deaths, as the first thing some people do when they see an obituary is to add it to 2024. I suppose the deaths could be restricted further....

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is where I see the problem. The items already on the list do not feel more important than the ones excluded. There is a trade off between being completely void of usefulness and being stuffed with trivia.

Not every air crash is notable, sure. But the claim seems to be that there had been absolutely no notable aviation incidents in 2012 which I feel is false. Here are some aviation incidents in 2012 that I feel are rather notable - enough to be on 2012.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 03:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's what I said. There are too many aviation incidents (which should, of course, be noted in 2012 in aviation to be listed in 2012. Perhaps you can suggest other items to be deleted from the article 2012. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

These are the more notable ones. It is not too many by far. Like I said. We should delete articles like 2012 if we are too afraid to add content to them. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 16:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That list is too many by far. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That may be your pinion that I do not share. It is a mere 7 incidents for an entire year. Mind that I am not proposing the inclusion of each and every one but instead highlighting the more notable aviation events from the year. Currently none have been seen as worthy to be on the list. The point of these articles is to give highlights of what happened in a specific year in context. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 01:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• During 2011 I particpated in discussions of what should go on that years page, it was exhausting and repetitive, and there was also a palpable anti-American bias from some of the recent years regular. While I completely agree that the US is not the center of the universe, I felt that items relevant to the US were held to a higher standard than items from anywhere else. it also seemed that items related to the figurehead monarchy of the UK are given greater weight by the same persons. It is something of a walled garden environment and I think it is a good thing to have a discussion of it in a more open forum such as this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am more than inclined to agree but I'd like to extend that assessment as well. It seems to me like (some) Commonwealth countries seem to have a greater coverage than everyone else. Of the incidents that I highlighted as an example below one quality is dominant: that they are mostly commonwealth countries. Wikipedia supposed to be neither Commonwealth nor Euro nor UK nor US centric. I find my self asking the question: why the following (collapsed) entries are considered notable enough for inclusion when more significant incidents such as most entries in the list of aviation incidents above are not.

• Any one of these incidents can be argued (as I have) to be not all that notable if you generalise them in a manner similar to "just another aviation incident" or "just another eleciton". On the other hand you could also argue the world-wide coverage or the domestic and/or international impact of the incidents is very significant making the entries notable. None of the mentioned incidents really are unimportant trivia.
• The problems I see are:
  1. Predetermined views on what types of incidents are inherently and automatically non-notable (such as aviation and elections). Such a criteria was not established through a community-wide consensus.
  2. Quick reverts and abuse of rollback rights leaving discussion as an after thought.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 01:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

		Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz"
		I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbcom, confidentiality, and oversight

This is a notice concerning an RfC concerning the access and handling of confidential information by arbcom members and oversighters. And also changes policy concerning the granting and retaining of the Oversight user-right. - jc37 11:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on this looks like a candidate for speedy close as WP:SNOW. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Snow is deep enough. Close it. Apteva (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Apteva (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC on whether to formally adopt the draft feedback response guidelines as a Wikipedia guideline, input appreciated. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion to alter the WP:BURDEN section of the Verifiability policy found on its talk page here.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I hope this is the right place for this question. Just wondering, when an article is deleted (eg AfD/prod), what stops its creator (using the same account or another) from putting it back up with either the same name or a slightly different one (eg "Purple paperclips" vs "Paperclips coloured purple")? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SALT is done in extreme cases. But that won't stop the same text under a slightly different name. An editor who deliberately does that will be warned and eventually blocked. Barsoomian (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and recreated articles (even under a different name) can be deleted without any further discussion under speedy deletion. Thincat (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a long DYK for Christmas thread that is about posting a mention on the Main Page to honor the achievements of one editor. Any comments should be posted there. — Maile (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A proposal regarding the essay WP:MMANOT has been made suggesting that the essay be promoted to the level of guideline. Please feel free to look in at both the proposed guideline and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 8#Promotion from Essay to Guideline and contribute where appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've written an article on a rather narrow subject: that of how to format references to sources that are part of a quotation used in a WP article. This topic doesn't come up too often, but there are several ways to do it. A user space version of this article is found at User:Brews ohare/Citations inside quotations.

An earlier version of this article placed directly in WP:Project namespace was criticized as having had too little input from other editors. The idea also was raised that such essays are inappropriate to namespace until they have several authors, or perhaps until they can demonstrate a lot of readership. These views can be found on the proposed article Talk page.

Discussion of these objections and of the article itself are invited on its Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

On the occasion of Wilhelm II, German Emperor: In German usually a dot is added to the Roman numeral, so he is written Wilhelm II. in German. I guess each language has its own conventions for this case, which is why I want to discuss whether it would make sense a) to write these names in the way usual in their mother tongues or b) to set up redirects in these ways? --KnightMove (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As this is the English Wikipedia, article titles should follow the most common, concise, and/or precise name of the subject in English; see WP:TITLE for guidelines (note that it describes goals in titling, not strict rules). Redirects for alternate names or typographic renderings are always a good idea. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions#Personal names may also be of interest:

• "Wikipedia spells out names and does not employ German abbreviation systems whose significance is not understood in English . . .".

--Boson (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Meta-ness looking for a wider audience than I think may be regularly monitoring that talk page. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Oversight/FAQ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have come across a few articles that have had edit wars over words like colour/color. Many of these have the dialect tag for the article on the talk page but many editors don't see it or ignore it. I would just like to feel out opinions on whether it would be worth proposing that when the dialect has consensus then an edit notice is placed automatically somehow on the article if the dialect tag is on the talk page. At least two of these articles have had the same edit wars and discussions crop up every few weeks/months/years. This may save future editing time and discussions if all pages that have a consensus on the dialect had an edit notice placed at the top of the edit window. The template wording could also be changed to add "Consensus has decided on this dialect. If you wish to open discussion again on it then bring it up on the talk page. Until then expect your changes to be reverted." type thing--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Like ((British English)) and the other related templates? EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, just realized you were talking about edit notices on the pages themselves... dunno how feasible that is. I also don't think that would make much difference; I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't usually look at edit notices. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You'll note EVula that there is a use case for ((British English)) for using it as an editnotice... :) --Izno (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

. It seems that others on one talk page don't like overbearing edit notices. Forget I even mentioned it. Revdelete or oversight this post as well in case others come up with my silly idea. (kidding)--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It should definitely be a page-by-page basis. --Izno (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As a result of some recent FFD/DRV issues that have spilled into a pending ArbCom case, I'm looking to get input on a change to the Files for Deletion process, specifically to add a required notification on talk pages of articles that use the affected image/media file, currently an optional step, as to garner more input for FFDs and avoid some of the issues involved. The discussion is at WT:FFD#Making article page notification mandatory. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Article titles are determined by the policy at WP:TITLE, which consists, at last count, of 70 pages of naming conventions along with the main page at WP:Article titles. In the past a favorite rationale for moving pages, such as moving Michelson-Morley experiment to Michelson–Morley experiment is to cite MOS, thinking that WP:TITLE specifies the letters to use, but MOS specifies the punctuation to use. The MOS consists of 71 pages, so if this was a valid argument, a total of 142 pages would be used to decide titles. To eliminate this, a new page called WP:Title punctuation has been proposed, which includes everything that is needed to deciding punctuation and accent marks without needing to refer to the 71 pages of the MOS. Apteva (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh, this seems to be yet another WP:DEADHORSE by this user. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it is incorrect to have suggested that that page you created was already a guideline, and I think it's quite unlikely to become one as currently written, so I changed it to make clear that this is just the opinion of an editor and that opinion contradicts the Manual of Style. AgnosticAphid talk 01:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Corrected. It is necessary to have it agree with the MOS - and in this case all that is needed is to rewrite the MOS so that it dos not read like it is a work of fiction. Most of our policies and guidelines are extremely well written, as if they were FA quality. Not the case of the MOS, which, well, does not even follow the MOS. Apteva (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Title punctuation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe it has now been marked as a "proposed" guideline. Please comment there as you see fit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. That was a mistake to prematurely allow it to show up as a guideline. Apteva (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As we generally try to deny recognition to disruptive editors, it strikes me that we might want to set Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets and its children as hidden categories. It would further reduce the visibility of their actions to the outside world without losing any useful information for logged-in editors. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

How are they otherwise visible to the outside world? How would the average non-Wikipedia happen upon a Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets subcat? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

They're linked in many cases from WP:LTA, which is where I was reading when I posted the above. But there's no reason why someone poking around couldn't reach them - I'm particularly of thinking of blocked users looking for signs of their own notoriety. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"blocked users looking for signs of their own notoriety" does not really fall into "otherwise visible to the outside world". JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I am quoting from fb post:

WASHINGTON, DC -- As many people speculate on whether the "NYPD boots cop" story is propaganda, it is noteworthy that the US Government is stepping up its cyber propaganda. With new "Persona Management" software, a single agent can control 10 or more fake personas ("sockpuppets") to spread fake stories and images in order to manipulate public opinion. That same agent can leave pro-government comments or otherwise troll key areas on social media networks.

Critics will likely complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.

A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.

US GOVERNMENT STEPPING UP ITS CYBER PROPAGANDA http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

I think admins should check the validity of arguments, not the number of editors involved.

Wikilawyering can help keep information suppressed. How many admins work for Operations ?

--Mick2 (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That's rather last year's news (and soon to be the year before last's news). Anyway, because Wikipedia does not generally recognise real-world identities as being relevant in conferring legitimacy (or anything else) to editor profiles, the persona management software (if indeed it is now in use) would not be very useful for Wikipedia purposes. (To put it another way, persona management software enables an operative to easily create legit-looking webs of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc accounts for multiple fake identities - but how often do you care about whether someone has a legit-looking Facebook account when scrutinising their editing or behaviour on Wikipedia?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:People by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

False alarm; I'm not sure if it is vandalism, but the user made unconstructive edits. I can assume that he means well, but he still does not know much about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --George Ho (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Following from this [22] issue on ANI, it has been shown that there a lot of articles on the results of individual events from notable swimming competitions, for example 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Men's 100 metre butterfly. (Again, to be clear, the larger competition of multiple events, 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) is fine). Note that this would extend to the Olympic swimming articles (eg of the Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics coverage, individual events like Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre freestyle would be a problem) as well as any other sports (eg Alpine skiing at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Men's downhill)

I would argue that the event articles as they are shown are very inappropriate for WP for several reasons:

1. First, they are basically at the end of the day, pages of statistics (they are certainly built off a common template ideal for entering stats). WP does incorporate some elements of sports of almanacs but we can and should be selective. Covering the results of all the events is fine , but for a single event and all the heats leading up to it is excessive. External sources cover this information just fine, and if anything, an external wiki could be made for more detailed coverage that we as a tertiary source simply can't provide.
2. Second, there's notability issues. Right now all these are sourced to specific sites of the competition, which are not third-party, but I recognize that these events probably can be backed up by third-party sources somewhere. But again, very few of the individual events likely have significant coverage after the fact (I would want to think that some of Michael Phelps' runs at 2008 may have notable events, but that's only off the top of my head). Again, the overall competition is notable, but the individual events - while covered widely at that moment, don't show enduring coverage.
3. Third, in general we don't cover routine games. Now, I recognize that these events are all akin to the top level competition in that sport, but I would still argue that individual sub-events are "routine" due to how the competitions are run.

There's also another argument to be made here , and that's in light of having to deal with the MMA walled garden; there, we (we being the general established editor base) are trying to show the newer/outside editors that maintain the MMA space that articles on the individual events are not appropriate for WP. If we say that to them, but at the same time consider these swimming event articles as just fine, we are being hypocrites to the MMA people. As I think most agree that the appropriateness of individual MMA event articles is not there, I think we do need to consider deleting these as well.

I'd like to see what the consensus is here, and if it for deleting pages, go about removing them outside of the normal AFD cycle after some period to allow those that may have a reason to be kept to be fixed up. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• No, we are not going to delete pages on individual Olympic events just to send a message to MMA editors. postdlf (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This is more than MMA, though. Ignoring that factor, these pages are simply stats that are duplicating content (factual content so not a copyright problem) from elsewhere. We are supposed to be a tertiary source, so we should be summarizing that information, not duplicating. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • That sounds like too high of an abstraction to really be helpful here, because we also include tabular data, statistics, etc. when it is in furtherance of covering a notable topic rather than merely summarizing it. We do not merely say "Obama won," we give the vote and electoral tallies for all candidates. And how are Olympics any more "routine" than U.S. presidential elections?

      I think the bottom line for MMA articles is WP:OTHERSTUFF; just because there are events on individual events in other sports does not mean that individual MMA events must have them too, any more than deleting articles on individual MMA events requires you to go on a tear through WP Olympics coverage. If you or others are going to force that kind of foolish consistency (cf. Emerson, Ralph Waldo) than you will merely force me and others to become a vocal defender of the MMA articles, about which I presently could not care less either way. postdlf (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

      • For one, the presidential election has a much larger impact on the world than a swimming event. But ignoring that, the summary of the vote tallies for the election are equivalent to the summary tables of the larger competition (the sum of the events), and there's zero problem with those pages. It's the individual events that are the problem . And yes, we do have state-by-state election articles, but those (with a spot check) also show notability and are far more than just pages of statistics. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't know anything about FINA so you can take my comments as specific to the Olympics; you will not offend my sensibilities if you listed every individual FINA event article in a bulk AFD because I have no idea what that would really mean (I can't speak for anyone else, however; it's possible that a FINA-supporting mob will come at thee with torches and pitchforks).

          But re: Olympics, I'd be shocked if it could not be shown that every individual Olympics event satisfies GNG. I'd also consider it a pretty clear IAR case even if that couldn't be shown, as in no way could I see our encyclopedia being improved by that information being removed. I look at Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre freestyle, for example, and I see nothing but bluelinks, which means there's also a good case for this satisfying WP:LISTPURP both as a navigational list (participating in an Olympic event is a pretty significant fact about an individual, and a pretty significant shared fact for grouping athletes together) in addition to its value as an informational list. Not that I think it needs to be characterized as such a list to save it, but it also makes sense to me to see its value in that light. postdlf (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

          • I'd challenge the assumption that all the individual events are notable. They are well covered at the time of the Olympics, but rarely afterwards - if anything the focus shifts to the athlete that won the event, and/or the general domination or lack thereof of a nation's athletes. In other words, as a group all of the swimming events make a notable topic, but the individual events themselves are not, if we are considering enduring notability per WP:N and WP:NEVENT. I will readily agree there may be exceptional cases of one of these events being notable per the GNG, but definitely believe that is exceptional.
            If you want to talk about a navigational list, the individual athlete lists eg United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics are better suited for that purpose, since it categorizes by nation and event. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Except the country team lists won't show you all the athletes who competed with one another in each event and how they ranked, so hardly better suited for that purpose; those just serve a different purpose. postdlf (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Jumping in here to say that as far as the Olympics are concerned I have seen print encyclopedias (typically of the type "what happened in 1976") including quite detailed results. I consider such content both encyclopedic and notable. They may not be needed for less important championships, but I don't see the benefit in removing the content either. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Since these articles are doing very little harm on Wikipedia and must be of interest to at least one person, why cannot they be kept? There may be some non notable events listed above, but for the most part, eg Olympics they would have all had significant coverage. Bulk AFDs with large numbers of articles are also not appropriate as usually some should be kept and some deleted, and there should be a more individual attention given to each. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 21:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
            • There's been lots of articles that have been deleted in the past that would have been of interest to at least one person, but it was decided that they should been deleted anyway. And certainly they were not "harmful" too. This is part of WP's maturing process, understanding where to cull material that otherwise seems benign to better the end goal of being an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Also to add, I'm asking this to avoid any issues with mass noms at AFD. I know those just don't work well. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
              • The Olympics, including events, countries and athletes have been long made significant, it's essentially considered the ultimate goal in almost all of the world's most popular sports. They also have the world's best athletes attending and performing. The Olympic events will not be going anywhere, to be blunt. World Championships are also regarded as very notable as the top athletes of the sport all come together to compete, unless of course injuries or other things stop them. MMA is a bit different, if I understand properly each event would be an individual fight, that would be more like having an article called 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Men's 100 metre butterfly - Heats or Boxing at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Taras Shelestyuk vs. Fred Evans, which I don't think we should have. Overall Olympics and World Championships for Olympic Sports are notable enough. Youth Olympics, Continental Championships (Pan American Games, African Games, Asian Games, future European Games) and World Championships for non-Olympic Sports would require some discussion. As for MMA individuals articles for events should only be reserved for controversial fights, champion fights and maybe the main event. JoshMartini007 (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
                • We already assume all Olympians are notable per NSPORT, and of course the "Swimming in.." articles list those that place, so any suggestion this is devaluing their achievement is nonsense. The directly one-to-one comparison to MMA events isn't exactly the same, but lets not get hung up on that - knowing that we've had problems with MMA articles needs to be kept in mind, but there are other larger reasons these articles are a problem. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
                  • I still haven't seen any reason why they're a "problem". But let's see if anyone else agrees with you, because so far this is your unilateral campaign for some reason. (I thought video games was your interest area, not sports?) postdlf (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
                    • Per the ANI thread that highlighted the existence of these articles, there's questions in that thread if they are necessary; this is just bringing this out of the ANI issues. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
                    • NSPORT also says events are notable. JoshMartini007 (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
                      • Only for Olympic events, but even then that doesn't mean NSPORT jives with the rest of WP here. And we're still talking about the other annual events where this comes up. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
                        • @JoshMartini007: As I understand it, the MMA articles in dispute are not generally for a single fight, but for an event comprising around a dozen bouts of different categories, although most seem to have a single "headline" fight. For some examples, see UFC 142, UFC 146, UFC on FX: Browne vs. Bigfoot. This makes them comparable with individual Olympic events in terms of the number of athletes competing, if we restrict ourselves to the final and ignore the heats (which some articles seem to do). Bovlb (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
                          • I don't see a problem with those articles then (based on the ones linked). JoshMartini007 (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Our "list of X by year" sports article do tend to be problematic... they present useful information... but... it is the type of information that to my mind belongs in an Almanac, not in an Encyclopedia. Why have we never created a WikiAlmanac sister project for the sort of list articles we are talking about? Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In part, per WP:5, WP does include elements of an almanac. Ergo, high-level summaries of sports results (eg the "Swimming at the 2012 Olmypics" articles, the performance of a professional team for each season, etc.) are reasonably fine to have and something that I certainly see easily being notable. Its these detailed event pages that remain in question. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Rephrasing to avoid your use of the passive voice: "It's these detailed event pages that I am still questioning." postdlf (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, see the ANI to show that there are others that question whether we should have these pages. I'm not alone in this thought. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I read the ANI thread and I don't see anything left unresolved; it was a dispute over admin conduct apparently founded upon misunderstandings on both sides that escalated due to poor dispute resolution. You seem to be the only one (both in that thread and here) who is taking that as an opportunity to inexplicably target Olympic event articles ("If all you have is a hammer..."). Which is why I said above "let's see if anyone else agrees with you," rather than just having a bunch of people pile on in support of these articles and you argue with them one after another. However fun that may be. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That was snarky, harsh, and undeserved. There are other people in the ANI who questioned these sorts of articles. To cite just one example, Dennis Brown said, "Speaking solely as an editor (taking off the admin hat...), BWilkins is correct that we are better served without the individual articles which are not likely to get filled out, are not likely within policy as a stand alone article, and just make the place messy." And you seem to have forgotten that Masem was directly responding to another editor who expressed discomfort. AgnosticAphid talk 22:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that anyone else has mentioned this RfC started Nov 30. People seem to think they are about to make some big policy change, so it seemed proper to bring this here. (I don't come here much so I assume announcement is ok.) CarolMooreDC 22:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NS14 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused... redirect not edited since 2010, how as it marked a guideline? Monty₈₄₅ 03:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm more confused that it seems to have been a guideline already. Maybe the bot needs tweaking?AgnosticAphid talk 16:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to transclude itself

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Categorization]] ((WP:NS14))

Take that transclusion out? Apteva (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the policy (and rationale) on writing out or using numerals for centuries? In other words, should we write 7th century or seventh century, 20th century or twentieth century (excluding the cases where the words come at the beginning of a sentence or are quotations, proper names or some other special cases)?Kdammers (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The relevant guideline says: "Centuries not in quotes or titles should be either spelled out (eighth century) or in Arabic numeral(s) (8th century). The same style should be used throughout any article." Graham87 14:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There should be a formalized process for challenging the closure of a talk page discussion. The relevant Wikipedia: page isn't helpful. A few months back I was involved in a discussion that I thought was closed prematurely. I made no progress discussing the matter on the closing admin's talk page; after that I was at a loss as to what to do. Someone at Help Desk pointed me to WP:AN/I, but there I was told to go to WP:DRN. At DRN there were several rounds of discussion before it was concluded that this was a conduct dispute rather than a content dispute, so I should go back to AN/I. Finally back at AN/I some administrators made a decision.

Long story short, if there was a specific forum designated for such closure challenges then a lot of people would have wasted a lot less time. --Nstrauss (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking through your edit history you have arrived here from Talk:Rasmussen Reports via an ANI

If you mean something like Deletion review and Move review then as far as I am aware there is no such process for reviewing RfCs, so if follows that there is no process for reviewing the closure of less formal talk page discussions.

You can consider following more steps from the dispute resolution process, but AFAICT as you are the only person to date who has expressed support for your proposed change, I would suggest that you follow the advise of Beyond My Ken who closed the ANI and this advice on your talk page and just take the articles off your watch list (there are 4+ million other page to replace it) and move on. -- PBS (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I cannot believe you are still carping on about this. You've had your say in two RFCs and utterly failed to convince even one single user that your proposed changes would improve the article. While consensus is not the same thing as "majority rules" if literally nobody agrees with you it can be taken to mean that there is not a consensus for your proposal. PBS' above remark is dead on, you need to accept that consensus is not on your side on this one (very minor) issue and move on. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Unaware of any of this before this VPP post, but after reading the above and the prior, related threads, this is clear WP:FORUMSHOPping and WP:IDHT disruption in my view. I don't think anyone is obliged at this point to explain to Nstrauss yet again that WP:CONSENSUS does not grant any editor a heckler's veto, so if you are completely unable to get anyone else to agree with you on any content issue then that's it. You cannot unilaterally insist that the issue is still open. I think Nstrauss should be blocked if he starts another thread on this again. postdlf (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• It seems many editors figure out that WP:AN is the place to request review, but I've taken the liberty of adding some language to Wikipedia:Closing discussions to make it clear. Obviously, in this case, the close was already reviewed at WP:AN/I and any further requests for review are likely to WP:BOOMERANG. Monty₈₄₅ 04:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Monty845, for assuming good faith. That is all I was hoping for and I believe your addition is appropriate. To PBS, Beeblebrox, and postdlf, thanks for engaging in administrator groupthink. Phooey to all of you. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NS14 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No reason for it to be, since it's only a redirect. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Further input is welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Flagicons.

Although this is specifically about flagicons, it also goes to the more general issue of some WikiProjects just opting to completely ignore aspects of the Manual of Style, or in some cases even core content policies, sometimes (as in this case) without even attempting to present a rationale that would outweight the considerations behind the respective part of the MOS. --213.196.218.39 (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects do not get to overrule the MOS. They can write WP:Advice pages (which are called WP:Wikipedia essays when anyone else writes them), but they are not supposed to overrule the whole community's guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Flagicons be limited to the specific issue of the inclusion of flagicons in Formula One driver infoboxes and that any discussion of "the more general issue of some WikiProjects just opting to completely ignore aspects of the Manual of Style, or in some cases even core content policies" remain on this page (which I belive is a more suitable venue for such a discussion). I would also like to point out that the consensus of the Formula One WikiProject is that inclusion of flagicons in driver infoboxes does not contravene the MOS and would invite editors to read this earlier discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If several WikiProjects are ignoring the MOS, then we do have a problem. We have to ask: Why is this happening? Perhaps the MOS has not taken something into account and needs to be more flexible? Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe. Or some of the regulars at some WikiProjects are just belligerent and dense and in need of the banhammer. The latter appears to be the case where those regulars make no effort to even present a reasoning which would support their personal preferences, as in the case of flagicons in infoboxes. --195.14.198.57 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Still a good relevant question in general. Neither is policy, but wp:mos carries some weight, whereas project guides are overreaching if they claim or imply to be anything beyond just recommendations. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

More importantly WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is policy. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

True, but WP:CCC is also policy. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS should normally be used as "this requires further discussion", not "your way is invalid because someone decided something different in a totally unrelated discussion". Diego (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is based on arguments. In this particular example case, the regulars at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One didn't even attempt to present anything in the way of a rationale for why there should be flagicons in infoboxes in full defiance of WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Therefore, CCC simply doesn't apply. They would need to present a reasoning to justify a departure from the MOS. They don't. They just opt to ignore the MOS and do the opposite of what it recommends. --195.14.198.57 (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I really dislike "X trumps Y" arguments. If two pages that offer guidance to editors are in conflict, the important thing is to hold a centralized discussion, focused on bringing the editors involved on both pages into sync... the goal is to resolve the conflict and fix the problem, not to have any one page "trump" the other and "win" the debate.

As an observation (and not intended as a criticism) our MOS pages do tend to lack flexibility. They come across as being "a statement of the rules" (with no exceptions allowed), instead of "an outline of best practice" (with an understanding that there will be exceptions). Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to elevate the zillion things stated in wp:MOS to trumping anything. But we must recognize that something from a project is often really determined by 1 or 2 people, and that many different projects may "claim" any particular article and then imply that their standard is binding on the article. North8000 (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

From my own personal perspective in dealing with WikiProjects for the last several years there are a lot of WikiProject's who force editors to follow their standards regardless of the MOS. They frequently say things like, "its only a guideline not a policy". One example is WikiProject Novels that will remove infoboxes if placed on their articles, others remove other infringing WikiProject banners, others get very aggressive if an unfamiliar editor dares to touch their articles of special interest. I have brought these up many times and no one or very few seem to care. Its really a popularity contest unfortunately more than a fair system of enforcing policy. What I mean in all that is this, if we are going to treat the MOS as a policy then we should enforce breaches of it. If we are not going to treat it as a policy and merely as a guideline to be enforced only when we feel like it or when our friends don't need our support then we should treat it as a guideline. This means however that we inherently allow WikiProjects and editors to do pretty much whatever they want because its just a suggestion. I personally think that too many WikiProjects are being allowed to change and enforce their own rules, keep other WikiProjects from influencing their articles etc. WikiProjects are supposed to be a group of individuals with a common interest working to better the articles in their interest. Not to rewrite the MOS. Kumioko (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As Blueboar rightly suggests above, the proper action in those situations is to seek community input, in this case at the MOS talk page. This will allow the Wikiproject members to explain the reasons for diverting from the MOS, and can have the effect to change the MOS itself to accommodate to those reasons, but accepting input from editors not in the Wikiproject. The result of a RfC will be a stronger consensus that can be more easily enforced. Diego (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur. The proper place to discuss this is WT:MOSICON, or WT:MOS if a broader audience is sought. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)